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. #961
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Only the interior core columns remain standing from about the 60th floor down. What happened to the much stronger outer core columns all the way down?
    I'm sorry, I'm not clear on what you are asking. Which "outer" columns are you referring to. From what I understand, the WTC was constructed with a "box within a box" design. The inner core of columns supported half the weight, and the entire outer "skin" of the building supported the rest. This allowed for no interior columns within all the rented space, "opening" it up and allowing for more rentable space. As far as I know, there were no outer columns. Please elaborate.

    http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/wtc...ctionLarge.jpg

  2. #962
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    i'm not gonna generate traffic for your website.
    post 'em here for all to see.
    Your post here speaks for itself. Heaven forbid you should generate a single hit on a site you don't like. You really seem to be a silly bastard. I am sure most would have simply looked at the paper and not even thought to mouth such a ninny thing as you said above. It is obvious that you worrry about the important things. I will have to seriously consider whether I am wasting time responding to you in the future.

    I have posted a link here several times to the paper, which contains all of the references needed for determining the safety factors of the columns in the towers. I'll post it again.

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...TwinTowers.pdf
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-07-09 at 10:02 PM.

  3. #963
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm not clear on what you are asking. Which "outer" columns are you referring to. From what I understand, the WTC was constructed with a "box within a box" design. The inner core of columns supported half the weight, and the entire outer "skin" of the building supported the rest. This allowed for no interior columns within all the rented space, "opening" it up and allowing for more rentable space. As far as I know, there were no outer columns. Please elaborate.

    http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/wtc...ctionLarge.jpg
    Thats the picture I have been looking for, it show the litesteel construction, and the beams only supported at each end.

  4. #964
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Why isn't there a loss of velocity during any of the alleged impacts? You keep avoiding this question.
    There was. But if you compare the inertia of 19 floors of mass in motion with the force of gravitational acceleration continually adding to it velocity (and both growing as it worked its way down) to the static inertia of a single floor ...its like dropping a bowling ball on a dixie cup.
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 01-07-09 at 09:48 PM.

  5. #965
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm not clear on what you are asking. Which "outer" columns are you referring to. From what I understand, the WTC was constructed with a "box within a box" design. The inner core of columns supported half the weight, and the entire outer "skin" of the building supported the rest. This allowed for no interior columns within all the rented space, "opening" it up and allowing for more rentable space. As far as I know, there were no outer columns. Please elaborate.
    You are thinking of the open space between the perimeter and the core, I am speaking of the outer columns of the central core itself.

    The central core consisted of six rows, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, and 1000. They each had eight columns with the exception of row 800 which had only seven columns. It wasn't a box, it was a matrix. The outer core columns were rows 500 and 1000 and the end columns of rows 600, 700, and 800.

    These outer core columns were extremely robust. You might want to look at their actual configuration for yourself here http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-07-09 at 09:40 PM.

  6. #966
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    There was. But if you compare the inertia of 19 floors of mass in motion with the force of gravitational acceleration continually adding to it velocity (and growing as it worked its way down) to the mass of a single floor in static inertia...its like dropping a bowling ball on a dixie cup.
    In order to get the load amplification that would have been needed, of approximately six times the static weight of the upper block, to overcome the factor of safety of the columns, a significant deceleration and momentary loss of some of the velocity would have had to occur. I have been involved in measurements of the velocity of the upper block of WTC 1 and there is no interruption.

    For a natural collapse to occur the overload could only come from an impulse and that entails deceleration. Just using the energy losses from the axial elastic and plastic deformation and buckling of the columns on the first floors on either side of the initial floor collision show the velocity should have been halved at that point if an impulse had indeed been the cause.

    It is not like dropping a bowling ball on a dixie cup. The dixie cup could not hold the static weight of four times the bowling ball.
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-07-09 at 09:54 PM.

  7. #967
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Sir..I believe you are the one believing in fairy tale physics...I couldn't find it in the mountain of posts...but you once posted a formula for kinetic energy where you subtracted velocities directly. I am by NO means a physics expert, but I do know enough to know you are wrong.

