|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 22, 2007 18:55:18 GMT -4
I know it's a little late, I have a life off the boards and wasn't on the net this last weekend, but the Firefighters DID get an evacuation order of WTC 2. The trouble was that a lot of them didn't hear it bcause of the radios. This is a huge issue with the firefighters because they had demanded new radios after they failed in 1993, and the City of NY hadn't bought them any. The NYPD also issued an evac order and since their radios were able to receive they hear and got out, as a result very few cops died, while the firefighters who didn't hear the order did die. Most of those that did hear the order got out safely before the tower collapsed. To make things worse, Guiliani is apparently claiming that a lot of the fire fighters that died ignored the evac order, which is apparently really p.o.ing the members of the FDNY who had friends and brothers who died.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 22, 2007 19:05:11 GMT -4
You see we can't even get to the core columns because the NIST ignores Newton again. They ignore the fact that the load of the collapsing section would not be totally at work on the topmost undamaged floor but transmitted into the falling section as well. The tops of the towers were not made of depleted Uranium but the same stuff as the rest of the lower section. In any collision energy is divided between the two objects. In this situation the lower section should have been solidly connected to the planet and able to withstand greater force than the damaged more lightly built upper section. How did they get away with this? Easy, they ignored the Undamaged tower sections in their absolute whitewash of an investigation. Rubbish. Firstly there is no ignoring of the upper section over the lower section's behaviour because NIST was never asked to cover it, NIST doesn't cover the collapse, so making such claims is ludicous. There are a lot of papers that do cover the collapse, but NISTY only deals with the resluts up to the progresive collapse starting. Secondly, you are still looking at a column onto column collaspe. This didn't happen, the upper section of the tower fell onto the trusses of the first intact floor, not onto the colums. The trusses are not connected to the ground, they are set into seats on the external and internal columns. NIST (and FEMA) did find that below the impact point every single one of these seats was bend down indicating that the impact force was greater than the seat could handle. 3onthetree, just out of curiousity, what do you think would have happened if for the sake of argument, the columns had been cut on the impact floors by explosives. Do you think the towers would have collapsed with just those floors removed? In other words, if I took the top 30 floors of a WTC tower, tilted it by 5 degrees, rotated in by 15 degree and then dropped it one and a half floors (about 6 metres) onto the bottom of the tower, what in your opinion, would the result be?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 22, 2007 19:56:59 GMT -4
Say....if progressive collapse is impossible without explosives, then why is professional CD done on just a few lower floors? Wouldn't they be exactly the people who would know that an eight-story building can't possibly generate enough inertia to collapse even a single intact floor?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 23, 2007 0:06:45 GMT -4
Thanks, yes you truly are fortunate to have me pop in and put you back on the straight and narrow from time to time. I do have to confess though, the illusion worked on me as well and I remember seeing very soon after 911 news reports and a documentary on how the towers fell. Back then it was pancake theory. My suspicions weren't raised until Truthers like Michelle Malkin from Fox news started asking questions. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/220507michellemalkin.htm
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 23, 2007 1:10:07 GMT -4
In this situation the lower section should have been solidly connected to the planet and able to withstand greater force than the damaged more lightly built upper section. Why would being connected to the ground have made the lower sections more resistant? I haven't seen any truther "scientist" say that before. I think it has something to do with foundations, It's a lot of crap if you ask me. I don't see why they don't just have them suspended in mid air. Here is mission for you, all you need is five Volkswagen beetles which from what I understand is the current model in Brazil. For the foundation theory just park one beetle hard up against a really solid wall end on. Now jump in beetle two and drive straight into the parked bug as fast as you can go. Ouch eh. Now wipe the blood of your face and park Bug 3 twenty feet in front of the wall and put in neutral, again smash into it with a new bug because the first one is kaput. Not so bad that time was it? There might have been less resistance transmitted to your bug that time. It's only a theory. Now all you need to do to prove the OCT is park four bugs end on end hard against the wall and weld them together. Now drive as fast as you want in bug five straight into the column of parked bugs, according to the OCT you only need worry about the wall so just plow through them till you hit brick. As an added safety precaution you might want to have your wipers on to clear the exploding bug debris of your still intact windscreen so you can see the wall coming.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 23, 2007 1:32:55 GMT -4
You can't have it both ways, the truss seats can't be simultaneously weak enough to fail vertically yet have enough strength to have destroyed the columns horizontally.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 23, 2007 1:44:18 GMT -4
The falling section of tower would follow the path of least resistance. After impact both sections would be damaged with the top section decelerating as more resistance from the lower section was encountered. As the falling section is unbound it would most probably fall outside the remainder of the building as the deformation would make the top section unbalanced in relation to the standing section.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 23, 2007 2:57:36 GMT -4
Huh? An object's ability to withstand a tensile force has nothing to do with it being able to withstand a lateral force. place a matchstick with the end on your desk and place your finger on the other end so it stands up. How much force does it take to dislodge or break it? Now use another (if you broke it) and try holding its ends then pull it apart. Notice the difference?
