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
    The distribution of the fuel can be estimated. FEMA and NIST did this. Did you read the short article I linked to?

    To attribute damaged columns lower in the towers, from fuel air explosions just after the aircraft hit, with having anything to do with the collapses 56 minutes and 102 minutes later is probably a real stretch. Did the same thing happen in both towers?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634

    Most people intuitively know that an impact generates a high force. What they may not understand are the mechanics involved and that is that it requires a deceleration greater than that of gravity and proportional loss of velocity. If there is no deceleration and loss of velocity there is no amplified force.

    It isn't that these are complicated concepts, it is just that most people haven't had the need to fully understand them. I work in the Aerospace industry as a mechanical engineer doing structural design and have a need to understand dynamic loads.

    We all can learn.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Your comments here are ninny like. There is nothing biased about how the factors of safety were determined in that article. Why don't you calculate what they are yourself then? All of the information needed to do it is publicly available.

    It has been publicized that the perimeter columns had a factor of safety of 6.00 to 1 when considering gravity loads only. They were this high as the perimeter also needed to take high wind and seismic loads. They actually were ranged from 5.00 to 1 to 6.00 to 1 depending on the floor level.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    because i want to know where you got your data from
    then it shouldn't be too hard for you to tell me where the data came from.
     
  8. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634

    The sources for all of the data are referenced in the article it appears you still haven't looked at.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i'm not gonna generate traffic for your website.
    post 'em here for all to see.
     
  10. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    redundant BS

    OK, BR! I mentioned 400,000 tons in response to your whip cracking comment back on page 40. So how do you come up with 100,000 tons now? Are you paying attention or are you just talking for entertainment and don't give a damn about actually understanding and solving the problem?

    psik
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2009
  11. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Thank you for confirming your number of 400,000 tons as the weight of the Building, that means a increase in the amount of weight in the top 1/3 of the building, increasing the mass and energy of the top 1/3 of the building in the fall.
     
  12. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    The plane hit the south tower at the 81st floor so 29 stories were above the impact point. Since the building was 110 stories tall that is

    26% not 33%

    So if you are going to act like accurate information is important please do so with some degree of consistency.

    The buildings designers knew what the distribution of weight had to be so they put enough steel in to support it and of course that steel had to have mass therefore the conservation of momentum had to be a factor in any supposed collapse.

    Now unless you can explain what is wrong with this:

    http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1611342#p1611342

    your emphasizing how much weight was coming down just shows you don't understand enough to evaluate the relevant factors involved.

    psik
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2009
  13. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    So how do floor joists and their connectors, designed to hold the static load of one floor plus a safety margin manage to hold back the inertia of 19 floors in motion?
     
  14. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    I keep having to point out the difference between FLOORS and LEVELS. The connectors for the joists involve the floor slabs. You are talking about the old pancaking business which the NIST now says did not happen.

    The floor slabs in that top 19 level portion were still attached to the core. So the core in that top portion came down on top of the core in the lower portion. Explain what happened when the cores collided.

    psik
     
  15. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Apparently you haven't seen the video of the collapse.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It is clear that the core remains standing for a few seconds after the collapse begins...i'd post an image..but im posting from my mobile.
     
  16. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Your ingnoring weight/mass in motion show you know even less.

    The two mass's were not sticking together, and they were not inelastic, they were collapsing into one another, and shredding themselves all along the way, inelastic my ass, the only reason building that tall can be built with out spontaneous collapse is the fact that they are elastic, they have to move to wind load pressure, so they don't break off at some point, or reach harmonic structural frequency from wind gusts.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw&feature=related

    Newtons Laws cannot be violated, a mass in motion tends to stay in motion, and the mass in motion grew with every collapsed floor on the way down, and no single floor which is designed to hold the static load of one floor plus a safety margin can manage hold back the inertia load of 19 floors in motion.

    That is what is wrong with richarddawkins, only one floor at a time is in communication with the event front, and the shock wave is communicated past the single floor at the event front.

    There was nothing in the world, except the hand of God, that would have stopped those 19 floors in motion.
     
  17. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    The cores all of the way up to the 81st floor on the south tower and the 94th floor on the north tower? YEAH RIGHT!

    Tell the dumb debating bullshit to somebody else.

    And then what was left looked like it turned into dust in midair. Yeah I watched the videos. There are a lot of strange things that need explaining about them and airliners and fire don't come anywhere near covering them. So I'll just point out the peculiar things that normal physics can't even explain. I'll leave the Twilight Zone stuff to Judy Wood.

    psik
     
  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Your fairy tale physics is nonsense. A stationary mass has a motion of ZERO therefore it tends to stay that way just like you said. So when a moving mass hits a stationary mass of significant quantity both will be affected. You are making up crap to rationalize what you want to believe.

    psik
     
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    And your ignoring Newton's Law, and Gravity, and making up crap to rationalize what you want to believe.

    The falling tower sections were not stationary were they? reference the collapse video:

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/365696/wtc_2_core_took_30_secs_to_collapse/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

    WTC 1, the North Tower was hit between the 93 and 99 floor:

    That is 17 floors of mass and energy in motion as the collapse initiates.


    That is 33 floors in motion as the collapse initates.

    The collapsing floors collapsed around the core, and once in motion, Newtons Law second law is in effect.

    Fires
    The light construction and hollow nature of the structures allowed the jet fuel to penetrate far inside the towers, igniting many large fires simultaneously over a wide area of the impacted floors. The fuel from the planes burned at most for a few minutes, but the contents of the buildings burned over the next hour or hour and a half.[16] It has been suggested that the fires might not have been as centrally positioned, nor as intense, had traditionally heavy high-rise construction been standing in the way of the aircraft. Debris and fuel would likely have remained mostly outside the buildings or concentrated in more peripheral areas away from the building cores, which would then not have become unique failure points. In this scenario, the towers might have stood far longer, perhaps indefinitely.[17][18] The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above.[19]

    In the North Tower, jet fuel ran down at least two elevator shafts to the basement, and two or more elevators plummeted to the lower levels. Fire continued to burn in the shafts, which may have helped weaken the core.

    16.^ Field, Andy (2004). "A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse". Fire/Rescue News. Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

    17.^ Gross, John L., Therese P. McAllister (2004). "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers" (pdf). Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster NIST NCSTAR 1-6. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

    18.^ a b Wilkinson, Tim (2006). "World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects". Retrieved on 2006-07-28.

    19.^ National Construction Safety Team (September 2005). "Executive Summary" (PDF). Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. NIST. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf.
     
  20. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    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.
     
  21. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Holy crap, Buff...did you turn into Tiassa while I wasn't watching...look at all those references.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    just kidding bro.
     
  22. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634

    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?
     
  23. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Why isn't there a loss of velocity during any of the alleged impacts? You keep avoiding this question.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page