    Maybe I'll ask someone from the physics forum to answer this.
    I guess it means you should learn to read.

    As far as I recall I have NEVER posted the kinetic energy formula on this site. Since that formula squares the velocity you are correct in that it would make no sense to subtract velocities.

    What I have used here is the conservation of momentum equation though I only ADDED the velocities. There could be cases in the real world where objects were traveling in opposite directions and subtraction would make sense but I don't see any use for that in the WTC analysis.

    So why don't you VERIFY your facts before you make absurd accusations?

    More debating bullshit? Keeping the audience confused.

    psik

  8. #968
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Man..im sorry..im not following you.(edit: to tony)
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 01-07-09 at 09:56 PM.

  9. #969
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    I guess it means you should learn to read.

    As far as I recall I have NEVER posted the kinetic energy formula on this site. Since that formula squares the velocity you are correct in that it would make no sense to subtract velocities.

    What I have used here is the conservation of momentum equation though I only ADDED the velocities. There could be cases in the real world where objects were traveling in opposite directions and subtraction would make sense but I don't see any use for that in the WTC analysis.

    So why don't you VERIFY your facts before you make absurd accusations?

    More debating bullshit? Keeping the audience confused.

    psik
    I have been known to be wrong..maybe thats why i couldn't find it hey...i smoke weed.

    (edit) Confirmed..i was wrong..sorry dude....but your still an asshole.

    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?...44#post2090944
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 01-07-09 at 10:07 PM.

  10. #970
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Man..im sorry..im not following you.(edit: to tony)
    It sounds like you don't scientifically understand how an impact can cause an overload. It needs to have a deceleration greater than the rate of gravity. In this case the deceleration would have had to have been about six times greater than that of gravity. The acceleration due to gravity is 32.2 ft./sec/sec so the deceleration for an impact which would amplify the static weight of the upper block by six times would have to be 193.2 ft./sec/sec.

    There is no measurable deceleration in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1 which we measured for over 114 feet. This would be approximately nine floors. How did the upper block fall through those floors if it didn't impact them?

  11. #971
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm not clear on what you are asking. Which "outer" columns are you referring to. From what I understand, the WTC was constructed with a "box within a box" design. The inner core of columns supported half the weight, and the entire outer "skin" of the building supported the rest. This allowed for no interior columns within all the rented space, "opening" it up and allowing for more rentable space. As far as I know, there were no outer columns. Please elaborate.

    http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/wtc...ctionLarge.jpg
    yeah, that pretty much shows it all and the fact that the planes penetrated up to the center construction and leaked around 7,000 gallons of JET FUEL and fire straight down and around main supports lays to rest any doubt. now if the planes were traveling at half the speed then i would say there was a chance the towers would have made it.

    the way they collapsed should be enough though. controlled demolition theory is hardly even feasible and there is no real evidence for this anyway. pretty basic stuff here.

    Some obvious factors to consider:

    speed of aircraft
    location of impact
    thousands of gallons of burning fuel
    furnace effect
    weight of floors
    design of buildings where height is greatly disproportionate to width
    Last edited by John99; 01-08-09 at 12:18 AM.

  12. #972
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    there is not one single link that shows the source for your claim of built in safety factors for WTC 1 and 2.

    thanks for calling me a "silly bastard".

  13. #973
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    there is not one single link that shows the source for your claim of built in safety factors for WTC 1 and 2.

    thanks for calling me a "silly bastard".
    It seems you don't want to bother reading either. I said the links which will allow one to determine the safety factor. What are the links to the core column dimensions, the mass of the tower, and the enginerring news record all about?

    I determined the safety factors using that information. I will explain how to do it in more detail tonight when I get home from work if you genuinely want to know.

  14. #974
    all i was interested in was the source for your statement of the towers having a designed safety factor.

    if you are the source then i must ask what are your engineering credentials?

