9/11

psikeyhackr said:
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!
Click to expand...
You are not getting bored you are being humiliated by people who know a lot about physics, chemistry/materials and Engineering.

Like this guy who posted to you in 2014, "Grumpy" remember him? He also humiliated you with a few others but you refused to take any of his posts on board like this one.

"It is correct to say those buildings survived the impacts, the built in reserve strength allowed them to continue standing after that event. But there were many columns that were overloaded(as compared to as built)and near their yeild point or point of failure under load and the external frames were severed altogether in large areas on both buildings. If there had been smaller fires successfully fought those buildings could still be standing. But there were actually multi-floor, widespread, jetA fueled fire zones with temperatures well above 500C, at 500C structural steel loses half it's strength and starts yeilding, further overloading some of those columns, which finally fail. Gravity, Kenetic energy, weak floors and weak butt joints dictate the rest. As we saw happen, twice, on the same day."

Sound familiar?

Being wrong about something is fine, believing something because it sounds a bit gnarly and exciting makes you gullible and immature.
Still believing idiotic conspiracies after 24 years, even though they have been debunked directly to you, multiple times, makes you profoundly stupid.
 
psikeyhackr said:
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!
Click to expand...
From Paddaboy, "911 was an inside job," 2014, I think this sums it up.

"In actual fact the only farce that exists on this forum, is you and the other troubled alternative/conspiracy pushers that haunt us from time to time.

If you had "ANYTHING" concrete value, "ANYTHING" of substance, any "EVIDENCE" at all to show that things were not as was obvious to most sensible folk, you would not be here...you would not be sprouting garbage, in the fringe sections of any forum.
You would be out showing the world, what you have found, and what you have been smart enough to find that has escaped everyone else.

But you cant. Because these forums are the only outlet you have to preach your nonsensical crap.

Actually, you did not have to answer my questions. It is quite obvious that you are a conspiracy troll, going on other posts and threads covering this type of nonsense.

We can all be thankful though, that as time progresses, this type of crap, and the people sprouting conspiracy crap, will gradually die out and it will be taken to the grave when your time comes."
 
Pinball1970 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's no point even trying to talk to him about that kind of detail, unless and until he decides to tell us what, exactly, is his issue with the steel in the building.

It seems like he thinks, for some reason, that there wasn't enough steel in the buildings for them to support their own weight. And yet, they stayed up from the time of construction until 11 Sep 2001.

On the other hand, it's equally possible, from the little that he has said, that he believes that there was so much steel in the buildings that the damage and the fire couldn't possibly have caused the collapse. And yet, that's exactly what happened.

Last time we did this dance with psikeyhackr, he was too vague about his own beliefs and claims to make any discussion at all with him useful, ultimately. It looks like he hasn't improved his analytical skills or his ability to communicate his ideas to other people since the last time he was here. Seems like he's obsessed and stuck.
 
James R said:
It seems like he thinks, for some reason, that there wasn't enough steel in the buildings for them to support their own weight. And yet, they stayed up from the time of construction until 11 Sep 2001.
Click to expand...
I actually got that part out of him. He does NOT think there was a design flaw in the building.
Standing strong from 1973-2001 illustrates that so even he could not deny that.
It does beg the question, "Then Why bleat on about steel distribution then?"
He also did not answer the question, "Why did the towers fall down?"
 
Pinball1970 said:
He also did not answer the question, "Why did the towers fall down?"
Click to expand...
I think he's a conspiracy theorist who believes it was a controlled demolition and the government did it, or something. Maybe he's afraid that, if he tells us that's what he believes, we might laugh at him.

It makes for a very unproductive discussion if getting out what a participant thinks is like trying to get blood from a stone.

Probably, he'll still be vague about what he thinks the problem with the steel is, 10 years from now.
 
Pinball1970 said:
It does beg the question, "Then Why bleat on about steel distribution then?"
Click to expand...
I think he believes that there MUST have been less steel in the upper sections than in the lower sections of the core because the lower sections had to carry more weight. He misses the point that if you have a homogenous core, you are fine; it just means the upper sections are overbuilt. Which, in many cases, they are; it's just plain easier to build a homogenous core all the way up than make transitions between loadbearing members halfway up.

And since he has an unwavering belief in his silly theory, that means everyone else must be lying.
 
James R said:
You don't think that concrete can support loads?
Click to expand...
Each tower was 500,000 tons of which 100,000 tons was steel. The NIST famously says the building was 95% air. The purpose of a building is to create usable space.

The distribution of steel down the building was what? Is that concept too difficult for you to grasp?
typical concrete strengths:
2,000–3,000 psi: Minimum for simple surfaces like sidewalks and patios
7,500–10,000 psi: High-rise columns and other high-load structures

Steel Strength
Structural Steel: Commonly used for buildings, can have an ultimate tensile strength of over 70,000 psi (450 MPa), as seen in grades like A572-50.
Click to expand...
 
psikeyhackr said:
The distribution of steel down the building was what?
Click to expand...
Enough to keep the structure up from 1973-2001 and withstand the impact of a jet flying into it at 500mph.
It also was strong enough to stand despite a 1000C degree fire for an hour or so.
Unfortunately not much longer than that as steel and concrete loses significant strength when subjected to those kind of temperatures.

Something that was pointed out to you in 2009, 2014, 2020 and from me and others in this thread multiple times.

You are either delusional, stupid or both.
 
James R said:
I think he's a conspiracy theorist who believes it was a controlled demolition and the government did it, or something. Maybe he's afraid that, if he tells us that's what he believes, we might laugh at him.

It makes for a very unproductive discussion if getting out what a participant thinks is like trying to get blood from a stone.

Probably, he'll still be vague about what he thinks the problem with the steel is, 10 years from now.
Click to expand...
To BELIEVE means to accept something as True, or False, without sufficient data.

BELIEF is Stupid by Definition!

The Twin Towers did hold themselves up for a couple of decades. The designers had to figure out how to distribute the steel to accomplish that. A 1959 IBM 1620 C.A.D.E.T. computer was used in the design. So if the portion of the North Tower above the impact zone fell onto the bottom and progressively destroyed it then it is a matter of mass hitting mass.

That paper by Frank Greening acknowledged the issue but his assumptions about the masses are a joke.
.
 
billvon said:
Which they did. And a vertically homogenous distribution would have worked just fine
Click to expand...

From what I recall of an SE class I took (studied architecture for a while, before changing majors), you have the old rule of thumb of 10 mm of thickness added to a concrete wall as you go down a storey. That thumb was before the curtain walls of post-50s, on the modern glass and steel skyscraper. In those, you add some dimensions to the steel columns as you go down, but the walls don't matter. ln my own amateur architecture designs, I've encountered building codes that have a similar thing - like in stick-built houses you might get away with 24" inch centers on a second floor wall but be required to go to 16" centers on the first floor. Or use 2x6s on the bottom floor, if you want to keep the 24" spacing. (Insulation works better with wider cavities - fewer heat bridges) "Vertically homogeneous" I am not familiar with in this context, but would be interested to learn more.
 
psikeyhackr said:
You just Believe stupid bullshit!
Click to expand...
That word again. I believe the WTC collapsed because I watched it happen, not all live but I caught the numerous re-runs.
We all believe things based on our experience, that was my experience.
Thinking they collapsed because it was part of god's plan is faith.
Thinking they collapsed because of controlled explosions in simply unfounded.
I mentioned this early doors, fire can bring down a structure, I provided examples.
Fire can reduce the strength of building materials given enough time provided the heat is intense enough.
We provided examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top