View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
  • Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    22 43.14%
  • Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 0%
  • Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    10 19.61%
  • Allah!

    2 3.92%
  • People keep flogging a dead horse!

    17 33.33%

Thread: WTC Collapses

  1. #2081
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    true, but the sheathing would prevent removal of the bolt.
    The bolts joined the perimeter columns end-on-end, you see the double access holes? the bolts went vertically from access hole to access hole running vertically parallel with the external aluminium covers. so i don't follow what you are saying. The external aluminum cover would not obstruct access to the bolts.

    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    This is a great photograph headspin for it shows just how meager the connections were between the floor and the perimeter columns.

    http://images.quickblogcast.com/8119...erior_wall.jpg
    . Each truss connection was welded and bolted.
    . Each trussed floor (quick estimate) had 240 connections to the perimeter and 180 connections to the inner core.
    . Each trussed floor spanned only 28% of the floor space between the north face and the core and between the south face and the core.
    . Each trussed floor spanned only 16% of the floor space between the east face and the core and btween the west face and the core.
    . Some floors had full structural beams rather than trusses.
    . The core floor space was a third of the total floor space.
    . The core had welded and bolted structural beams to support the floor space within the core structure.
    . The trussed floors did not support the building, the core structure with columns and beams, and the perimeter beams supported the building.

    So whilst you may focus on a single connection and suggest "meager", there are other factors to consider, not least is the fact that were 420 of them per trussed floor.

    The official story is that the "meager" connections were sufficient to "pull in" the perimeter columns with all the weight they had above them. Not so meager methinks.
    Last edited by Headspin; 02-26-09 at 07:31 AM.

  2. #2082
    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo View Post
    This Tony flap is beyond absurdity. I genuinely do not care if somebody misunderstands me to the point of responding to me inanely.
    Uno Hoo, at present, I think that even the misunderstanding may have been yours. I asked you to provide an example of where you felt you were misquoted; you still haven't done so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
    Such has happened before and predictably will happen again, and I truly do not care.
    The fact that leopold also feels there was misunderstanding (not sure if he's the one who misuderstood or you, or if it was both) points to the fact that it's not isolated to Tony...


    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
    I had understood several Tony posts directed to me as being misquotes of my prior posts.
    Or so you say. You haven't quoted any of them, however, and I'm not willing to simply go on your word.


    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
    It is admittedly possible that both Tony and myself were somehow misunderstanding each other's statements.
    Well that's definitely progress anyway.


    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
    If Tony sincerely says that he was not actually trying to misquote me in sport, then I am willing to bury the hatchet and again try to conduct respectful and civil dialog between us. Does Tony say this?
    I think that Tony feels that the only person who misunderstood was you. I'm sorry, but as you have not demonstrated any evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
    But is essentially of no importance to me, in my new found interest into the WTC affair, whether any other poster in this forum offends me, or, whether I offend any other poster in this forum. I am not posting here to try to win Miss Congeniality award. Understand?
    I'm not here to win the Miss Congeniality award either; and I think you've done some very good work concerning some 9/11 issues, which I see Headspin is following up on now; however, I wouldn't want to be seen as a poster who aggrivates others due to my misunderstandings. I'm glad that you now admit that perhaps Tony simply misquoted you by mistake; however, If you still feel that Tony misquoted you, I think you should provide atleast one quote where you feel this was the case; to not do so, in my view, could lead one to believe that you have a hard time admitting when you're mistaken.

  3. #2083
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    So whilst you may focus on a single connection and suggest "meager", there are other factors to consider, not least is the fact that were 420 of them per trussed floor.

    The official story is that the "meager" connections were sufficient to "pull in" the perimeter columns with all the weight they had above them. Not so meager methinks.
    .
    That is the curious and annoying thing about these "debates". People think they can analyze and explain things on the basis of emotional reactions to words. And they can communicate their emotional perspective on the subject with those words.

    You know the HUGE airplane brought the building down.

