64 of 65
64
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 30 June 2017 09:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 946 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 30 June 2017 11:04 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 29 June 2017 09:06 PM

God damnit Psik, think man think. 
All that extra mass density is along those bearing points, such as main columns and that incredible perimeter skirting, the “girdle”..

Oh really?

Yeah.  Really!   long face

You still haven’t grasped the basics of how high rise structures handle load bearing.  downer

If the “bearing points” aren’t compensating for the increasing weight - what do you think is?

From your link (1st May 2008, 09:49 AM)
“Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above. Do you really believe the fourth floor weighed the same amount as the 99th floor? Didn’t the fourth floor have to hold a little bit more weight than the 99th floor?”

NO, NO, NO. 

Yes, the 4 floor weighed roughly the same as the 99th floor, unless it was beefed up for some specific situation such as heavy equipment, main frame computers, vaults, and who know what.  But it has nothing to do with carrying the weight of the floors above it.

There really isn’t any third option.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2017 10:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 947 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7844
Joined  2009-02-26
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 30 June 2017 09:50 PM
psikeyhackr - 30 June 2017 11:04 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 29 June 2017 09:06 PM

God damnit Psik, think man think. 
All that extra mass density is along those bearing points, such as main columns and that incredible perimeter skirting, the “girdle”..

Oh really?

Yeah.  Really!   long face

You still haven’t grasped the basics of how high rise structures handle load bearing.  downer

If the “bearing points” aren’t compensating for the increasing weight - what do you think is?

From your link (1st May 2008, 09:49 AM)
“Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above. Do you really believe the fourth floor weighed the same amount as the 99th floor? Didn’t the fourth floor have to hold a little bit more weight than the 99th floor?”

NO, NO, NO. 

Yes, the 4 floor weighed roughly the same as the 99th floor, unless it was beefed up for some specific situation such as heavy equipment, main frame computers, vaults, and who know what.  But it has nothing to do with carrying the weight of the floors above it.

There really isn’t any third option.

Pyramids maybe.
I am willing to bet that almost every tall building hit by what amounts to a very large bomb will come down. Where is the illogic in that.

[ Edited: 30 June 2017 10:09 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 June 2017 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 948 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24
Write4U - 30 June 2017 10:06 PM

Pyramids maybe.

Yeah that about sums it up.

I came across this video that explains the load bearing elements.

The floors are indeed considered a structural element, but it has to do with tying everything together
and lateral transfer of loads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCBSUj84eIk
World Trade Center Structure Animations
ZaxisLitigation
Published on May 18, 2012
This is an animation clips produced by Z-Axis and used in the World Trade Center property insurance trial.

They have a couple more disturbing one’s that show actual damage inflicted to those elements.
World Trade Center Tower 1 (and 2) Litigation Animations
ZaxisLitigation

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 09:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 949 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 30 June 2017 10:06 PM

Pyramids maybe.
I am willing to bet that almost every tall building hit by what amounts to a very large bomb will come down. Where is the illogic in that.

The structures were still standing after the “very large bomb” went off.  And “by very large” are you talking about the size of the bomb or the strength of the explosion?  In the case of the south tower a large part of the air fuel blast occurred outside the building and it was obvious that it did almost nothing to the steel.

The problem is the speed of the collapse in relation to the conservation of momentum.

It is just so interesting that people who come to a Center for Inquiry can just BELIEVE.  :LOL:

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 11:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 950 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1690
Joined  2016-12-24
psikeyhackr - 01 July 2017 09:56 AM

The problem is the speed of the collapse in relation to the conservation of momentum.

No it’s not.
You and your various intellectual pals never produce any actual examination, a lot of velvet tongued doubt and conspiracy mongering,
but no mundane fact based analysis beyond conclusions and promises.

All the while refusing to absorb basic facts that you find inconvenient.
Such as the building imploded in on itself, through floors. 
The levels, the joists, the connectors were not enough to stop the collapse,
at the 80th floor or any one below it !!!!!!!!
Refusing to look at that reality it what is called a gross blind spot.

You keep stepping off into meta-physics without even realizing your glaring mistakes.
========================================================================

And sometimes you cross over into the contemptible, have you looked at the other two videos, they show what those “bombs” left behind.

psikeyhackr - 01 July 2017 09:56 AM

The structures were still standing after the “very large bomb” went off.

