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 floor trusses are what you are referring to as lightweight. You need to give up the litesteel phrase as it apparently doesn't get across what you are trying to articulate.

    While it is true that trusses are lightweight compared to solid steel, it doesn't mean they are weak. These trusses were 29 inches deep and depth is strength when it comes to bending resistance. You might not realize that the knuckles of the trusses were protruded into the reinforced concrete floor making it a 32 inch deep composite beam. The reinforced concrete can also take tensile stresses. There were also 24 inch deep bridging trusses across the floor trusses every thirteen feet. The floors were actually X-Y supported composite beams not simple lightweight trusses. I am not sure if you know that the NIST did fire testing on this composite system at Underwriter's Laboratories under extreme fire and gravity loads and no failures were observed. If you want to see how these floors were put together you can look here http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/floors.html at excerpts from the FEMA report.

    NIST admits that the floors and their column connections could hold twelve times their static weight which means they had an 1100% safety factor, so I don't know where your brother-in law got his figures. See the NIST FAQ from Dec. 2007 about this here in question #1 http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

    If you read carefully you will see that they need a dynamic load and amplification to get things going. However, that requires deceleration and we do not see that in measurements of the fall of the upper blocks in the towers.

    The space between each floor truss spanning from perimeter to core was 80 inches and like I said there were bridging trusses every 13 feet of span and the reinforced concrete floor was made to act with the trusses so the liklihood of these things just falling down due to fire was remote. It did not happen in the 1975 North tower fire which lasted for three hours over six floors. There wasn't a sprinkler system in the building at the time and the composite floor systems weren't even damaged. Even if they did sag heavily in some places that should not have been a cause for sudden buckling of all of the perimeter columns on that face of the building.

    It is much more likely that the outer core columns were cut and that is what caused all of the perimeter columns on a face of the building to suddenly buckle, since they were being pulled inward by a still fully functional composite floor beam system, and this was very shortly followed by buckling of all of the perimeter columns on the other three faces. Do you know that John Skilling commented that you could remove all of the perimeter columns on one face of the buiding and the two adjacent corners and it could still take a 100 MPH wind? There is something seriously wrong with the official story we have been given.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    You are referring to the UL tests which was fireproofed, correct? If you are, then you must see why that is a stupid comment. If not then show me which tests you are referring to.


    Yes and the steel on both of those buildings was affected by the heat. The concrete was not. Which is why the Madrid Tower did not collapse.

    I have shown you evidence that simple fires can cause steel to weaken and collapse. Fires caused a bridge to collapse, the steel supports on the Madrid Tower collapsed the roof on the McCormick place collapsed and there are several other structures which collapsed due to fire. They did not encase the columns in concrete on the WTC because they thought the fireproofing would be enough. It wasn’t.

    If the first floor to get the impact was weakened it was is no condition to handle the 30 stories were coming down on top of it with momentum.




    The concrete did not collapse. The steel did.

    No scott I asked you numerous times to tell me what point you thought that article supported and you couldn’t. You just keep referring to it but it does not make it clear that the concrete was the weakness at all. We’ve been through the article several times. The concrete held firm while the steel collapsed. Do you understand that?




    But the fire in the McCormick place did and there was no jet fuel! There were buckling columns in WTC5 and there was no jet fuel to get that one going either. A steel toilet paper factory collapsed fuel only by the contents (toilet paper I guess). All the evidence points to it being possible for an office fire to reach the temperatures high enough to weaken steel. Your rebuttal to this is nothing more than claiming it can’t.


    Because you feel the need to fight every single point, even when you don’t really have any real refutations. Just concede that it is possible. As I have said a few times it doesn’t undo your whole conspiracy because the official story still relies on the fireproofing being removed.


    Like when you were convinced by the evidence of a missile hitting the pentagon?


    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtccoreconstruction

    Look at your source again. See the picture of the towers with the sun behind them which shows that there is no concrete core. Read the explanation for that picture. Does it make sense? It sounds like nonsense to me.



    But in the comment, “the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar.”, there is no distinction. That was what we were discussing.

    But spalling was not an issue for the Madrid tower as the concrete did not collapse. The steel did.

    Steel without fireproofing is more susceptible to fire than concrete. The two examples support that. You are trying to claim otherwise but the evidence is against you.


    You cannot be serious. Can you see how that statement might be another example of you playing dumb? I have shown you multiple examples of steel weakening due to fire.

    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst

    Neither did the concrete at the Madrid tower.


    No you are confused. You have taken the statement “the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete,” and invented a distinction between a frame and core. The only distinction to be made here is between the concrete core and the perimeter steel columns. Where there was concrete there was no collapse. The steel however collapsed.


    They had not been hit by planes, jet fuel … sigh… you should know the rest by now…


    The concrete stayed up. The steel collapsed scott.