    I guess TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE don't have enough emotional impact. LOL

    psik

  4. #2084
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    That is the curious and annoying thing about these "debates". People think they can analyze and explain things on the basis of emotional reactions to words. And they can communicate their emotional perspective on the subject with those words.

    You know the HUGE airplane brought the building down.

    I guess TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE don't have enough emotional impact. LOL

    psik
    yes! yes!
    you express it very well.

    The floors were LIGHTWEIGHT, nearly LIKE TINFOIL actually, so it is no surprise the RAGING INFERNO SOFTENED them to the point of collapse.

    The MASSIVE weight of the floors fell down breaking the MEAGER connections simultaneously and instantly.

    The OVERWHELMING pull of the floors on the MEAGER connections, buckled and pulled in the FLIMSY connections of the perimeter columns.

    The floors were light and heavy at the same time .
    They had overwhelming strength, but very soft and weak too.

    ah yes - magical floors, that explains it.

    never mind - if we all talk about the floors, it means we won't be talking about the MASSIVE core structure!

  5. #2085
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    The bolts joined the perimeter columns end-on-end, you see the double access holes? the bolts went vertically from access hole to access hole running vertically parallel with the external aluminium covers. so i don't follow what you are saying. The external aluminum cover would not obstruct access to the bolts.
    you can see through the bolt holes which suggest that at least some, if not the majority, were horizontal although some would need to bolt the ends vertically
    The official story is that the "meager" connections were sufficient to "pull in" the perimeter columns with all the weight they had above them. Not so meager methinks.
    the perimeter columns most certainly folded inwards immediately prior to collapse, whether this was cause by the floors pulling on them or the lack of support i cannot say.
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The fact that leopold also feels there was misunderstanding (not sure if he's the one who misuderstood or you, or if it was both) points to the fact that it's not isolated to Tony...
    uno hoo said i misquoted her/him.
    like i said, i never misquoted uno hoo, misunderstood maybe.

  6. #2086
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    you can see through the bolt holes which suggest that at least some, if not the majority, were horizontal although some would need to bolt the ends vertically
    Could you describe where you can "see through the bolt holes" in the picture? or are you talking about bolt holes in another picture not posted here?

    I can tell you what i see in the picture posted here. I can see access holes on the inner face at both ends of the perimeter columns. These access holes were only on the inner face of the columns, so did not "go through" the end of the columns horizontally. If you look at the three storey piece in the centre of the picture, you can see three access holes at the top and three access holes at the bottom where the column ends sit on the columns below. I do not see any "bolt holes" in the picture, but i know the bolts join the column ends vertically.

    http://images.quickblogcast.com/8119...erior_wall.jpg
    the perimeter columns most certainly folded inwards immediately prior to collapse, whether this was cause by the floors pulling on them or the lack of support i cannot say.
    so you don't agree with NIST then? (because they say the floor connections pulled in the perimeter columns)
    Last edited by Headspin; 02-26-09 at 11:28 AM.

  7. #2087
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    yes! yes!
    you express it very well.

    The floors were LIGHTWEIGHT, nearly LIKE TINFOIL actually, so it is no surprise the RAGING INFERNO SOFTENED them to the point of collapse.

    never mind - if we all talk about the floors, it means we won't be talking about the MASSIVE core structure!
    .
    What? You mean this delusion.

    http://www.csi911.info/WTC_Core.jpg

    But how did they come up with 47? Why wasn't it 46 or 48. Is that a prime number?

    That's it! The buildings came down because they had a prime number of core columns.

    That's unholistic.

    psik

  8. #2088
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    Could you describe where you can "see through the bolt holes" in the picture? or are you talking about bolt holes in another picture not posted here?
    here: (click on the picture for a better view)
    http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09094/27_ex...131.jpg.xs.jpg



    so you don't agree with NIST then? (because they say the floor connections pulled in the perimeter columns)
    i cannot say one way or another.
    all i know is what i saw in the videos of the collapse.

