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 hdutton
The remaining should hold up a part of the building for a few moments allowing it to lean over.
Originally posted by hdutton
I think it would be a rare occation indeed for a tree to fall straight down because someone cut deeply into one side. Have you never seen a tower lean and fall to one side after one leg is damaged or removed. This is the way any other structure should act if only a few supports are lost. The remaining should hold up a part of the building for a few moments allowing it to lean over.
Since the clearly did not appear to happen, the only other speculation left is for some force other than gravity to be at work.
Originally posted by hdutton
How many interior columns failed ?
Would this cause sufficient load shifting toward the interior to cause ALL the exterior walls to remain intact as they fell, still attached to the floor pans ?
It does seem though that there should have been some resistance to this collapse, unless every vertical column on every floor failed as the collapse progressed.
Again, a very rare occurance indeed.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You're simply arguing for the sake of arguing, Psikey. The truth is that noone has any definitive idea what caused the towers to collapse. Yes, the planes impacted the towers, and yes, there were fires, and yes, the towers had unique designs which would cause them to react differently from traditional designs, but noone knows...and noone will probably ever know...what percentage was from the impact damage vs what percentage was from the fires vs what percentage was from how that specific design reacted to the damage inflicted on it. "They don't know" doesn't necessarily mean "they're hiding something." It ALSO means "they really and truly don't know".
Originally posted by hdutton
I do appreciate your voicing the most predictable answers to my questions.
Since the building collapsed all the way to the ground, it does appear that all the columns did fail,"eventually".
Just so I make the question a little more clear, I'll ask it this way.
Of the columns on the lowest floors, how many needed to fail in order for the innitiation of the collapse in the beginning?
Would this not also necessitate that all the vertical columns above them should also fail, generally in sequence, for the entire building to fall straight down and never show any indications of leaning.
This would also be necessary for it to fall primarily onto it's own foundation rather than into other buildings and properties. I don't know of any forces which would "correct" the direction of a falling structure in order for this to be accomplished.
Like I often say, " I am not really as smart as a lot of other people, so I need all the help I can get to learn these things."
Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by GoodOlDave
Why, Yes, Dave!!!
I thought everyone knew there was no one inside when it came down.. That would mean no one could get inside a solid object.
Have you not been paying attention ???
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Science is supposed to be a Truth Movement.
Science involves at least trying to obtain all relevant data about a problem to get an accurate understanding of reality.
So the Physics Profession should explain how airliners could totally destroy buildings 2000+ times their own mass in less than two hours and that would require accurate data on the buildings. So this incident should have been explained one way or the other long ago.
"Truther" has simply become a pejorative for people who can't accept a story with holes so obvious one must be blind to not see them. So now 9/11 is more of a psychological issue than one of physics.
psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...
psik
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Baloney. A "truther" is someone who derives his own favored alternative version of the events of 9/11 and then tries to get others into accepting his alternative version as "the truth". It's essentially a theorist who's too arrorant to acknowledge his opinions are a theory rather than a fact.
The proof is in the pudding- the "controlled demolitions" crowd, the "nukes in the basement" crowd, the "no planes hit the Pentagon" crowd, even the "lasers from outer space" crowd are about as opposite to each other in their beliefs as it gets, and yet they all consider themselves truthers. I daresay it's a given the towers weren't destroyed by demolitions AS WELL AS laser from outer space AS WELL AS nukes in the basement, so by definition, one or more of the "truthers" are wrong in their assertions. How can that be if they're all basing their positions on the truth rather than theory?
Originally posted by newsaddict
While I have questions about 9/11, as I'm sure you do too, I believe that's where "truthers" should stop.
At asking questions.
When we begin to make accusations we move from being mere truth seekers, to a position that forces us to have to defend our position.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Science is supposed to be a Truth Movement.
Science involves at least trying to obtain all relevant data about a problem to get an accurate understanding of reality.
So the Physics Profession should explain how airliners could totally destroy buildings 2000+ times their own mass in less than two hours and that would require accurate data on the buildings. So this incident should have been explained one way or the other long ago.
"Truther" has simply become a pejorative for people who can't accept a story with holes so obvious one must be blind to not see them. So now 9/11 is more of a psychological issue than one of physics.
psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...
psik
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Are YOU really still going on abut this ! It WASN'T just the aircraft it was the resultant structural damage combined with the fires!!!!
Stop trying to make out the that only cause was the planes!!!!!
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
What I don't understand is how after all these years you still don't have a clue about the failure mode of those towers. It were mostly floors that failed, not columns. Floors did not get stronger or heavyer further down.
What I also don't understand is that I keep trying to explain it. For some reason I can't accept that some people just don't get it. Oh well
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.