I found it very disturbing to sit through. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCBSUj84eIk
World Trade Center Structure Animations
ZaxisLitigation
Published on May 18, 2012
This is an animation clips produced by Z-Axis and used in the World Trade Center property insurance trial.

They have a couple more disturbing one’s that show actual damage inflicted to those elements.
World Trade Center Tower 1 (and 2) Litigation Animations
ZaxisLitigation

[ Edited: 01 July 2017 12:03 PM by Citizenschallenge-v.3 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 951 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7844
Joined  2009-02-26
psikeyhackr - 01 July 2017 09:56 AM
Write4U - 30 June 2017 10:06 PM

Pyramids maybe.
I am willing to bet that almost every tall building hit by what amounts to a very large bomb will come down. Where is the illogic in that.

The structures were still standing after the “very large bomb” went off.  And “by very large” are you talking about the size of the bomb or the strength of the explosion?  In the case of the south tower a large part of the air fuel blast occurred outside the building and it was obvious that it did almost nothing to the steel.

The problem is the speed of the collapse in relation to the conservation of momentum.

It is just so interesting that people who come to a Center for Inquiry can just BELIEVE.  :LOL: psik

Depends on the type of bomb, no?


After a volcano blows, it may take days for the destruction of 100s of square miles, from the “after effects” , no.?
The type of “bomb” we are talking about was not designed for maximum destruction, but for maximum safety which may have delayed the resulting after effects of heat combined with structural compromise.

.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 03:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 952 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 01 July 2017 11:52 AM

I found it very disturbing to sit through. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCBSUj84eIk
World Trade Center Structure Animations
ZaxisLitigation
Published on May 18, 2012
This is an animation clips produced by Z-Axis and used in the World Trade Center property insurance trial.

They have a couple more disturbing one’s that show actual damage inflicted to those elements.
World Trade Center Tower 1 (and 2) Litigation Animations
ZaxisLitigation

There is a rather curious thing about that video.

At 2:18 it shows a cross section of the building supposedly specifying broken and heat weakened columns in the core and on the perimeter.  It has 33 of 59 and 25 of 59 for the perimeter but the picture shows two sides of the perimeter unaffected.  There were 236 perimeter columns, 59 on each side.  So it was 33 of 236 and 25 of 236.

How did anyone come up with ANY DATA on how many core columns were affected, either broken or weakened by heat?  Who was in there and took the pictures?

I have said multiple times, just do a simulation completely removing 5 levels, 91 through 95.  Then drop the top 15 stories onto 90 intact stories and see if the entire structure can collapse and how long it would take.  We can supposedly simulate the climate of the planet one century into the future but cannot accurately simulate a skyscraper collapse that took less than 30 seconds!?

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 05:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 953 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7844
Joined  2009-02-26

[quite]PH said,
I have said multiple times, just do a simulation completely removing 5 levels, 91 through 95.  Then drop the top 15 stories onto 90 intact stories and see if the entire structure can collapse and how long it would take.  We can supposedly simulate the climate of the planet one century into the future but cannot accurately simulate a skyscraper collapse that took less than 30 seconds!?

That is a partially false statement.  It took the first tower to collapse almost an hour before the 30 second structural failure. And it took the second tower even longer and partly because of exposure to the tremendous heat radiating from the first tower, before it’s structural failure.

Neither tower collapsed immediately after impact, although once the structural integrities were so badly compromised, the actual total collapse took but a short time. In accordance to Galileo’s law of falling bodies.

Take this example of the Tower of Pisa. It has gradually increased its lean over centuries, but how long do you think it will take the tower to fall when its limit of balance is reached.  I would guess less than 10 seconds.

img147.gif

Or how about removing some of the exterior columns on the leaning side.?

[ Edited: 02 July 2017 05:10 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 06:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 954 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
psikeyhackr - 01 July 2017 09:56 AM

The structures were still standing after the “very large bomb” went off.  And “by very large” are you talking about the size of the bomb or the strength of the explosion?  In the case of the south tower a large part of the air fuel blast occurred outside the building and it was obvious that it did almost nothing to the steel.

The structures may have been standing but they were significantly damaged by the impact of almost 1/2 MILLION pound airliners traveling close to the speed of sound impacting into them. That was the equivalent of a very large bomb going off, destroying large sections of exterior structural supports and stripping away the concrete and fireproofing of the steel supports that provided the horizontal component to the structural integrity of the towers. That was not the end of the damage, intense fires then burned reaching almost 2,000 F which would have turned what should have been rigid steel to plastic.


