WTC Collapses

[Uno Hoo]

.
What theory have I proposed about ANYTHING?

I have said we need to know the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers to analyze this. How is that a theory?

You are saying that the liquid coming out of the building could be aluminum but to be that color it has to be superheated. But how could it get superheated? Somehow this fire accidentally confined the aluminum so it could stay in place in liquid form until it was superheated and the floor was level even after being hit by an airliner. But the floor was level because the building was designed to resist earthquakes. But this floor was EIGHTY STORIES UP!

But my non-existent theory has holes in it.

Your explanation for this superheated aluminum is totally bulletproof.

How fast do you think Occam can spin in his grave?



psik

According to my admittedly brief, as yet, perusal of the Structural Blueprints that I found online, each storey had a floor consisting of 5 inches of lightweight concrete set upon a corrugated steel decking supported upon 33 inch steel bar joists. The perimeter columns were box columns consisting of steel plates welded together. The core columns were box columns consisting of steel plates welded together. All the columns were connected to each other vertically by bolted connections. At the lowest storeys, columns were connected by bolted connections plus welds.

There was apparently no other concrete used in a structural capacity.

The 5 inch thick concrete floor served as a component of a diaphragm, a horizontal structural feature which served to brace the building in its horizontal plane. The 5 inch concrete floor had negligible structural significance for vertical loads.

Any other concrete would have been used in a fireproofing capacity. if the core columns had been encased in concrete (and I do not know if they were or were not), the concrete would have been neglected in calculating the structural ability of the core columns. Likewise for the perimeter columns.
I have been there, done that, professionally.

The floors would not have been required to remain level under the Building Code. There was no specific requirement for such a thing in the 1960s, and probably is not today. There is no magicke way to assume that a floor would have remained level. It is, frankly, unbelievable that a jetliner could crash through the wall of such a building and not greatly disrupt the floor. It is a virtual certainty that the floor would have immediately been bent considerably away from being flat. The jetliner could breach the perimeter wall only by drastically relocating the perimeter columns. The trusses supporting the floor were directly connected to the perimeter columns. Therefore the trusses would have been drastically relocated. It is virtually certain that the floor was drastically tilted after the first moment of the impact.

[psikeyhackr]

each storey had a floor consisting of 5 inches of lightweight concrete set upon a corrugated steel decking supported upon 33 inch steel bar joists.

.
The corrugation of the steel decking caused the thickness to vary between 4 and 5 inches. From pictures I have seen of the edge there was more 4 than 5. I usually estimate it at 4 1/3 inches.

The perimeter columns were box columns consisting of steel plates welded together. The core columns were box columns consisting of steel plates welded together. All the columns were connected to each other vertically by bolted connections. At the lowest storeys, columns were connected by bolted connections plus welds.

There was apparently no other concrete used in a structural capacity.

.
The box columns in the core got thinner up the building and eventually turned into H columns. I think that is what they were at the levels where the planes hit.

There was a concrete slab in the core in front of the elevators. It was normal concrete instead of the lightweight type. I would think that every skyscraper would have to have a lot of concrete in the core. A lot of sites which seem to have info from before 9/11 say the buildings contained 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. That is more than three times as much as can be accounted for in the floor slabs.

It is, frankly, unbelievable that a jetliner could crash through the wall of such a building and not greatly disrupt the floor. It is a virtual certainty that the floor would have immediately been bent considerably away from being flat. The jetliner could breach the perimeter wall only by drastically relocating the perimeter columns. The trusses supporting the floor were directly connected to the perimeter columns. Therefore the trusses would have been drastically relocated. It is virtually certain that the floor was drastically tilted after the first moment of the impact.

.
WHAT!!! Somebody is agreeing with me??? I must be losing my mind. I've got to tell my psychiatrist.

He told me not to stop taking my thorazine.

AHAHAHAhAhahahah!!!!!

psik

[John99]

He told me not to stop taking my thorazine.

AHAHAHAhAhahahah!!!!!

psik

speaks for itself.

