It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Showing a picture of something that someone made up IS NOT DEMONSTRATING.
representation [ˌrɛprɪzɛnˈteɪʃən]
n
1. the act or an instance of representing or the state of being represented
2. anything that represents, such as a verbal or pictorial portrait
3. anything that is represented, such as an image brought clearly to mind]
dem·on·stra·tion (dmn-strshn)
The core columns were connected to each other by I-beams as shown in the "scientific" video produced by Purdue.
How could trusses made of rebar pull columns out of shape connected by I-beams?
Heat caused steel in the floor trusses to expand, promoting buckling in columns, at the same time that the heat softened the steel and the aircraft debris contributed to gravity loads, leading to progressive collapse.
Why wouldn't the connections to the columns break loose first?
Originally posted by liejunkie01
The core columns cannot stand upright without the support of the trusses or the exterior columns. An I beam cannot stand a quarter of a mile straight in the air. It needs support and reinforcemnts. The trusses and the exterior I beams acted together as reinforcements to the inner columns. The all have to work together to operate within their design specifications. Take out one or two of the "team" players and failure will occur. They were designed to work together.
People keep CLAIMING that the core could not stand without the floors and perimeter columns. Each side of the perimeter was a 2-dimensional array of steel. The core was a 3-dimensional array. It was the core that gave the building its rigidity.
The World Trade Center towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
People keep CLAIMING that the core could not stand without the floors and perimeter columns
Each side of the perimeter was a 2-dimensional array of steel.
The core was a 3-dimensional array. It was the core that gave the building its rigidity.
psik
Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you need Dave or Bazant to tell you what to think? Can't you see that the tower is not acting in the way either of them claim? Why is the insistence that I review what these people say going to change anything? I don't ask you to write reviews of other peoples work. But thank you though, now I know where you get the "dynamic loading" nonsense from. More proof that you all fail to understand the details needed to understand what happened by yourself. Another of your hand-holders exposed lol.
edit on 6/20/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ANOK
There is rubble about the height of two stories, but no stack of floors is there?
Floors pancaking would not have the energy to both break connections, and cause all the steel floor pans and concrete to simply turn into rubble. There would have been a stack of floors, not a pile of rubble of few feet high.
You cannot explain where all the energy came from to both cause the collapse to accelerate against resistance, and turn the floor assemblies into rubble.
This is what a pancake collapse looks like, because there is not going to be enough energy to break the floors into rubble....
We all know the rubble was ejected in 360d arc around the towers, the majority of the mass did not stay in the footprint. Funny how you insist it did, yet when talking about WTC 7, that obvioulsy did land mostly in it's footprint you deny it, that to me stinks of dishonesty.
Originally posted by ANOK
This is what a pancake collapse looks like, because there is not going to be enough energy to break the floors into rubble....
Originally posted by liejunkie01
The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core. The core was not designed to supply all of the load bearing strength. The core columns only held up to 60% of the buildings weight. The exterior columns held up 40%. Almost half of the total weight was the exterior I beams job.
Originally posted by ANOK
Dave whatisname seems to forget about equal opposite reaction. He seems to forget the fact that all the force of the dynamic loading is still felt equally by both colliding floors. He seems to not realise that the force of all the falling floors would effect more than just the one impacted floor, an equal amount of force would be absorbed by both impacting floors. He also ignored the loss of Ke to deformation, sound, heat etc.
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
People keep CLAIMING that the core could not stand without the floors and perimeter columns
Oddly enough, interviews during the construction back those claims.
Imagine that...
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
The core was a 3-dimensional array. It was the core that gave the building its rigidity.
psik
No. the building worked as a sytem to make it rigid : Core columns, ext columns, floors, spandrels....
Originally posted by ANOK
Sorry but the whole claim contradicts itself. Your excuses for the collapses is a joke, yet you all take yourselves and your hypothesis so seriously. Who do you think you're kidding? Go take an engineering class or two and then come back and ague with me.
Originally posted by ANOK
People who think the core could not have stood by itself have never had anything to do with engineering/mechanics, period.
Many many structures are built with the same design as the core and stand all day long.
It is simply cross braced columns. The core was the strongest part of the structure, no matter what percentage of the weight it held.
Originally posted by ANOK
People who think the core could not have stood by itself have never had anything to do with engineering/mechanics, period.
Many many structures are built with the same design as the core and stand all day long.
It is simply cross braced columns. The core was the strongest part of the structure, no matter what percentage of the weight it held.
I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate sagging trusses putting a pulling force on columns. I know you can't because it's impossible. IF it could pull on the columns the connections would have failed before the columns did.
You all like to use the excuse that the truss seats were missing as the reason the floors pancaked, but if that is the case then how come they didn't fail during the pull in of the columns? If they didn't fail during the pull in they must have been stronger than the core columns themselves, 4" thick steel box columns.
Go take an engineering class or two and then come back and ague with me.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by liejunkie01
The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core. The core was not designed to supply all of the load bearing strength. The core columns only held up to 60% of the buildings weight. The exterior columns held up 40%. Almost half of the total weight was the exterior I beams job.
That is the next funny thing about 9/11. So many sources disagree with each other.
The NCSTAR1 report says the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter 47%. Other sources say 50-50.
But if the perimeter and the floors fall then the core no longer had to support its share of the floors. It would only have to support itself. So your argument is nonsense. The perimeter columns could fall outward because they were only a two dimensional structure. The core was three dimensional.
psik
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Originally posted by liejunkie01
The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core. The core was not designed to supply all of the load bearing strength. The core columns only held up to 60% of the buildings weight. The exterior columns held up 40%. Almost half of the total weight was the exterior I beams job.
That is the next funny thing about 9/11. So many sources disagree with each other.
The NCSTAR1 report says the core supported 53% of the weight and the perimeter 47%. Other sources say 50-50.
But if the perimeter and the floors fall then the core no longer had to support its share of the floors. It would only have to support itself. So your argument is nonsense. The perimeter columns could fall outward because they were only a two dimensional structure. The core was three dimensional.
psik
YOU are assuming nothing impacted the columns of the core
Care to prove that
Still waiting to see if you want to catch that 10kg weight dropped 12ft a wtc floor height after all if YOU CLAIM falling loads are no problem, can YOU explain why YOU wont try