yup ... indeed ..

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You are really missing the point.

No matter how hot the fires were, or how weak steel become, sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns they were attached to. That is the NIST hypothesis, and that is what is in question, not the garbage pseudo-science you and your buddies try to foster on people.

Now can you explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns they were attached to?

You have seen the videos of the walls bowing in I take it!!!! By the way I am working through info posted on another site re a new look at 9/11 it has lots of information hope to be ready to post on it in the next few days.

OH and it doesn't agree 100% with NIST but it doesn't require explosives either!!!

Originally posted by ANOK
Now can you explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns they were attached to?

It really puzzles me how you are still struggling with this simple physics issue after being it explained doze s of times, after being pointed to wikipedia about catenary action which explains how the direction of the forces change. After being pointed to several scientific publication which contain both detailed explanation and actual real experimental data on this effect.

And still you deny it even as possible at all. There is litterally nothing on the world that could change your mind. You made up your mind, closed it, and threw the key in the Mariana Trench. If there is nothing that can change your mind, why do you still keep bringing this up?

Originally posted by waypastvne
Yes I can explain it: Sagging trusses will produce a inward pull on the columns they are attached to. There you go, simple and easy to understand. The columns were under compression and failing, the trusses just gave them a direction to go.

That doesn't explain anything.

HOW do they produce an inward pull when they are SAGGING from heat?

How can a lightweight truss suddenly gain more force to be able to pull on anything just because they sag?

Why didn't the 1" and 5/8" bolts fail first? Are you saying the massive columns were weaker than the bolts?

I really don't think you've thought this through very well mate. I'll post this vid again for your entertainment. Some things I'd like you to note, they added weight to the floors (WTC no extra weight), the floors were not sagging from heat thus still rigid (WTC floors sagging and not rigid), they removed load bearing columns (WTC no load bearing columns removed), the floors still did not pull in the walls they were attached to.



So can you demonstrate sagging trusses putting a pulling force on columns?

Originally posted by ANOK


I really don't think you've thought this through very well mate. I'll post this vid again for your entertainment. Some things I'd like you to note, they added weight to the floors (WTC no extra weight), the floors were not sagging from heat thus still rigid (WTC floors sagging and not rigid), they removed load bearing columns (WTC no load bearing columns removed), the floors still did not pull in the walls they were attached to.

So can you demonstrate sagging trusses putting a pulling force on columns?

Yet again I will add that's reinforced concrete not steel , no aircraft impact no fire and that structure has internal columns so it has NOTHING in common with 9/11

Originally posted by ANOK

So where are the trusses in your video. You post a video, you claim demonstrates how sagging trusses can not produce a pull in force.....and there are no trusses in your video.


Priceless.

Originally posted by waypastvne
So where are the trusses in your video. You post a video, you claim demonstrates how sagging trusses can not produce a pull in force.....and there are no trusses in your video.

It doesn't have trusses, it has floors. The fact that the building in the vid has rigid concrete floors, and not SAGGING steel trusses, would make it more susceptible to the hypothesis NIST put forward for the collapse of the towers. The fact that the rigid concrete floors, that had weight added to them, that had their load bearing columns removed, didn't pull in the walls they were attached to, should clue you in to reality.

Yes it's a completely different design to the WTC towers, and that is the point. It's a much weaker design that was over stressed with added weight, and loss of load bearing columns. WTC had none of those problems.

It's a demonstration of the centenary action that one certain ATS member used to claim was the answer, the ONLY thing any of you have ever come up with. That vid proves centenary action would not work on such a construction as the WTC towers.

Now it's up to you, to not just type words, but show that the NIST hypothesis is possible. But I'm going to make a prediction, wait... I'm seeing it now, here it comes, the crystal ball is telling me you will make attempts to spin, and discredit, but offer nothing that supports your claim.

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm seeing it now, here it comes, the crystal ball is telling me you will make attempts to spin, and discredit, but offer nothing that supports your claim.

You are right. All we have is scientific publications and experimental data. Which is no match for youtube videos. I admit my loss.

My crystal ball tells me that you will completely ingore this document and post the same nonsense in a couple of weeks.

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, it may shock you to hear this but, a light seel truss design is actually WEAKER and more suceptable to fires and heavy loads.Your video is a CONCRETE structure, which is not as suceptable to fires and heavy loads as steel trusses. Check McCormick Place fire. Large heavy steel trussed roof collapsed within 20 minutes. The steel trusses were much bigger and heavier than the WTC trussed floors. So no, your video is virtually NO comparison to the trussed structure of the WTCs. At all. Different materials behave differently. All have different tolerances. All have different properties. Geeze ANOK, I thought of all people, at least you would know that a concrete beam is different from a light steel truss. Guess I was wrong.

reply to post by ANOK


AND I find it hilareous that you always ignore the link that PLB puts up, but demand everytime for him to show you evidence of catenary action of steel beams on the structures. Its there! Hell I'll even repost the paper too, since you are having trouble finding it, or clicking on it:
Catenary action in fires

I'll post it again so you can see it:

CLICK ME!!!!!

reply to post by ANOK


All the Official story supporters do not understand physics. They all just trust anything the government and NIST tell them, and regurgitate the pseudo-physics presented by NIST as fact.

This is where the problem lies. There would be no 'debunkers' if they thought for themselves, and did some proper research. Starting with a crash course in physics, and how to get a grip on reality are good places for them to start...

Originally posted by -PLB-
You are right. All we have is scientific publications and experimental data. Which is no match for youtube videos. I admit my loss.

My crystal ball tells me that you will completely ingore this document and post the same nonsense in a couple of weeks.

That video IS experimental data, regardless of where it came from.

Youtube did not make that video you know, it was a NIST and Hunan University collaborative experiment.