[scott3x]

.
He told me not to stop taking my thorazine.

I pray that this is all a joke and that you never took it to begin with:
Thorazine - A Chemical Lobotomy - Permanent Brain Damage and Uses To Control People

[scott3x]

The floors would not have been required to remain level under the Building Code. There was no specific requirement for such a thing in the 1960s, and probably is not today. There is no magicke way to assume that a floor would have remained level. It is, frankly, unbelievable that a jetliner could crash through the wall of such a building and not greatly disrupt the floor. It is a virtual certainty that the floor would have immediately been bent considerably away from being flat. The jetliner could breach the perimeter wall only by drastically relocating the perimeter columns. The trusses supporting the floor were directly connected to the perimeter columns. Therefore the trusses would have been drastically relocated. It is virtually certain that the floor was drastically tilted after the first moment of the impact.

For the whole floor or just the side of the impact? From what I've heard, the plane struck on the opposite side of where there molten metal was coming out. I still don't believe that the fires could have produced the molten metal, just not so sure the floor had to be tilted downwards on the side it came out. Ofcourse if it -was- then it might explain why it only came out on that side; apparently white smoke was seen coming out of the other 3 corners as well, which is indicative of a thermitic reaction.

[psikeyhackr]

speaks for itself.

I pray that this is all a joke and that you never took it to begin with:
Thorazine - A Chemical Lobotomy - Permanent Brain Damage and Uses To Control People

.
You guys are just too serious to be taken seriously.

I make fun of somebody agreeing with me about something so obvious it is absurd that it was ever brought up, and you go off.

Floor remains level after being hit by 500 mph airliner, NEWS AT NINE!

psik

[John99]

Uno Hoo seems to be very intelligent.

[Stryder]

.
You guys are just too serious to be taken seriously.

I make fun of somebody agreeing with me about something so obvious it is absurd that it was ever brought up, and you go off.

Floor remains level after being hit by 500 mph airliner, NEWS AT NINE!

psik

And you are really missing the point that was made originally.

You originally implied that the flow of molten metal was going "down hill". I implied that the building was built to be "Level". You imply that the floors would obviously be collapsed from the crash (I don't deny that would be the case), however it doesn't make a "Hill".

This of course implies severe structural damage which is exactly what would be required to make a building collapse, which indeed is what the building did.

However somewhere in that egocentric brain of yours, you've missed the entire point and quack in complete disregard, while not being a duck.

[scott3x]

And you are really missing the point that was made originally.

You originally implied that the flow of molten metal was going "down hill". I implied that the building was built to be "Level". You imply that the floors would obviously be collapsed from the crash (I don't deny that would be the case), however it doesn't make a "Hill".

This of course implies severe structural damage which is exactly what would be required to make a building collapse, which indeed is what the building did.

However somewhere in that egocentric brain of yours, you've missed the entire point and quack in complete disregard, while not being a duck.

Quack in complete disregard, laugh :-p. I actually agree with you on one point Stryder- an unlevel floor does not mean it had to be a floor that sloped towards the windows. However, I don't agree with you that the metal could have been aluminum for reasons that I and Headspin have mentioned previously and I also don't agree that just because the floor of impact may have become unlevel, it means that the rest of the towers should collapse at near free fall speeds an hour or 2 later.

[John99]

Quack in complete disregard, laugh :-p.

what the hell does that mean?

[scott3x]

what the hell does that mean?

Ask Stryder :-)

[Enmos]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1060/...e9c3a0fd_o.jpg


http://home.blarg.net/~wayule/graphics/thorazine.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../thorazine.jpg

[psikeyhackr]

Damn, it cures everything.

I've got to get me some of that.

psik

[shaman_]

Quack in complete disregard, laugh :-p. I actually agree with you on one point Stryder- an unlevel floor does not mean it had to be a floor that sloped towards the windows. However, I don't agree with you that the metal could have been aluminum for reasons that I and Headspin have mentioned previously

It probably wasn't pure aluminum.

and I also don't agree that just because the floor of impact may have become unlevel, it means that the rest of the towers should collapse at near free fall speeds an hour or 2 later.