  15. #975
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I have been known to be wrong..maybe thats why i couldn't find it hey...i smoke weed.

    (edit) Confirmed..i was wrong..sorry dude....but your still an asshole.

    http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?...44#post2090944
    OK, I did type the kinetic energy equation.

    But there was nothing incorrect about my use of it.

    So if you check with psychologists 75% of people score below 111 on their IQ tests and 90% score below 121. Now do you think the people above 125 are more likely to design skyscrapers and jet aircraft and put men on the moon?

    So which people cannot figure out why an airliner could not possibly make a skyscraper collapse less than 2 hours after impact and do it in fewer than 18 seconds? I am simply trying to point out what data is necessary to solve the problem. It is the NIST that has not provided it.

    Physics is incapable of distinguishing or caring whether or not people are assholes. Solving physics problems involves a different component of anatomy.

    psik

  16. #976
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    all i was interested in was the source for your statement of the towers having a designed safety factor.

    if you are the source then i must ask what are your engineering credentials?
    I am a fifty-two year old mechanical engineer who works in the aerospace industry doing structural and thermal design, analysis, and test.

    If you read the first endnote I explain how the factors of safety can be determined. It is nothing more than actual stress/allowable stress and compressive stress is force/area. So you need to know the cross sections of the columns, their yield stress, and the weight they were supporting. An additional point is that each column on an individual floor, both core and perimeter columns, had the same unit stress to eliminate differential deflection between the core and perimeter. That point is discussed in the Engineering News Record article linked to in the paper.

  17. #977
    Which "outer" columns are you referring to. From what I understand, the WTC was constructed with a "box within a box" design. The inner core of columns supported half the weight, and the entire outer "skin" of the building supported the rest. This allowed for no interior columns within all the rented space, "opening" it up and allowing for more rentable space. As far as I know, there were no outer columns. Please elaborate.
    That "skin" you are referring to is composed of the outer columns that make up the outer box. They are connected horizontally by spandrels and the windows went between the columns.

    How long have you been paying attention to this subject?

    psik

  18. #978
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Why isn't there a loss of velocity during any of the alleged impacts? You keep avoiding this question.
    Because of momentum, the momentum is with the falling section aided by gravity acceleration, yes there is resistance, but at any given moment the moving mass is never stationary, to lose momentum.

    Th eresistance may finaal have built up to the point that the falling mass would have been brought to a stop, but there wasn't enough distance for that to take place, a 33,000 ton Train, at 19 mph takes a mile to stop, and that is with every brake on ever car, locked down, that is 8 brake sets per car, and 16 per Engine, and some where about 19 to 20 cars.

  19. #979
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    bowling balls falling on paper cups! trains braking! WTF! snakeoilers will have you for breakfast.

    what was left of the core was missing the outer core columns. it was not the complete core. the outer columns of the core were seperated from the inner core columns, this was covered in the other thread. look at the muhammad columbo diagrams here, half way down the page:
    http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

    what was left of the core was the red area.
    a complete core should have been the green area:

    http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebu...manzafar41.jpg

  20. #980
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    bowling balls falling on paper cups! trains braking! WTF! snakeoilers will have you for breakfast.

    what was left of the core was missing the outer core columns. it was not the complete core. the outer columns of the core were seperated from the inner core columns, this was covered in the other thread. look at the muhammad columbo diagrams here, half way down the page:
    http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

    what was left of the core was the red area.
    a complete core should have been the green area:

    http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebu...manzafar41.jpg
    the train analogy was to show that even in a controlled emergence stop, straight line, halting the momentum of weight take distance, a 33,000 tons train is approximately the weight of the small section of south WTC tower, and i used the speed posted of 19 mph.

    I then checked with a friend of mine a Licensed Operating Engineer, as to how long it would take him to bring his train to a full stop under those conditions, He informed me that that would take at least a mile on dry track.

    So even giving the resistance, of the stationary floor at the event front of the collapse, there wasn't enough distance for the resistance of the floors to stop the collapse.

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
  •