Both towers had intense fires burning inside them and suffered the same huge mechanical force of the impacting airliners, it’s highly inaccurate to claim that the steel would have been unaffected in either tower so you’re basically making up “facts” to confirm your bias, not presenting any coherent argument.

The problem is the speed of the collapse in relation to the conservation of momentum.

There is no problem there with the physics, just your interpretation of them. As W4U posits, how fast will the Leaning Tower of Pisa fall when it suddenly reaches the point where gravity overcomes the structural supports holding the building up. It will happen in seconds, not the centuries it has taken the building to lean over to the point of failure.

When the intense fires burning in the towers had heated the steel supports in the area of failure to the point where they had lost about 90% of their strength gravity took over the thousands of tons of steel and concrete in the floors above dropped in full accordance of gravity applying an incredible force towards the ground that simply overwhelmed all the structural integrity of the floors below.

In case you were unaware of it, gravity accelerates objects within a gravitational field, so what starts out as slow movement can rapidly become very fast.

http:// whatis.techtarget.com/definition/gravitational-acceleration

Gravitational acceleration (symbolized g) is an expression used in physics to indicate the intensity of a gravitational field. It is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s 2 ). At the surface of the earth, 1 g is about 9.8 m/s 2

It is just so interesting that people who come to a Center for Inquiry can just BELIEVE.  :LOL:

How ironic that you accuse us of doing exactly what you are doing.

You have offered no proof at all that there needs to be another cause for the collapse of the buildings other than the impacts of massive airliners causing intense fires. You have offered no other plausible scenario for something this cataclysmic to have occurred… but your belief that there must be some other explanation keeps you coming back over and over to demand that we accept your version of events.

When as I said you present no plausible alternatives. Present some facts if you want a real discussion, so far all you’re presenting here is a hypothesis that something else may have happened with zero supporting evidence. That is the definition of belief.

[ Edited: 01 July 2017 06:37 PM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 06:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 955 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24

Where’s the evidence that this collapse somehow exceeded the 9.8 meters a second squared the material would have been accelerated by gravity. Every second the material was falling it would have been moving 9.8 meters a second faster minus the upward resistance of the floors below, none of which were designed to handle that kind of load. The faster the material was moving the more force was being applied downward. At the point of failure there would have been almost no resistance to collapse because of the steel heated to the point where almost all strength was lost and lower floors would have been pancaked by the extreme force of thousands of tons of material that were under the acceleration of gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

[ Edited: 01 July 2017 06:51 PM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 956 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24

All these questions have been asked and investigated presenting the best explanation.

https:// http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/twin-towers-forensic-investigation-revise-building-codes/

It turns out that even a combination of high-speed collisions by two airliners and fires across multiple floors would not have destroyed the Twin Towers, according to NIST’s final 2005 report on their collapse. The robustness and size of the structures helped them withstand the hits, and in the absence of damage, fires as intense as the ones the towers faced would likely not have led to collapse.

Unfortunately, the impacts dislodged fireproofing insulation that coated steel in the floors and columns, leaving the metal vulnerable to weakening under fire. The ceiling sprinklers also did not work, because the water supplying them was cut off by the collisions. Ultimately, WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because it had more aircraft damage to the building core. Given how little time each tower had to evacuate, if both towers had been fully occupied with 40,000 people total instead of the estimated 17,400 present, about 14,000 occupants might have died instead of the 2,749 who did perish in the attacks.

If you just read the first part then decide to stop then of course you’re going to spend the rest of your life tilting at skyscrapers.

Which seems like a complete waste of time to me…

spamblock line

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2017 11:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 957 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05
DougC - 01 July 2017 06:47 PM

Where’s the evidence that this collapse somehow exceeded the 9.8 meters a second squared the material would have been accelerated by gravity.

Who ever said it did?

But how could the top 14 stories fall on the lower portion and come down in less than 30 seconds?  Wikipedia says 25 including “The Spire”.

So why didn’t the lower mass that was obviously strong enough to support the weight of the top for 28 years slow the collapse down and why haven’t most of the engineering schools discussed something as simple as the distributions of mass which would slow it due to the Conservation of Momentum.  How can this be tested experimentally without accurate data on the building.

So why do people object to that?