  9. #2089
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    here: (click on the picture for a better view)
    http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09094/27_ex...131.jpg.xs.jpg




    i cannot say one way or another.
    all i know is what i saw in the videos of the collapse.
    The perimeter columns were made in three story sections three columns wide and each column was vertically bolted to the one below it through their 1.375 inch thick base plates with four large ASTM A325 bolts. The spandrel plates were welded to the columns of the particular three column section they belonged to and then bolted to the spandrels of their adjacent three column perimeter sections.

    The floor trusses were bolted, with two 5/8" diameter ASTM A325 bolts, to the bracket which was welded to the spandrel. These bolts have a 92 ksi tensile yield strength and the shear yield is approximately .577 x the tensile yield, so it would be 53 ksi. The shear would have been through the full 5/8" diameter of .307 sq. inches each for a total of .614 sq. inches. The load to shear the bolts would have been .614 sq. inches x 53 ksi = 32,542 lbs. That would also be if the load was completely normal or sideways to the bolts. However, the trusses were also welded to the spandrel brackets as Headspin pointed out. We also don't know the tensile strength of the visco-elastic damper mechanism at the bottom of the trusses which would add strength to the truss to wall connection.

    Headspin has also pointed out there were many of these connections on each floor. The trusses were actually double trusses and thus there would have been four bolts there. The 60 foot floor perimeter wall had approximately 31 double trusses and thus 31 x 4 = 124 bolts. If each bolt could take a minimum of 16,271 lbs. in shear that would be 2,017,604 lbs for just the bolts on that wall, not counting the welds. As each full 207 foot x 207 foot floor of the towers weighed approximately 3,000,000 lbs. with dead and live loads, the 60 foot x 207 foot floor area immediately adjacent to the wall would have been about 28% of that and approximately 840,000 lbs. Not nearly the 2 million lbs. which just the truss bolts of one wall could take in shear.

    The perimeter columns were 14 inch box beams and had a wall thickness of .289" at the 98th floor. They had a 55 to 70 ksi yield strength at the 98th floor. Doing the calculations for moment of inertia and bending over a two story height (since the trusses would be pulling on the spandrels and affecting the columns of two stories) shows they could be yielded and bowed inward with a centered side load of approximately 60,000 lbs.

    So the perimeter columns could be pulled inward before the bolts and welds would fail. However, the above shows that they were much more likely to have been pulled inwardly by core columns being cut and pulling on the columns through the floor trusses, than through sagging floor trusses.
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 02-26-09 at 08:34 PM.

  10. #2090
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    here: (click on the picture for a better view)
    http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09094/27_ex...131.jpg.xs.jpg




    i cannot say one way or another.
    all i know is what i saw in the videos of the collapse.
    Leopold, it does not matter what rational point you bring up to the cult. The fact is that explosives to make the buildings come down in a domino fashion or contiguous as we seen happened is absolutely and without question impossible to achieve. That is a fact and that alone makes the conspiracy scenario impossible.

  11. #2091
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Leopold, it does not matter what rational point you bring up to the cult. The fact is that explosives to make the buildings come down in a domino fashion or contiguous as we seen happened is absolutely and without question impossible to achieve. That is a fact and that alone makes the conspiracy scenario impossible.
    what did we seen happened in the moscow apartment blocks in 1999?

  12. #2092
    i dont know what we did seen in the apartment blocks in moscow.

  13. #2093
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    i dont know what we did seen in the apartment blocks in moscow.
    we did seen noffin.
    but they blew up anyway.

  14. #2094
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    The perimeter columns were made in three story sections three columns wide and each column was vertically bolted to the one below it through their 1.375 inch thick base plates with four large ASTM A325 bolts. The spandrel plates were welded to the columns of the particular three column section they belonged to and then bolted to the spandrels of their adjacent three column perimeter sections.
    ah yes, the infamous butt joints i mentioned some time back but no one seemed to believe me.
    tell me tony, on the scale of strength how strong is a butt joint in relation to other types of joints?

  15. #2095
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    ah yes, the infamous butt joints i mentioned some time back but no one seemed to believe me.
    tell me tony, on the scale of strength how strong is a butt joint in relation to other types of joints?
    .
    Notice that the perimeter wall panels were staggered and on any given level only 1/3rd of them had butt joints.

