44 of 46
44
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 02 January 2014 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 646 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15
psikeyhackr - 02 January 2014 09:51 AM

But since the importance of the steel and concrete distributions down the buildings should have been obvious to the simple minded 12 years ago I suppose this should not be surprising.
psik

OK - guess the NIST was remiss in leaving it out - still there is no mystery about the structure. {that’s why I’ve shared these}
Take your wildest high weight and wildest low weight estimates add them to the chain of events - same outcome.


Discovery HD Accurate 3D Model Of WTC Twin Towers Structure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gQtox9ukYw
~ ~ ~

WTC Structural Design
WorIdTradeCenter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB_XRXCt6nU
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

WTC 7
doesn’t seem like a grand architectural mystery either.

WTC 7 Collapse Explanation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzLu7gDbJs


Large sections of the building were cantilevered {see + 2:00m}.


Damage from collapse of WTC I -
including some serious seismic rattling
being mega buck shot with shrapnel and fire
= possible/probable structure damage
then
busted sprinkler system, diesel fuel tank ruptures
add 7 hours of being allowed to burn free = extended high heat.

~ ~ ~

I’m still trying to comprehend what you see hiding in all this?

Add in that alternate sequences sound down-right super-natural.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2014 11:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 647 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 02 January 2014 01:58 PM
psikeyhackr - 02 January 2014 09:51 AM

But since the importance of the steel and concrete distributions down the buildings should have been obvious to the simple minded 12 years ago I suppose this should not be surprising.
psik

OK - guess the NIST was remiss in leaving it out - still there is no mystery about the structure. {that’s why I’ve shared these}
Take your wildest high weight and wildest low weight estimates add them to the chain of events - same outcome.

Oh really, and how did you compute that.

Because it isn’t just the weight.  Just because I say weight a lot doesn’t mean it is the only factor.  The reason for the weight of steel increasing down the building is the increase in strength required to hold the weight.  The steel on the first level had to support the weight of 109 levels above.

That is why I built the model with the washers and paper loops.  The paper loops had to have the strength to hold the weight of the washers.  The model enabled me to test the paper loops for the minimum strength to hold the weight.  There was no calculation involved.  But the kinetic energy of the falling mass had to give up energy to flatten the paper loops.  It eventually ran out of energy and the collapse halted short of complete destruction.

How is anyone supposed to calculate the energy required to destroy levels of the towers.  I have never seen anyone do that and explain their numbers.  But as the amount of steel increased down the building the amount of energy required had to increase.  I have not seen that calculated.  So just talking about maximums and minimums is nonsense.

We need to know the energy required to collapse each level.  So how is it that physicists and structural engineers haven’t pointed this out in TWELVE YEARS?  Isn’t it obvious?

[18408]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 648 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15

I was thinking about your response and your concern for the strength of the columns and realized it reveals a major misconception about the collapse.

Take a look at the way WTC was built, the center core and the perimeter, sure those got stoutier as they carried more weight.  But that’s not where the catastrophic failures happened (I’m ignoring the columns severed during impact).

Remember the whole point of aligning the columns like that was to open up all that unobstructed floor area.  Those floors consisted of trusses, steel pans, filled with concrete for the floor, etc.  Look at what connected those floor trusses to the superstructure. 

Those connections had to carry the weight of each individual floor plus whatever extra safety cushion the engineers figured in.  Those connections were the bearing point of each floor, no matter what level, nothing more. 

It is those connections that gave way and had no way in hell of slowing the collapse even if engineered to be 100x stronger. 

Do you understand the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed because the floors collapsed, they in turn, pulled down the superstructure - it was not the other way around.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 649 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15

Oh yea, that’s another reason they collapsed like that, rather than toppling.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 06:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 650 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 02 January 2014 11:38 PM

There was no calculation involved.

Sums up psikey’s position perfectly; and that’s why experts don’t waste their time with 9/11 truthers.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 651 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 03 January 2014 04:42 PM

Those connections had to carry the weight of each individual floor plus whatever extra safety cushion the engineers figured in.  Those connections were the bearing point of each floor, no matter what level, nothing more. 

It is truly amusing how collapse believers talk about those floor connections.

Can you specify how many there were?  Have you ever asked?  I know the connections of the 84 standard floor assemblies outside the core were the same and they did not have to get stronger down the building.

The columns in the core were interconnected with BEAMS not Trusses and the columns did have to get stronger down the building because that is what progressively more floors were connected to.  I know each of the floor assemblies was 750 tons.  Do you have that information on the tip of your tongue?

Since the core above the aircraft impact area had to fall onto the stationary core below your talk about the floors outside the core is totally irrelevant.  I know people try to justify the collapse with the tube-in-tube design but the core was not really a tube.  The building collapse is explained by pretending that core wasn’t there or was very flimsy.

If you don’t know how many connections there were then how could you explain how they could all give way simultaneously?  Because if they did not give way simultaneously wouldn’t the floor assembly have to tilt?  But if it tilted would it squeeze the core because the concrete slab was a single piece poured to fit the core?  But if it tilted wouldn’t it create a lot of friction slowing things down.

So you don’t have to explain what you don’t question.  You don’t collect data when you don’t question.

But a good model would require accurate data and if the structure could collapse why can’t a model be built to demonstrate it.  Why could the Tacoma Narrows Bridge be modelled in a matter of months but 12 years with great electronic can’t settle 9/11.  The length of horizontal steel in the core had to be at least 2.5 times the length of vertical steel.  But some how the data on it disappears.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 08:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 652 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 03 January 2014 06:18 PM
psikeyhackr - 02 January 2014 11:38 PM

There was no calculation involved.

Sums up psikey’s position perfectly; and that’s why experts don’t waste their time with 9/11 truthers.

Curious how the “experts” could model the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in months but haven’t managed it in 12 years for 9/11.

You are simply taking what I said out of context.  I did not need to do calculations on the paper loops because I could test them to destruction.  That is how I could know they were as weak as possible relative to the weights I used.  But skyscrapers are not designed to be as weak as possible.  So if my model would not collapse under those conditions then why did the north tower do so?

After TWELVE YEARS the “experts” have a problem no matter what the truth is.

If the north tower could collapse they should have explained it in detail.

It the north tower should not have collapsed then they should have explained that.

But they have not done either one so how can they possible explain that and pretend to be “experts”?

At this point they need for morons to keep themselves stupid.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 10:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 653 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15
psikeyhackr - 04 January 2014 07:41 PM

The columns in the core were interconnected with BEAMS not Trusses and the columns did have to get stronger down the building because that is what progressively more floors were connected to.  I know each of the floor assemblies was 750 tons.  Do you have that information on the tip of your tongue?

Go back and read what I said - Yes columns got stronger on way down.
The center core was not near as solid or braced as your words imply.
Look at the floor plan,
https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts

Can’t find a plan for your “BEAMS” - got a link?

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 11:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 654 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 04 January 2014 08:51 PM

Curious how the “experts” could model the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in months but haven’t managed it in 12 years for 9/11.

That’s because they haven’t bothered. They don’t need to.

So if my model would not collapse under those conditions then why did the north tower do so?

Because the north tower didn’t have a completely solid core supported and anchored by an additional tower beside it like your model does, psikey. Never mind basic physics like the scaling of mass issue, which changes the behavior of any model.

After TWELVE YEARS the “experts” have a problem no matter what the truth is.

If the north tower could collapse they should have explained it in detail.

It the north tower should not have collapsed then they should have explained that.

But they have not done either one so how can they possible explain that and pretend to be “experts”?

At this point they need for morons to keep themselves stupid.

psik

It doesn’t take an expert to see your model is a joke and has nothing do with modeling anything.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 January 2014 09:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 655 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 04 January 2014 10:21 PM
psikeyhackr - 04 January 2014 07:41 PM

The columns in the core were interconnected with BEAMS not Trusses and the columns did have to get stronger down the building because that is what progressively more floors were connected to.  I know each of the floor assemblies was 750 tons.  Do you have that information on the tip of your tongue?

Go back and read what I said - Yes columns got stronger on way down.
The center core was not near as solid or braced as your words imply.
Look at the floor plan,
https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts

Can’t find a plan for your “BEAMS” - got a link?

ROFLMBAO

Because you can’t find the data they must be MY BEAMS!  LOL

Well I can’t find the data either.  That is what I have been saying for years.  The data necessary to solve the problem has disappeared.  Lon Waters PhD had a site with data on the core columns for years.  That is HAD A SITE.  But he didn’t have data on the horizontal beams.  He didn’t have data on the 2800 perimeter wall panels from the 9th floor to the top.

9/11 is an IQ test.  The dummies can’t figure out what data they need to solve the problem from the start but they can believe they know the solution.  Look at the Purdue simulation that they claim is scientific:

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg

The Core is shown at 2 min. 40 sec.

They have horizontal beams at every level in the core.  But I have NEVER SEEN a diagram with a horizontal layout of the horizontal beams.  But the core has more than twice as many columns per area as a normal skyscraper with columns 30 feet apart.  You can compute how much the horizontal length of steel should have been at least.

This whole 9/11 argument has been about minimizing the significance of the core but it was the core that gave the building its rigidity because it was the only three dimensional array of steel.  It is the fault of all of the dummies for not figuring that out and just TRUSTING AUTHORITY.

These reports mention the beams in the core:

NIST_NCSTAR_1-1C
NIST NCSTAR 1-3A
NIST NCSTAR 1-6
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D

But they don’t say a lot.

MONTAGUE-BETTS
Contract WTC226.
Montague-Betts fabricated all the rolled columns and beams in the core of both towers, 25,900 tons
(Feld 1971). Their contract was for “all rolled columns and beams, including cover-plated sections
throughout both towers…including horizontal trusses on 2nd floor.. and exterior wall steel above
107th floor and the weldments for supporting future T.V. masts.” (Feld 1971).

So a little more then 12% of all of the steel in the building was in the cores. 

[18535]
psik

[ Edited: 07 January 2014 10:57 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2014 10:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 656 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3799
Joined  2010-08-15

Yea, OK just wanted to make sure what you were taking about.
and sorry, I guess I was brushing those aside, guess because they don’t change the equation, namely the incredible weight that got released during the initial collapse - those interior I beams were never engineered for that sort of impact, particularly when you keep in mind those huge expanses of perimeter flooring and everything on them, were dragging and distorting everything as it was in basic free fall.  Shear mass made a big difference in how it collapsed.

static load and dynamic free fall load plus huge mass makes a huge difference.


excuse the digression
but recently I saw some stuff by that MIT professor who simply can’t image a cold fine grained clastic flow coming out of those falling buildings.

It’s kinda crazy like the man has never been at a real building construction nor gotten to know all the various elements that go into a floor, it’s not a flat record he seems to believe.

I say this because of his dramatic rhetorical amazement at the clastic flow as those buildings came down -
Give me a break? 
Floors are complex structures of trusses and pans and I beams, you know steel and concrete and furniture and interior walls, - all that stuff created an infinite amount of smashing and grinding points, add to that the massive volume of air being compressed in milli seconds per floor.

probably the most massive grinding/milling incident ever.

But here this “MIT professor” spreads total nonsense and folks eat it up

It’s not two dimensional world out here!

so sad.


  long face

[ Edited: 09 January 2014 11:07 PM by citizenschallenge.pm ]
 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2014 01:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 657 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 09 January 2014 10:46 PM

Yea, OK just wanted to make sure what you were taking about.
and sorry, I guess I was brushing those aside, guess because they don’t change the equation, namely the incredible weight that got released during the initial collapse - those interior I beams were never engineered for that sort of impact, particularly when you keep in mind those huge expanses of perimeter flooring and everything on them, were dragging and distorting everything as it was in basic free fall.  Shear mass made a big difference in how it collapsed.

static load and dynamic free fall load plus huge mass makes a huge difference.


In the OP i mention the CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM.

If 10 ounces moving at 30 ft/sec hits 20 ounces that is stationary you will get 30 ounces moving at 10 ft/sec.

If 10 ounces moving at 30 ft/sec hits 10 ounces that is stationary you will get 20 ounces moving at 15 ft/sec.

It is not just the size of the mass that is coming down it is the size of the mass that is impacted that affects the result.  But in addition all of that mass must be supported under static conditions so supports strong enough to hold it must be bent, broken or dislocated and that requires ENERGY.

The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass so it slows down in the process of breaking things.

The washers in my model only average 1.7 ounces but the point is that they are all close to the same amount so the masses are sufficient to affect each other due to the conservation of momentum.

So your getting all emotional over “huge mass” and “dynamic load” does not determine what happens in physics.

The 14 stories below the top 14 of the north tower that fell had to have somewhat more mass and the 14 below that even more.  So you have to take all of it into consideration not just the part that started the fall.

[18801]
psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2014 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 658 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

And of course psikey forgets the destroyed floors and mass of them ADD to the energy of the falling upper portions far faster than the energy detracted from impacting lower floors.

‘Simple physics’ indeed, that which psikey keeps failing miserably at.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2014 03:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 659 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2291
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 10 January 2014 02:14 PM

And of course psikey forgets the destroyed floors and mass of them ADD to the energy of the falling upper portions far faster than the energy detracted from impacting lower floors.

‘Simple physics’ indeed, that which psikey keeps failing miserably at.

But no one has a physical model to demonstrate this “magical” phenomenon in a self supporting structure that damages its components in a collapse.

Can RW even tell us how many connections there were around the floors outside the core, and provide a link to the data?

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2014 05:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 660 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
psikeyhackr - 10 January 2014 03:16 PM

But no one has a physical model to demonstrate this “magical” phenomenon in a self supporting structure that damages its components in a collapse.

That ‘magical phenomenon’ is called ‘gravity’, psikey. More of that simple physics you clearly do not understand.

Can RW even tell us how many connections there were around the floors outside the core, and provide a link to the data?

I have no need to provide such data.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
   
44 of 46
44