    No but steel is down to approx 50% strength at around 600c. Kind of a problem don’t you think..

    .. and once again. The spalling was not a problem at the Madrid Tower as the concrete core remained.

    I’m sure NIST have made errors in their report somewhere. Only a truther desperate for a rare win would really get too excited about it.

    Hooray!! From now I should talk to you through them. I can spend pages and pages painstakingly showing you how you are wrong on a simple point but you will never concede even after you have long run out of responses. Yet one word from them and you will accept something.


    It seems that Robertson and Skilling completely contradict each other here.

    This was my response to Tony regarding this issue.

    “1. Where is the actual evidence of the analysis? I’m not suggesting that one wasn’t done but that it would need to be checked. 2. Why would Robertson contradict his boss? 3. The building did stand for an hour and tens of thousands of lives were saved. 4 (Most importantly) Structures have failed before when tested with conditions that they were supposedly designed for.”

    By ‘debunk’ you mean ignore it and pretend you never heard of it.

    There are many sources for the Cardington tests.
    http://www.vulcan-solutions.com/cardington.html#office

    “The demonstration test was designed to represent a typical office fire, and was less thoroughly instrumented than the others.

    The maximum temperatures recorded were 1213°C (atmosphere) and 1150°C (steel beams).”

    From your own site.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

    The fire was fuelled by office furniture and the test went for 74 minutes.


    What the bujesus are you talking about? They claimed that the jet fuel wouldn’t go over 800C and that is handily debunking a peer reviewed document? As I pointed out the jet fuel was only the source of ignition for the fire. The office fires could go over 800C. So what was debunked?

    Are you talking about the fire only lasting 20 minutes? The materials would take 20 minutes to burn and the fire would move to the adjacent material. The peak temperature of a particular area would be approximately 20 minutes.

    If you look at some of the temperatures from the office test,
    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm

    you will see that there are beams over 600C in 20 minutes. These beams were starting at 20C while the areas of the WTC would certainly not have.

    Utter cow manure. I am trying to get through to you that it didn’t happen that way. They are deceptively phrasing.



    Just saying it over and over doesn’t make it true Scott. You say it like a prayer designed to help you keep the faith.


    Their investigation was intended to find the cause of the collapse. That was the critical point that caused the catastrophe. They collected the evidence and produced their report. Some people, whether they are poorly informed, gullible or just want to believe in something don’t want to accept a mundane explanation. They need something more in their life and conspiracy theories fill that void.

    Perhaps they could. I am discussing this with you Scott because you make grand, confident, smug claims. When challenged you cannot actually support your claims though. So you resort to less than honest tactics and spamming links you don't understand, all the while playing nice and asking people not to use insults. This just encourages me to make sure I pin you down on your assertions.


    I’ll give you this link again.


    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering&theperformanceofst
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    where is the actual data that shows this in the cardington fire tests? have you verified these numbers are correct from the actual data? I have looked at the data and i cannot find them in the spreadsheets. can you point me to the correct spreadsheet?

    what is the context of those numbers within the data?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Not sure where shaman_ got his numbers, but 9/11 Research, in its critique of Appendix A of the FEMA WTC-Report: Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings, seems to bear him out in terms of the temperature the Cardington Fire tests reached. However, I think how it did so bears repeating:
    The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000°C.
     
  8. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    And one of the main reasons given for the survival is the use of composite beams, where the steel and reinforced concrete floor slabs are made to act as one. This had been underestimated before the Cardington tests were done.

    One should also know what the impetus for the Cardington tests was. There was a building under construction in Great Britain which did not have any fire protection applied to the steel yet and no sprinkler system installed at that point. A fire erupted and engulfed the structure yet there wasn't even a hint of collapse. This caused a curiousity and the Cardington tests were done to see what helped the structure evade collapse. The composite beams were given a majority of the credit.

    All three buildings which collapsed in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 used composite beam construction for their floors.
     
  9. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    here is the published data in the form of spreadsheets:
    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...trucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm
    where are those numbers - "1213°C (atmosphere) and 1150°C (steel beams)"
     
  10. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    We are talking about a totally destroyed building. STRAWMAN

    When you see a corpse with a large bullet wound to the head you can't figure out the probable cause of death can you?

    Like just declaring something to be a strawman makes it so. ROFL

    Do you have to be a doctor to know that people require oxygen or that blood flows through the body? Do you have to be a structural engineer to know that the designers of skyscrapers have to figure out how much steel to put on every level? So why don't we have a table with that info after SEVEN YEARS, strawman?

    DUH! We are only supposed to think what the EXPERTS tell us. So what if it is grade school physics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    psik
     
  11. john smith Tongue in cheek Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    833
    I watched a facinating programe on the bbc a few weeks ago. It was all to do with weather or not controlled explosions had brought down one or more of the buildings. Around 20 leading architectural engineers have formed a group, and they are setting out to prove that indeed there was more to that tragic day than meets the eye!
     
