Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
9/11
- Thread starter davewhite04
- Start date
You actually expect me to believe that YOU read any? I told you that I downloaded the NCSTAR1 Report by the NIST in 2007.
I bet you never heard of this one:
Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse by Dr. Frank Greening
Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse by Dr. Frank Greening : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
From www.nistreview.org
archive.org
I find it particularly funny. The first stupid flaw is that he divides the mass of the building by 110. That is the number of stories above the ground. The towers had 6 basement levels so he should have divided by 116. I have not seen any report specifying the underground mass versus above.
His division averages the mass thereby claiming that every level had the same mass, in effect claiming the same mass of steel and concrete on each and every level. But because he divided by 110 instead of 116 his numbers are too high.
He then proceeds to do calculus based on his Wrong Numbers. He has too much weight toward the top of the building and not enough towards the bottom.
I have found NO Report even pointing out that the steel distribution and why I emphasize the distribution of wrought iron in the Eiffel Tower. But that TALL Structure does not have to support twice its own weight in concrete.
YOU are entirely free to inform me about any report explaining the steel distribution. I tested my paper loops for the weight they could support. And had to make it stronger toward the bottom. It was Necessary because of the nature of gravity. So any report NOT discussing the distribution of steel makes NO SENSE!
Your bringing up Trump is just YOU projecting stupidity for someone not doing as little research and THINKING as you have done.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
If you saw it a year ago why say there were no break down videos?
Where does the video go wrong?
I provided a copy of what I posted on the video.
It starts with @9:45
I don't know what YOU call a break down video. What does it take for you to figure out that the farther down a skyscraper you go the MORE WEIGHT has to be supported. That means more steel. But more steel means MORE WEIGHT to be supported by levels farther down.
It is like a feedback loop.
Why do you think that the Eiffel Tower is shaped like that? So any report or video that is not providing distribution of steel is NOT giving you a Break Down.
JEEZ!
.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
(From NIST FAQs)
There was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
There was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yeah but.......yeah but.......Steel! What about stuff about steel? You bloody truth suppressor!
They are talking about the floors outside of the core. It is the structural steel in The Core and on the perimeter that had to increase down the building.
"Bloody Truth Suppressor"
ROFL
And about floors pancaking the NIST wrote this:
FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation
Created: September 14, 2011 | Updated: September 10, 2021*
So you figure out what you think is their contradictory bullshit Genius. Because I do not think you understand a damn thing for yourself. You just want Authority to comfort your little mind.
.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
13:14 second tower the firemen/ experts had noticed the tilt from buckling steel trusses and they immediately moved people away.
Fireman "The North tower is going to go .."
A few seconds later
Reporter, "Why do we have to go?"
Fireman " The North tower is leaning."
Seconds later the tower goes.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
13:14 second tower the firemen/ experts had noticed the tilt from buckling steel trusses and they immediately moved people away.
"The second tower is going to go .."
The thing is that this has been explained to you.
The jets caused obvious structural damage.
The heat and fire compromised all of the steel it came into contact with.
The flame resistant coatings are not eternally flame resistant, they are a stall.
The supporting concrete began to split and spall on the affected floors.
After an hour at 1000C some of the steel could have been down to as low as 10% of it's strength.
Once enough steel had either failed and or buckled this compromised enough of the floors to collapse.
Damage the central column, trusses and outside structure cited by the firemen compromised support of the floors above the fire (remember the can demo?)
1000s of tonnes accelerating down at g x mass of all those floors slammed down on the unaffected floors immediately destroying those structures.
Think of a human pyramid, four levels or so and all is well. How about dropping level 2-4 on level 3? From a few feet? Is the stress the same?
No, it didn't.
I have a feeling you don't understand basic mechanical engineering.
Who believed that the South Tower was going to "GO" before it happened?
People have been repeating the same things again and Again. Lots of people have been BELIEVING it.
When did YOU first hear of Frank Greening?
.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I time stamped the video for you! Just watch it from 13 minutes.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
What's that got to with anything that I have said? Just address the points regarding the materials, FR, temperatures and physics that have been raised.
We are wasting time and I am getting bored. If you can't figure out that the trusses were not in the core and it was the core and perimeter columns that held up the building. Tough!
The trusses were not in the core. They were under the floors. The fire weakened them and the floors began to sag. Once that happened, the floors started to pull the curtain walls inwards. This greatly reduced their strength. The core, already damaged by the aircraft, could not make up for the loss of strength in the curtain walls and the tower collapsed.
You didn't know this?
Concrete also takes some of the load.
You still haven't told me what you think the problem with the steel is.
Why is it relevant? What is it relevant to?
He doesn't seem to know very much. Strange, given that it's been 24 years since all this happened, and innumerable reports and analyses are available to anybody who is interested.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
He ignored my point on this, the fact that concrete will fail at 1000C via spalling.
He also ignored my points on the fact that steel will lose around 50% of it's strength at 700C and as much as 90% at 1000C.
He did not address any of the technical parts actually, the stuff that actually mattered.
But hey, he totally focused in when I had first heard of Frank Greening, that totally was the heart of the discussion.