Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It does not appear to have any load redistribution. The upper goes right on through the lower. Do you not understand what the fuck is being discussed here?WTF? The towers withstood plane impacts, and the initial fireball consumed much of the fuel, within 15-20 minutes-per NIST.
I'm not disputing plane damage, or that there were fires...What the problem is that NIST does not explain how these massive buildings could possibly come down in such short times, They do not explain how these structures below the plane impacts, succumbed in under 15-20 seconds.
Tell you what.
Please describe the initial load redistribution of the upper portion of the tower hitting the lower part below. What components impacted what components. In what sequence did the load of the upper portion of the tower pass through the components below to redistribute the descending load.
Think it through and come back to describe your thoughts.
Newtons third law, states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite. The top damaged part would have to overcome the lower part it contacts right?
Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!
Really? You're not?
The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.
You plainly state above that the redistribution of the loads caused by the damage was according to the designers plans.
Do you not comprehend what you actually write?
What you fail to realize is the following point I repeatedly keep trying to get you to understand.
When an engineer designs a structure, the load redistribution is calculated on the basis that the structure undamaged and functioning properly. They base their calculations on dead and live loads in conjunction with the structural support system being undamaged.
They do NOT, repeat, NOT calculate load redistribution based on every single possible scenario in which damage may occur.
I suggest you go ask a local structural engineer about this as you are obviously basing your claims with a lack of knowledge. When someone says they "over-designed" a structure, they are referring to the entire structure being undamaged. It doesn't mean you can remove structural components until the load of the remaining components is increased by 2000%.
It does not appear to have any load redistribution.
Newtons third law, states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite. The top damaged part would have to overcome the lower part it contacts right?
How does Newton's third law apply to a complex object comprised of entities which have varying load/stress limits?
Please explain how you can use Newton's third law to predict the results of two complex object's as described above?
Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...
It does not appear to have any load redistribution.
If there was no resistance whatsoever, why did it take longer than the time an object in freefall would have taken to reach the ground from the top of one of the towers for the towers to completely collapse?
Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...
Questions for you.
What was the speed of the plane they used in the calculation?
Is there a force difference between a 707 and a 767 impacting the towers?
Was fire considered IN CONJUNCTION with the plane impacts?
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it was plane impacts AND fire that caused the initiation of the collapse?
It does not appear to have any load redistribution.
If there was no resistance whatsoever, why did it take longer than the time an object in freefall would have taken to reach the ground from the top of one of the towers for the towers to completely collapse?
I never claimed FF. Just a severe lacking of proof of insufficient resistance. FF is said to be 9.22 seconds...Why was there not enough resistance to even see a discernible halt or hesitation of the antennae?
Why hasn't NIST answered these questions?
Why do keep ignoring that NIST has no credible evidence that the fires, after impact were indeed capable of distorting the steel,
is it just me or is sister jones dodging his responsibility by saying it's all nist's fault.The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.
NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. Are you saying that NIST admission and statement is "complete and utter BS?"
Where do I ever claim to possess "all your engineering knowledge"? that you refer to?
Nist even claims that the buildings withstood the plane impacts well. The original designers have claimed they would remain standing as well.
No.
What are you?
I haven't said anything, stop assuming and making up BS you can then make up a response to.
I don't know if the engineers did, at the moment, but did NIST do any calculations to substantiate their theory?
Hmmm... Do you have any clues regarding how NIST was so certain the collapses would happen, in the short collapse times? That is what is in question here.
I owe you nothing. NIST owes you an explanation with the calculations you demand to know about. It is the NIST theory you are defending....so how exactly are you doing that? By asking me for calculations? NIST made the theory, you back it up, so back it up.
Ok. Given your knowledge of this, can you explain how this happened at the WTC?
I have read that this is another anomaly. What do you think the significance of this means? So now, it's OK to refer to it as "the upper block"?
I don't believe you. Many videos show much of the debris not in a pile, but actually being blown away from the collapsing part. How can you add this ejected debris to the crushing down force being applied to the lower undamaged structure...That's cheating.
NIST/Bazant treat it this way. And you need to answer for this debris pile you keep referring to, of which much of it was ejected away. It's obvious by watching any video of the WTC.Why do you continue to act like the entire bottom of the tower is a solid object? It was comprised of many components connected together. Those connections failed when stressed by the descending debris pile.
