WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    It is lunchtime here and I couldn't help responding to this train analogy you are trying to make. The train is attempting to stop by friction alone and only due to the small surface area of it's wheels. It isn't analogous at all to the upper block of the tower other than weight.

    If you insist on using a train, a better analogy would be to have the 33,000 ton train collide with a stationary and anchored 250,000 ton train. The 33,000 ton train would be moving at about 18.5 MPH when they collide, which is akin to the 27 ft./sec velocity the upper block of the tower would have had after a one story fall.

    What does your intuition tell you will happen here?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    they let you take a break at the supermarket?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Something to take into consideration is the fact that each floor was open plan, the Lift Shafts were located in the central core and the shafts contained weren't necessarily connecting all the way to the bottom.

    Wiki Illustration (I would link the picture to the page but I'm not sure about their copyright rules for showing the image elsewhere)


    Incidentally looking at the construction method, the core was raised then floors assembled before the core being raised again. Looking over it the structure of the core itself didn't have any more bracing's to stop it collapsing out horizontally than each of the floors. Thinking of how the collapse happened, the floors break away exposing the core then the core collapses since it's lost any structure holding it up.

    Further down the wiki article is the Retrofitting of the B1 and B2 floors after the 1993 bombing attempt where they state:
    Another Factor to take note (this is according to what's in the Wiki articles), the type of steel used was of reduced load bearing capability the further up the tower it was installed. This was because there was no point having higher load bearing materials high up for the extra cost where there was less weight. This means that critical failure from a collision would have to occur higher up the tower as lower down it might well have taken the extra load.

    The Steel itself was purchased in lots of small bids rather than from one single contractor. This does means there could have been discrepancies in the QA (Quality Assurance) of the Steel fabrications.

    It should be noted that Designers, Planners and Physicists alike could make the perfect building at the planning stages. However as soon as you move from paper to reality, people cut corners. Contractors don't necessarily live up to expectations and sometimes they will even go into solvency rather than replace or payout for poor workmanship.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    The gravity factor, wrong direction of influence, over a longer surface, horizontal surface, not the small foot print of a vertical building, and the 250,000 ton train has friction from it's contact with the rails, and gravity, which changes the whole equation.

    Much larger foot print along the surface friction of the length of the train.

    There is no surface friction supporting the sides of the lower section of the tower.

    A train isn't a litesteel box beam building construction.

    The shear points of a boxbeam, litesteel construction, as used in the WTC, only two points per beam.

    We are talking about vertical motion gravity acceleration in the Buildings.
     
  8. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Oh yeah, the usual looking for excuses to blame the building so they can believe the nonsense. So how did it stand for 28 years?

    The core was constructed like a NORMAL skyscraper only more densely. The horizontal beams are shown in the Purdue video.

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

    The Core is at 2:40.

    psik
     
  9. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    The core was self supporting. The seats for the floor trusses on the outer core columns were weaker than the beam connections from the core on the other side of the outer core columns.

    The core columns were fabricated by no more than two large companies. The perimeter column sections were fabricated by one large company. They were all subjected to a rigorous inspection and certification according to the documents. The steel tested by NIST for mechanical properties found it to meet or exceed standard in over 95% of the cases. In the few cases where it was below specification it wasn't by much. The tower design built in a significant factor of safety so a steel strength being off by a few percent would not matter.

    The perimeter columns had thinner wall thicknesses the higher in the tower they were since there was less load above them. The core columns had smaller cross sections the higher in the tower they were for the same reason. The real test here is how much damage did the aircraft do. There were very few core columns taken out and obviously the exterior damage was bridged over as nothing happened after the wall was breached. The column damage due to aircraft impact had nothing to do with the collapse. NIST so much as admits this and blames fire and fireproofing removal.

    Where is there proof that any corners were cut in the construction of the twin towers? NIST did not find any.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2009
  10. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Glad to see there was something you could pick out of my post to have a little fun and pick on me with, if you couldn't refute what I was saying.

    Actually I was hired to redesign the shelves so they wouldn't collapse to the floor if somebody drove a car into the building and caused a fire in the store and the roof to collapse on them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2009
  11. albertchong1999 The truth is out there Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    233
    there is no conspiracy in the twin tower crash. The islamic terrorists had planned the strike at the right moment. I had studied islamic studies and motive. Islam itself is good but their believer had misused it, even in the mosque the gurus spread hatred among their worshipper towards the west. Indonesia Bali bombing involving malaysian terrorist, southern Thailand riot, Phillipine unrest, UK bus bombing etc all is contributed by islamic terrorist.they think Jihad is legal but actually Allah will not condoned their act. all the terrorists act blindly and didn't follow Allah's will. that is why they still left backward until today as compare to other religion's believer.