    The rest were solid steel.

    psik

  16. #2096
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    ah yes, the infamous butt joints i mentioned some time back but no one seemed to believe me.
    tell me tony, on the scale of strength how strong is a butt joint in relation to other types of joints?
    Leopold it doesn't appear that the failures occurred at the butt joints in general. As psikeyhackr mentions, the perimeter sections were staggered to avoid a fulcrum. Here is a very interesting and short article with photographic proof that the failures weren't a function of the butt joints. So the strength of the butt joint is moot. However, I will do a calculation and post it here later. The article is on the right of the page.

    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=146:146
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 02-27-09 at 04:45 AM.

  17. #2097
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Leopold it doesn't appear that the failures occurred at the butt joints in general. As psikeyhackr mentions, the perimeter sections were staggered to avoid a fulcrum.
    .
    It is just more psychological bullshit, Tony. People have decided what they prefer to believe and then grasp at straws to rationalize it and ignore the obvious flaws in the argument. But people on the Truther side do a lot of the same silly BS.

    psik
    Last edited by psikeyhackr; 02-27-09 at 10:53 AM.

  18. #2098
    Registered Member
    Posts
    32
    There is too much stuff to rip on the 9/11 "truthers", but I will name just a few.

    First, the buildings did not free fall at 9 seconds like what happens controlled sky scrappers. one fell at 13 seconds and the other one fell at 17 seconds.

    Also, fire not melting steel is an argument made by 'truthers". In reality, it only weakened the structure. But hey, they know everything right? I mean, how often do two huge plane like bullets hit tall sky scrappers every day?

    I also love the whole "Rockets hit the WTC's before the plane hit." I guess they never heard of a thing called kinetic energy. LOOK IT UP TRUTHERS!

    And my absolute fav is the WTC 7 conspiracy. No plane hit that one, right kids?

    What most "truthers" never show you is how badly gutted the south side of WTC 7 was. There are videos that can be found on youtube that even has people claiming that it's gonna fall. Some of those men being FIREFIGHTERS!

    Oh, and for the guy who brings up the "pull it" comment. That's a firefighter term, not a controlled demolition one.

  19. #2099
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Leopold it doesn't appear that the failures occurred at the butt joints in general. As psikeyhackr mentions, the perimeter sections were staggered to avoid a fulcrum. Here is a very interesting and short article with photographic proof that the failures weren't a function of the butt joints. So the strength of the butt joint is moot. However, I will do a calculation and post it here later. The article is on the right of the page.

    http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=146:146
    the strength of butt joints in structural members of high rise buildings is moot???
    i'm absolutely astounded that they were used at all.
    the presence of these joints is POSITIVE PROOF that these buildings were not as strong as they could (and should) have been.
    they also reinforce comments made by the buildings designer.

  20. #2100
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    999
    Quote Originally Posted by EdgeHead View Post
    There is too much stuff to rip on the 9/11 "truthers", but I will name just a few.

    First, the buildings did not free fall at 9 seconds like what happens controlled sky scrappers. one fell at 13 seconds and the other one fell at 17 seconds.
    .
    Are you saying the NIST is composed of Trutheres? They say 9 and 11 seconds.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

    But this is why I say less than 18 seconds. Somebody always wants to argue about the collapse time like it is all that important enough to be worth disputing.

    What most "truthers" never show you is how badly gutted the south side of WTC 7 was.
    .
    So why don't you provide the links? The south side is the narrower side that was facing toward the WTC towers. That is the side we see all of the time.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...ma_report.html

    Back to the drawing board kiddo.

    psik
    Last edited by psikeyhackr; 02-27-09 at 03:12 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. By Stryder in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-21-09, 01:23 AM
    Replies: 2517
  2. By reasonmclucus in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-07-07, 12:14 AM
    Replies: 5
  3. By duendy in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 04-19-06, 08:20 AM
    Replies: 381
  4. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 05:11 AM
    Replies: 10
  5. By Raven in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-05-06, 07:27 AM
    Replies: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •