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.
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
Where in your delusion addled mind did you get the idea that the steel making up any of ext box columns were 4" thick at the level that the pull in was seen?
Originally posted by ANOK
OK they may not have been that thick at that level, but no need to be rude about it.
It still doesn't change the main fact that sagging trusses could not put a pulling force on the columns, regardless of how thick the steel was.
The columns were designed to take any force the floors could put on them plus the FoS.
Catenary action is not the answer
Also how did columns pull in against the resistance of the cross bracing. Did the pull in pull in the whole core or just columns they were attached to? So how did the sagging trusses have the power to pull in the core against the resistance of cross bracing, and not fail the connections first?
Are you still claiming the connections were a week point? If so then I ask again how did they not fail before they could pull in the columns?
Originally posted by ANOK
Can you explain how sagging trusses could put a pulling force on the massive 4" thick box columns?
Originally posted by ANOK
Also how did columns pull in against the resistance of the cross bracing. Did the pull in pull in the whole core or just columns they were attached to? So how did the sagging trusses have the power to pull in the core against the resistance of cross bracing, and not fail the connections first? Are 1" bolts stronger than the core columns and the resistance against pull-in? Are you still claiming the connections were a week point? If so then I ask again how did they not fail before they could pull in the columns?
Originally posted by exponent
Why are you doing this?
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The why did exponent duplicate the concept and come up with pretty much the same number? 12 seconds.
Because your code was so bad I reimplemented it. It doesn't provide any evidence towards your 26 second claim, or the myriad of bizarre claims you make.
The nice thing about it is that it is so simple only complete idiots cannot understand it and duplicate it. But the the Conservation of Momentum is too difficult for some people. What, no explanation for why the columns did not move in the Purdue simulation?
Perhaps the camera was fixed to them?
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Sure, CLAIM things while not being able to specify the quantity of steel in the vicinity to be able to explain how that much steel had to be heated enough in less than two hours.
CLAIM to be educated while exhibiting obvious ignorance. And Urich admitted that he was interpolating. And where is the horizontal steel in the core specified?
psik
Your folly is on display for all to see. you asked how can a plane destroy the towers, are given a rebuttal that destroys your statement, and then instead of replying on topic, you change the subject.
this is called running away cuz you know that your question had no purpose other than to troll.
But as I said, you are an easy target to destroy. So keep on posting. i will reply every time to expose just how ridiculous truthers are.
Originally posted by mirageman
If I was part of an inside job and decided to blow the WTC with explosives then it would surely be much simpler to place the blame on the same terrorist group who were hijacking the airliners.
The fact this didn't happen suggests that either, there were no explosives, or that the perpetrators of an inside job hadn't really thought this one through very well.
Originally posted by SimontheMagus
Originally posted by mirageman
If I was part of an inside job and decided to blow the WTC with explosives then it would surely be much simpler to place the blame on the same terrorist group who were hijacking the airliners.
The fact this didn't happen suggests that either, there were no explosives, or that the perpetrators of an inside job hadn't really thought this one through very well.
How do you suppose the Bush Crime Syndicate was going to explain how Al Qaeda was able to wire the buildings for demolition?
I worked in the WTC for many years. In fact the same thing goes for any office building: Maintenance workers are always tearing something up for whatever reason and people are oblivious. They could take sections down to the steel and nobody would think anything of it. But in this case it is well documented that the buildings were closed from the 50th floor up for the weekend prior to 911 for "cabling upgrades" and the security people said that there were an army of engineers going in and out of the building for 36 hours. Everybody got memos about this weeks in advance. There was no power and therefore the surveillance cameras recorded nothing. How convenient.edit on 29-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.
Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.
You just keep CLAIMING things and not explaining a damn thing. And exponents program came up with about 12 seconds just like mine
But of course pointing this out is TROLLING.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Because only TRUTHERS say the towers fell at free fall rate
Originally posted by kidtwist
9/11 ommission report states 10 seconds, and a vacuum free-fall time is 9.2.
0.8 seconds away from freefall according to the 9/11 ommission report, not much in it really!
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Because only TRUTHERS say the towers fell at free fall rate
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower 90 stories and be traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.
So I will ask again what impact force would the above example you give generate, use a reasonable mass per floor and show everyone a calculation you and ANOK are always on about physics so give us an answer OR do you not want to do that because you would shot yourself in the foot!!!!
Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous
There's no "may" about it.But it shows, once again, just how confused truthers can be about facts.
Lie. You have been given a link from an actual physical test that confirms this. I gave you a link to an fea done by a truther that also confirms this. SO now you have 2 separate, independent tests - the truther Holy Grail - and still continue to repeat this falsehood.You do not address it cuz you are stating this for the sole purpose of trolling. That's ok though, I will reply anyways to point out just how intellectually bankrupt truthers are in their beliefs in an "inside job".
Yes. But heated core columns underwent thermal creep - iow, shortened - and transferred some of their loads onto those ext columns. plus, the ext columns were heated, making them weaker. Plus, the bowing wasover several stories - which, when we do some research about buckling lengths and how they get exponentially weaker as the buckling length increases, we put this all together and learn that:
Sagging trusses were not the only reason for the bowing ext columns. And by extension, we also learn that you are asking this question because:
1- you are unaware of these other factors
2- are aware, but ask anyways - which means you are once again trolling.
Yes it is.
Your denial of a scientific fact does not change this..
The core?
Are you confused again, like when you confused the thickness of the ext column steel?
Cuz the sagging trusses were not the only factor that resulted in bowing.
Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by psikeyhackr
I've said it before but your analysis seems to me as a layman spot on and all the debunking in the world is not gong to change my opinion unless the debunking provides a better model or theory.