Your link does not show the beam putting a pulling force on the columns. Look at Fig. 3. All it shows is that beams can sag from heat, and that is not what I am saying can't happen.

I doubt you even understand that PDF yourself.

In this study, the case has been made that catenary action can enhance survival times for steel beams in fire, suggesting that such methods should be extended to include its effect where support conditions are appropriate...

...Catenary action certainly occurs, and has been seen to affect a heated beam’s behaviour by preventing run-away deflection at high temperature plus applied load.

Here is another vid demonstrating centenary action...



Again that is no less valid than a PDF as scientific data. And your prediction was wrong as usual.

Again I ask how can lightweight steel trusses put a pulling force on the much larger columns they were attached to, and how did that happen without the 1" and 5/8" bolts failing first? Do you want to actually attempt to answer that, or will you simply post the same claim that centenary action can pull in the columns the truss is attached to?

reply to post by DeeKlassified

And yet any progress in the field of physics comes from official story believers, and none whatsoever from inside job believers. Making your claims kind of unrealistic. But I can understand why you like to believe they are true.

reply to post by DeeKlassified


Oh, I have known that for a long time mate.

They completely ignore basic physics, and even twist it to suit their needs.

Just ask one of them to explain Newtons 3rd law, equal and opposite reaction, and momentum conservation.

reply to post by ANOK


You are either directly denying the data in the document I linked, or you have no clue what its saying. I can understand the text is too defficult for you, but at least look at pictures. Look at 4b. Do you understand what "Pull-in" means? Also look at 5b. Do you understand what happens when the lines cross the x-asis?

Read this:

The fact that the axial compression force in the beam changes to tension force tends to stop the run-away caused by the applied load and material degradation.

Do you understand the word "tensions"? Do you understand what that sentence means?

Also read this:

Catenary action certainly occurs

Do you understand what catenary action is? Do you understand what this means for the forces?


You could also just be trolling, but I am affraid you are not.

Originally posted by ANOK

In this study, the case has been made that catenary action can enhance survival times for steel beams in fire, suggesting that such methods should be extended to include its effect where support conditions are appropriate...

...Catenary action certainly occurs, and has been seen to affect a heated beam’s behaviour by preventing run-away deflection at high temperature plus applied load.

Just one more thing, you do understand that they are talking about the beam here right? That would correspond to the truss in the WTC building. So that would implicate that the truss would have an enhanced survuval time once it goes into catenary. So that it can pull even more on the columns. I strongly doubt you understood that.

Originally posted by ANOK

They completely ignore basic physics, and even twist it to suit their needs.

Snicker "Gravitational potential energy pushing up"......giggle... snork.

reply to post by -PLB-


No it is you who doesn't understand what the PDF is saying. All you can do is look at the pictures and assume it is saying what you want it to.

In the initial stages of heating the restraint from the surrounding structure tends to resist the expansion of a beam

I have explained this many times. When the truss heats up it will expand and push out against the columns. If the truss is unable to push the columns out then the truss will sag. If the truss was unable to push the columns out, it will also not pull them in.

You have to read the rest as well as look at the pictures...

Variation of the horizontal restraint level can have a major effect on the behaviour of steel beam at high temperature and large displacement.

However, the state of stress associated with a member under a combination of catenary action and thermal bowing is not unique for a given deflection. This depends on the temperature distribution in the member, its material properties and restraint conditions.

IF the truss could put a pull on the columns enough to cause them to be displaced the 1" and 5/8" bolts would have failed first.

This is the usual problem, you take a hypothetical, and think it applies directly to any situation. Your PDF is not taking into account the WTC.

Why don't you do the actual calculations provided in your PDF for the WTC trusses and columns? Otherwise it is meaningless and proves nothing.

reply to post by ANOK

Why don't you do the actual calculations provided in your PDF for the WTC trusses and columns? Otherwise it is meaningless and proves nothing.

I'm sorry but you have shown no calculations either. Just an incessant insistance the world has it wrong.

Please show up all the worlds engineers and provide the calculations that show the buildings should still be standing.

Otherwise we just have to accept the experts conclusions. After all they are the ones who went to college and know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by ANOK

That doesn't explain anything.

HOW do they produce an inward pull when they are SAGGING from heat?

Originally posted by samkent
I'm sorry but you have shown no calculations either. Just an incessant insistance the world has it wrong.

Common sense needs no calculations.

You are the ones claiming sagging trusses can put a pulling force large enough to displace the columns, so it's up to you to prove that, not me to prove the opposite.

PLB showed me a PDF and claimed it shows the WTC sagging trusses could pull in the columns, it didn't. Unless PLB can use those calculations provided in the PDF he claimed was proof he hasn't proven anything.
Did NIST even do those calculations? No they didn't, do you not wonder why?

Please show up all the worlds engineers and provide the calculations that show the buildings should still be standing.

All the worlds engineers do not accept the NIST report. Again it's not up to me to prove anything, you are the one claiming the WTC sagging trusses could pull in the columns, yet there is no proof or even evidence that that is what happened. NIST provided an hypothesis for collapse initiation, not proof or even a theory (unless you can repeat what happened).

[Otherwise we just have to accept the experts conclusions. After all they are the ones who went to college and know what they are talking about.

No all you do is appeal to authority, and most of the time fail to understand what they are saying. I have been to college, two years engineering fundamentals and two years engineering drafting, and I have worked in engineering.

Typical though, when you can't blind me with your twisted science you revert to appealing to authority, that mostly doesn't even exist. Just because all worlds engineers are not coming out against the OS it doesn't mean they support it. I know engineers would do not believe the OS, but would not admit that publicly.

If sagging trusses can pull in columns then where is the evidence that this can happen? I have provided video evidence that it simply doesn't happen.