Neither do NIST. The structural damage may have been a factor but that alone did not cause the collapse.

[shaman_]

For the whole floor or just the side of the impact? From what I've heard, the plane struck on the opposite side of where there molten metal was coming out.

When a plane travelling that fast smashes into a building it does not stop dead instantly. Much of the plane wreckage would have continued to move into the building.

I still don't believe that the fires could have produced the molten metal,

Argument from personal incredulity?

just not so sure the floor had to be tilted downwards on the side it came out. Ofcourse if it -was- then it might explain why it only came out on that side; apparently white smoke was seen coming out of the other 3 corners as well, which is indicative of a thermitic reaction.

You truthers are funny. Black smoke is indicative of an ‘oxygen starved fire’ and white smoke is indication of a thermite reaction. It would not matter what colour smoke there was you guys would come up with some fantasy about how it was a conspiracy.

Plenty of things can cause white smoke.

[leopold]

Plenty of things can cause white smoke.

a new pope?

[scott3x]

Quack in complete disregard, laugh :-p. I actually agree with you on one point Stryder- an unlevel floor does not mean it had to be a floor that sloped towards the windows. However, I don't agree with you that the metal could have been aluminum for reasons that I and Headspin have mentioned previously

It probably wasn't pure aluminum.

Agreed. I believe it was mainly iron; iron can definitely burn bright yellow in daylight conditions.

and I also don't agree that just because the floor of impact may have become unlevel, it means that the rest of the towers should collapse at near free fall speeds an hour or 2 later.

Neither do NIST. The structural damage may have been a factor but that alone did not cause the collapse.

We can agree that the structural damage alone from the planes didn't bring down the planes atleast. Even some who support the official theory believe that the damage the planes did to the building structure of the towers was minimal. However, NIST believes that the only other factor were the fires; this has been debunked time and again. If you want, I can post some of their flawed reasoning from one of Steven Jones' papers again. I'm thinking of making a page detailing NIST's immensely flawed conclusions so I can reference it every time someone brings up NIST's conclusions.

[leopold]

We can agree that the structural damage alone from the planes didn't bring down the planes atleast. Even some who support the official theory believe that the damage the planes did to the building structure of the towers was minimal.

those perimeter columns weren't exactly chumps you know.
those plane sliced right through them like they were made of hot butter.
to say those planes caused minimal damage is a stretch.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony: read my lips.

I have never said that I didn't believe it was melted steel. I said that I thought it was less likely than other metals.

I have said that i thought it was more likely to have been Other Metals.

You are seemingly eagerly trying to prove your own intellectual dishonesty by repeatedly misquoting me.

Are you non-fluent in English, and do not understand the difference between "believing" and "probably"?

I am tired of this. The count on you is two strikes and no balls. One more strike and you are out.

Un Hoo, read my lips. You will never get a response from me again. You are ridiculous and not worth my time. I don't need to be called intellectually dishonest by you or anyone else. You had no basis for that and you have said it several times. Jump in a lake pal. Who needs your shit?

[scott3x]

Uno Hoo, read my lips. You will never get a response from me again. You are ridiculous and not worth my time. I don't need to be called intellectually dishonest by you or anyone else. You had no basis for that and you have said it several times. Jump in a lake pal. Who needs your shit?

Perhaps I should have said something before. I just hoped that it would work itself out, but not talking to each other is not what I had in mind. Here's to hoping I can get some clarification from one or both of you:
Is this whole argument over what constituted the molten metal falling out of the 81st floor from the south tower? If so, perhaps this excerpt from 9/11 Research's 911 Mysteries AND Facts article:
The orange molten metal, and the rising plume of white smoke emanating from the same point, match thermite like a hand in a glove. NIST attempted to explain the orange spout as molten aluminum with mixed in hydrocarbons, a hypothesis conclusively disproved by Professor Steven Jones.