World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by someguy1, Nov 4, 2017.

  1. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,081
    It is a "conclusion" that skyscrapers must have more steel toward the bottom in order to support their own weight.

    Curiously we do not seem to have that data on any skyscrapers
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,443
    What an odd thing to say. A friend of mine is an architect; she works on tall steel buildings (although nothing as big as the WTC.) She would find your claim that "we don't have structural data on any skyscrapers" pretty funny.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,081
    Can engineering schools make physical and virtual models of large scale man made physical objects?

    The Collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Model


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Aeroelastic FSI Simulation


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse simulation


    3D Bridge Model Simulation


    Using ANSYS Fluid-Structure Interaction to understand the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcLg6C_WlHg
    Published on Nov 7, 2018 Famous in Australia

    Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse case study
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXJ6CVBt8xk

    CFD Simulation of Flutter (Tacoma Bridge)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzvFxF5LrRA

    Tacoma Bridge Model Test 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlW4bnxxMLY

    Aerostatic Flutter at Tacoma Narrows Bridge
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQwNMc19vFw

    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Model, Long Walkthrough
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6FKoPZURZo

    Models have been done for the Tacoma Narrows bridge for nearly 80 years. The first was done before the bridge even collapsed in less than 4 months. So what is the "obvious reason" that it hasn't been done for the north tower? Just pretend there is no problem and there must not be one.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,081
    Find a link on the distributions of steel and concrete on anything over 500 feet tall.

    Do architects do the engineering math on skyscrapers or do they just design how they look? Frank Lloyd Wright made buildings with leaky roofs.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/wha...-2016-8#his-roofs-werent-properly-supported-1

    A standard joke at the engineering school I attended was "architects take funny physics and funny math".

    My pledge father was an architect. LOL Do you believe job titles tells you how much people know?
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,355
    Well, the World Trade Center did have enough steel to support its own weight for years before 9/11. The conclusion we're talking about is your claim that aircraft impacts and fire could not have destroyed the buildings (message #312). I'm asking what calculations you have to support that conclusion.
     
  9. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    689
    I made a bridge out a toothpicks once.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,443
    You can if you like. I don't feel like playing those games with you.
    They do the math - and they calculate wind loads, creepage, yield strengths etc etc. And nowadays they simulate as well.
    ?? Right. And the local Souplantation leaks when it rains a lot. So?
    Nope. Their knowledge does.

    Nor does knowledge mean much without the training and experience to use it.
     

Share This Page