  12. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    John, you are probably referring to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. The website is at http://www.ae911truth.org.
     
    john smith likes this.
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    No idea. Apparently 9/11 Research seems mention them above 1000C as well, however, so I'm guessing they're in there somewhere. I certainly would be interested in knowing where shaman_ got those precise numbers though...
     
  14. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    That is a core column from lower down in the building, the first 10 stories or basement.

    Lon Waters has a site with cross sections of the core columns. If the exact dimensions are know then it should be possible to narrow down the possibilities.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/cc1001

    psik
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    no shit. SHERLOCK
     
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    the weakness lay in the joists.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Steven Jones debunks some official story claims, Round 2, Part 2

    This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s post 648 in this thread.

    I certainly think so, but I know that you require a little more persuasion on this

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . So I will continue...


    Can you provide me a link to those tests?


    What draws you to the conclusion that the explosives were invisible? They only had to be hidden. I'm also not sure if every level of the building had to have them. And no plane has ever knocked down any skyscraper before; the idea that the planners of the attack would think that it would is what strains credibility, in my view. In point of fact, I think that the planners of the attack knew very well that it wouldn't and only used it because they knew that -others-, such as yourself, would fall for the idea that that's what brought the towers down, thus allowing the true culprits to get away with it.

    The conspiracy theories certainly aren't watertight- much of the evidence was removed quite expeditiously and we've had to work with what's left. Nevertheless, I believe there's still quite a bit of evidence left and I also believe that me and others in this forum are working hard to show others the relevance of the remaining data.


    Yes, I know. Why do you suppose they didn't take many samples from the actual impact floors?


    It's an old article and Steven Jones was, like Kevin Ryan, probably relying on NIST's old report. What I think you should notice, however, is how little data there is of steel that has reached over those temperatures. Again, why do you suppose that is?


    An exploded gas main was probably their best shot at explaining how WTC 7 could have come down without the use of explosives charges. It was a weak argument, but what they have now is apparently even weaker; some tweaked out computer model, having destroyed all the WTC 7 steel expeditiously. As investigations go, as even Jonathan Barnett points out, it was fairly unconventional. Others have called the investigation a half-baked farce. But hey, it does look like a fairly well planned out cover up; can't have it all I suppose.


    You make it sound like I made the whole story up myself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As you've probably noticed, we now have a mechanical engineer debating here as well who seems to know a fair amount about structural engineering and who also believes that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. Perhaps you'll be more amenable to his points.


    Which post are you speaking of? We were discussing Steven Jones' paper.
     
  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    So explain what happened to the core and why we don't have a table from an official source specifying the tons of steel and concrete on every level.

    So where has anyone explained how I am incorrect in saying that distribution of mass alone affects the collapse time.

    Fall of Physics

    Therefore it is ridiculous to have argued about this for SEVEN YEARS without demanding distribution of mass information from the government source that took 3 years and $20,000,000 to give us 10,000 pages without specifying the quantity of concrete.

    psik
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Had to comment on your new icon, lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . John, seriously, I'm fairly curious as to why you liked guessing who whoamI? was but aren't interested in trying it out yourself.

    Anyway, I don't know much about the joists, I'll let someone else take that one.
     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    yeah, thanks scott.

    you really dont know about the joists? it is first conclusion i reached. never worked in construction have you?
     
  21. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634

    I assume you meant joints since joists are actually wood columns, like 2 x 4's in a wall. Are you talking about the columns or the joints between them and the horizontal beams and girders?

    If you meant joints, do you mean like the joints shown in a photo 3/4 of the way down this page?

    http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html

    In that photo you will notice that the joints between the horizontal beams and column appear fine.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  22. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Floor sections were tested by the NIST in furnaces with double the expected loads and didn't fail in two hours. The problem is they were tested with fireproofing but the NIST wants to claim the failure in the WTC occurred because the plane impact removed fireproofing.

    So the obvious and SCIENTIFIC thing to do it test a floor section without fireproofing.

    The NIST has not done this.

    Of course if they test a section without fireproofing and it DOES NOT FAIL then all of their bullshit goes out of the window. So they don't do the test and don't point out that that is the LOGICAL thing to do.

    So we end up keeping things sufficiently vague and confused so plenty of people can BELIEVE what they prefer and debates can go on ad infinitum leaving out necessary information.

    psik
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    NP

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Here's to hoping you'll reconsider one day about the WhoAmI? thing. It'd be nice to have someone in that position that I actually know; I'm still pretty new here, so the people I know best are generally in this forum.

    I googled it and apparently it's been brought up before, but I don't know the pro and con arguments for it, no.

    Why's that?

    No, but there are some here who definitely know a thing or 2 about building structures, and it looks like one of them has already taken on your point...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page