The truss seats' ability to withstand the forces applied by the truss sagging and pulling in the column, has zero to do with its ability to withstanding a blow from columns and floors above crashing down onto it.
So you think that the trusses and truss seats that the top of the towers fell onto should have been stronger and more able to survive a massive lateral force they weren't designed to cope with, than the columns in the upper section would have been against the compressive forces that they were designed to cope with? Oh, and what exactly gives the top of the building the horizontal force that would made the parts fall off to the side?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 23, 2007 3:24:51 GMT -4
Before we go on misrepresenting the actual construction of the twin towers can you tell me how in your design the wind loading on the perimeter columns would have been transmitted to the core columns? If all there are as is suggested by proponents of the OCT are flimsy trusses.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 23, 2007 9:10:43 GMT -4
No one said the trusses are flimsy. What is said is that the trusses took a massive load at a point they weren't designed to.
That would be like you saying a diesel engine's block is claimed to be flimsy when someone explains why a thrown piston rod will punch through the block.
A funny thing I note about conspiracy theorists like yourself and Turbonium; you press your views, even when shown to be wrong. Not even the pros that take their idea to court can win. An example of this was with individuals that made ideas about TWA Flight 800.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 23, 2007 11:36:06 GMT -4
This thread over at UM is quite entertaining. The "controlled demolition" theorists of the WTC collapse attempt to debunk the "energy weapon" theory. Turbonium is getting the sort of replies that we normally get from him.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 23, 2007 14:19:10 GMT -4
I love it when CT's get fratricidal.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 23, 2007 15:44:12 GMT -4
No one said the trusses are flimsy. What is said is that the trusses took a massive load at a point they weren't designed to. That would be like you saying a diesel engine's block is claimed to be flimsy when someone explains why a thrown piston rod will punch through the block. A funny thing I note about conspiracy theorists like yourself and Turbonium; you press your views, even when shown to be wrong. Not even the pros that take their idea to court can win. An example of this was with individuals that made ideas about TWA Flight 800. The whole problem here is that the OCT tries to present the towers as a house of cards. The fact is that the perimiter columns were designed to take the full lateral loading, transmitting nothing laterally through to the core. No matter how much I chew the gravitational collapse I just can't swallow it simply because that isn't what we saw. It misses too much and there is too much work for the floor pans to do in destroying both the exterior load bearing walls as well as the entire core structure, symmetrically and in less time than it took to type the crap.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 23, 2007 16:21:33 GMT -4
Here's the mental image I work with. Get an old San Francisco Victorian -- three or four story wooden building. Now get it up on a crane and support it six stories in the air over ANOTHER Victorian. Let go. Does the one house fall twenty feet and then perch on the roof of the other? Or does the lower house collapse under the impact, then the upper house break into small pieces as it too plunges through space and falls onto the debris pile?
My money is on the latter. And that's exactly what went through my mind that morning when I saw the first of the towers begin its fall on nationwide television. Once that mass got moving, no building on Earth is tough enough to make it stop in mid-air.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 23, 2007 17:22:08 GMT -4
The fact is that the perimiter columns were designed to take the full lateral loading, transmitting nothing laterally through to the core.
No, they supported most of the of the lateral loading, not all of it, and the gravity loading was shared. That's the important bit, that and that without the trusses and with the debris of the top section coming down inside of them, the exterior columns were pushed outwards, peeling off the building. The trusses were never designed to take the load that hit them (it's no good posting that the coloumns could take 2000% live load since they didn't get hit by the columns above them) and once the trusses were collapsing, the exterior columns were pushed outwards, peeling like a banana ([homer]MMmmmmm, Banana and pancakes....[/homer]) By your own figures, the columns of the top section could take far more loading than the trusses of the bottom section. Which should have given way first? Again, this isn't saying the trusses wee flimsy, it's saying that the trusses were simply over powered by the astoundingly large load that come crashing down ontop of it. We're talking tens of thousands of tons, mostly steel and concrete smashing into the truss below. You really think that truss, no matter how sturdy for its everyday job was going to be able to handle that sort of loading? And once it failed, you now have to add a lot of its mass to the amount that about the crash into next truss, and so on.
|
|