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 12:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 958 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2797
Joined  2007-07-05

Bomb!?!
http://jmvh.org/article/munitions-thermobaric-munitions-and-their-medical-effects/

What do air-fuel bombs do to steel and concrete?

psik

 Signature 

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Physics has been History

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 09:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 959 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
psikeyhackr - 01 July 2017 11:59 PM

Who ever said it did?

What you said:

The problem is the speed of the collapse in relation to the conservation of momentum.

There is no problem there, the thousands of tons of steel and metal in the floors above the impact and fire sites on the two towers were constantly under a 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration towards the Earth center, they weren’t in freefall. Meaning that the moment the rigidity of the steel was decreased to the critical point then there was nothing to stop that steady downward acceleration. The upper part of the towers didn’t want to stay in position in relation to the Earth, they wanted to crash straight down to the surface which they did the moment support from below was lost.

But how could the top 14 stories fall on the lower portion and come down in less than 30 seconds?  Wikipedia says 25 including “The Spire”.

If you took a WW II battleship - that is the mass of upper floors that started the collapse - and dropped it on a skyscraper what would be the result?

It would apply an incredible downward force on the floors below causing them to fail in series. The mass of the upper floors was no longer part of the structural strength of the tower, it was dead weight falling straight down and accelerating in full accordance with gravity. Each floor hit had only it’s own steel and concrete to resist the downward force and would have failed in a fraction of a second. And every floor that failed would have added mass to the falling debris creating even more downward force as the failure progressed.

So why didn’t the lower mass that was obviously strong enough to support the weight of the top for 28 years slow the collapse down and why haven’t most of the engineering schools discussed something as simple as the distributions of mass which would slow it due to the Conservation of Momentum.  How can this be tested experimentally without accurate data on the building.

Who says it didn’t.

But it wouldn’t have been by much as each individual floor would have been hammered by incredible force from above then when it failed added its mass to the falling structure. And what relevance does the fact that the structure had stood for 28 years before that have, none of the steel had been destroyed or heated to the point where it lost almost all of its tensile strength in that period. Getting hit by two massive airliners and then burning intensely completely changed the dynamics at working holding the tower up in the Earth’s gravity.

Let’s say you’ve been walking for 28 years, your legs can clearly support your weight under the constant acceleration towards the Earth’s center. Now some maniac walks up and hits you in both knees with an axe. Unless someone grabs you, you are heading towards the ground at 9.8 m/s^2. There was nothing to support the towers once the tensile strength of the steel was lost in areas where there were already large gaps in the steel members holding the towers up.

So why do people object to that?

The objection is to the rejection of what we have the best evidence for and demanding that there must be some other explanation when there is zero evidence of any other explanation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2017 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 960 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  926
Joined  2016-01-24
psikeyhackr - 02 July 2017 12:24 AM

Bomb!?!
http://jmvh.org/article/munitions-thermobaric-munitions-and-their-medical-effects/

What do air-fuel bombs do to steel and concrete?

psik

They airliners did not have the effect of fuel air bombs, they had the effect of massive kinetic weapons carrying incredible force in their mass combined with speed. This caused an initial destruction of steel supports and sent jet fuel throughout the buildings and most critically stripped concrete and fireproofing off of steel supports throughout the interior of the buildings. The jet fuel and initial impacts ignited fires that burned uncontrolled because all the fire suppression systems in the floors hit were destroyed. When the heat of the steel being subjected to these uncontrolled fires reached a critical point they had almost no tensile strength left and the immense downward force constantly being applied by the mass of the tower above had almost nothing to cancel it out.

The towers were coming down once that happened no matter what you seem to believe. It certainly has nothing to do with physics.

Asked and answered, you can keep playing with this ad infinitum, it’s a complete waste of time to isolate the uncertainty in the fine details of what happened with the towers collapse while completely ignoring the overall factors that most likely made this tragedy happen. Science has done the best with the data available, demanding more isn’t rational.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/twin-towers-forensic-investigation-revise-building-codes/

The greatest challenge that U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators faced when they began in 2002 was the destruction of the main bodies of evidence that they would normally probe in such a disaster. “Most of the buildings and their contents, save the structural steel skeletons, was demolished to the point that they were unrecognizable and of no practical use in reconstructing the conditions prior to aircraft impact,” says structural engineer Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST report on the World Trade Center disaster.

You demand an exact accounting of every variable in this disaster which simply is not physically possible then when none is forthcoming claim that is evidence that something else must be responsible.

Profile
 
 
   
64 of 65
64