    Twin tower collapse is destined because that is caused by fire. If in the absent of fire, the building itself will never collapse in the impact. there is unlucky that the air-plane got lot of fuel to burn and cause structural steel weakness. Iraqi do the right planning and they are sure that the explosion will cause fuel to burn.

    finally, Bush do the right thing to neutralised most of the terrorist and executed Saddam hussein. worldwide Al-kaeda network is crippled and the whole world is more peaceful, including USA nation safety.

    If you want to talk conspiracy, talk about Bush mentioning mass destruction weapon in Iraq. Actually Bush use this excuse to invade Iraq and capture terrorist. If not,USA will never be able to gain entry without any excuse. Bush will never want the Iraqi oil or search for weapons, BUT the revenge motive for the destruction of their Twin Tower and kill those terrorist...

    Mod delete this if redundancy occurred.thanks
     
  12. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Good to see you now admit that the braking train analogy doesn't work.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2009
  13. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    how does fire cause a steel building to fall at freefall?
    how does fire cause sulfidation of steel girders?
    how does fire melt steel and concrete?

    Simply arriving in a 50 page thread with just an assertion that "fire did it" would seem to be waste of everyone's time. if you have a point to make using logic or evidence, then make it. simply stating your opinion has no bearing on the truth and will not move anything forward.
     
  14. albertchong1999 The truth is out there Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    233

    You need to study more.... that is my conclusion. If i want to put my elaborate material study, i think 50 page in here cant accomodate my elaboration. Steel loses strenght at high temperature and without enough support, the whole building collapse. You see?even one story building will collapse at its own if fire burn the steel support... my advise is study MATERIAL COURSE before come here to argue with me... i simply amaze of how many illiterate people arguing in here...

    Fireman know the steel strenght same as me... ask a firemen who had experienced many properties fire salvage. YES, this thread is wasting time
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2009
  15. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Litesteel box beam construction, the WTC was not a red steel beam and girder construction.

    This is what the beams of the WTC looked like litesteel box beams:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Some LSB specimens that have experienced web crippling under bearing load

    This is what a red steel I beam looks like:

    http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/case/project_litesteel_beams.shtml

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Look up the construction technique for the WTC and it was the largest litesteel box beam building in the world, it wasn't constructed using heavy iron frame construction.

    World Trade Center Disaster Information
    The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, ..... “ AISC strives to create a steel building specification that makes use of the ...

    www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm - 58k - Similar pages
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    a factor of safety that you calculated, someone with no engineering experience with high rise buildings.
     
  17. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    You beleive that Iraqis were responsible for 911....and you conclude that I need to study more? :bugeye:

    Your contribution that "Steel loses strength at high temperature and without enough support, the whole building collapse." does not answer my questions, and shows contempt for what has already been written in this thread.

    If the buildings collapsed due to steel heat weakening, then what do we see here:

    http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

    this is not simply "steel losing strength"
     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I have a strong feeling that the fact that he's 'only' a mechanical engineer in no way means he can't do some calculations regarding buildings. The guy tests stuff at NASA, somehow I don't think a few building calculations would be too much of a problem. I fully admit that I don't understand his calculations and it's clear that you don't either, or you'd be agreeing or disagreeing with his calculations, not questioning his credentials.
     
  19. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    LiteSteel was developed in 2004.
    you must be confusing the cosmetic aluminium cladding with the structural steel.
    your comparison with LiteSteel box beam is ridiculous.
    here is steel from the wtc:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    who cares what he is?

    i think he works stocking shelves in a supermarket but it doesnt matter anyway because i was an licensed engineer at 23 years old and there were many things i didnt know.
     
  21. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    you previously claimed you were a licensed engineer at the age of 19.

    <sniff><sniff>

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2126321&postcount=603
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    At 19 i was working full time and going to school at the same time, working towards getting my license. At that time i worked on cranes that lifted steel beams and other incredibly large objects to build commercial buildings.
     
  23. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    so are you qualified to respond to Tony's calculations?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page