BTW, do you have anything that can substantiate NIST's position, or are you going to insist other provide information regarding a theory you have now stepped forward to defend? Like I said, you back NIST collapse hypothesis? Show us how it and YOUR knowledge of engineering works for you, so we can all understand once and for all?
in his usual rants he claims to have the evidence necessary to convict nist the bush administration, the tsa ntsb and every body that disagrees with him.
The NIST testing on the mock trusses did not pass the test to support their theory.
Can you please link to the test you are speaking of?
What is rapid to you and what are you basing this claim on? I suppose you have examples of buildings in history that were 100 stories tall, 208' x 208', with a tube in tube design, impacted by jets in the upper third, that show a much slower collapse correct?
NIST says the lower structures would have obviously provided resistance, and they appear to have not provided adequate resistance.
Quote or reference please.
I would like to see where NIST explains this in detail, perhaps you could point us to where they do?
Again, provide me the quote or reference asked above. I would like to see exactly what you are referring to. Which NIST report does this appear in?
hey jones do us all a favor and stop using the term admits or admitted.Please tell me how, with all your engineering knowledge, an engineer designs a structure in such a way that if a portion of said structure suffers damage, that the remaining components are designed to handle the redistribution of that load.
That's impossible!
Are you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!
Impossible? Um...OK...
Buildings are designed to redistribute loads; this was even more so in the WTC towers: NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.
WTC Disaster Study
Why do keep ignoring that NIST has no credible evidence that the fires, after impact were indeed capable of distorting the steel,
No evidence?!
I'll make this real easy for you.
At what temperature does steel start to lose it's strength? After the initial temperature, give some percentages of loss as the temperature climbs.
he can't, like most all twoofers he uses the if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit method.Newtons third law, states that the forces between two contacting objects will be equal and opposite. The top damaged part would have to overcome the lower part it contacts right?
How does Newton's third law apply to a complex object comprised of entities which have varying load/stress limits?
Please explain how you can use Newton's third law to predict the results of two complex object's as described above?
"Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?"The answer is yes."-sister jonesAre you trying to say that engineers calculate for every possible permutation of a damage scenario and make sure that the building will stay structurally intact?!
Really? You're not?
The impact damage took out minimal components, and the building redistributed the loads according to the designers plans.
You plainly state above that the redistribution of the loads caused by the damage was according to the designers plans.
Do you not comprehend what you actually write?
What you fail to realize is the following point I repeatedly keep trying to get you to understand.
When an engineer designs a structure, the load redistribution is calculated on the basis that the structure undamaged and functioning properly. They base their calculations on dead and live loads in conjunction with the structural support system being undamaged.
They do NOT, repeat, NOT calculate load redistribution based on every single possible scenario in which damage may occur.
I suggest you go ask a local structural engineer about this as you are obviously basing your claims with a lack of knowledge. When someone says they "over-designed" a structure, they are referring to the entire structure being undamaged. It doesn't mean you can remove structural components until the load of the remaining components is increased by 2000%.
Question...Did the WTC designers take into account plane impacts? Multiple plane impacts of 707's?
The answer is yes. They had doubts about the fires, but assured all that plane impacts were taken into consideration.
WTF, Do you not understand about what I am asking you?
What in the NIST report is so convincing to you, that you believe the 3 buildings would fall in the short collapse times that they did? Simple fucking question? At least I think it is...
The reason I believe the NIST report is simply because it isn't perfect. It can be attacked for inconsistancies and holes in it can be found. This is EXACTLY what a sensible person would expect from an investigation after the fact when the investigating body has NO KNOWLEDGE beforehand what happened. They have to forensically investigate and they don't have all the answers. That is how things happen in the real world. Now, if they would have explained in detail everything that happened, down to minor details, had an answer for everything, then and only then would there be reason to be suspicious.
please point out where in the nist report it states that three collapses were expected when no one could have known that until after they collapsed..Still waiting for anyone who can answer or point to the specifics in the NIST theory that positively concludes 3 collapses in one day is to be expected...
I notice the usual clown remarking but like always has nothing of relevance to contribute...
You people are such staunch believers, I would have thought the key points and data would have been posted right away...What's the hold up?
