|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 24, 2007 1:52:39 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. Dude! With a visualization like that I can see why you believe the OCT collapse model. What you need to do is take your suspended San Francisco Victorian and spin it around so at least you don't have bearer and joists versus roof trusses and stuff meant to keep the sun out of your eyes. I think twelve feet would be high enough, you're getting a bit of a run up from sixty. The release mechanism would have to also be based on heat, you should suspend it using 3/8 HTS plates welded and bolted together using 5/8 HTS bolts. All you need to do then is light fires under the plates under load using Kerosene and office furniture. I recommend using any old rusty 44 gallon drum with the end cut off to contain your fire as they seem to handle that sort of open air fire easily.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 24, 2007 2:10:40 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 columns 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. I think you're missing my point about the perimeter structure, the designers are saying that the perimeter column arrangement was so strong and rigid that it transferred no lateral loading to the core, The live loading of 2000% is important when you consider the hat truss theory of the NIST, remember they say the core structure failed as a result of being weakened by fire and overloaded with weight transferred from the perimeter via the hat truss or outrigger trusses. They also forget to mention the mechanical floors 41,42 75 and 76 which were built using structural steel frame slabs. Other than a few mechanical floors is a NISTian term for don't wanna know about em.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 24, 2007 3:42:26 GMT -4
OK then just point out the highlights. I believe the firefighters who died in the WTC collapses saw no signs of an imminent global collapse, because they were CD'ed. You assume that is my "logic" to decide whether or not any building fire is a CD - on the sole basis of whether or not a firefighter died in it without any signs of danger!! That their fallen comrades would have ditched the building at the 1st sign of real danger. I didn't say that.. I said that they wouldn't have gone into the buildings if they had been signs of imminent global collapse. They didn't see any such signs, so they all went in. I also said that they did not report any signs of imminent global collapse when they were in the buildings. As far as we can determine, they saw no such signs, so they stayed in the buildings, fighting the fires. Firefighters face "real danger" all the time. It comes with the job. They don't "ditch the building" at the first sign of it. But if they see signs that the whole building is about to come down on them, the order will go out for them to evacuate. Funny truthers love to go on about the towers’ load redistribution capacities, And so does everybody else, such as FEMA and NIST. Are you suggesting it's incorrect? I assume you don't. thus it is not unreasonable to assume the buildings would have looked more or less stable and symmetrical as structural elements failed locally till a “hair that broke the camel’s back” point was reached. Are you serious? That's probably the silliest "collapse theory" I've ever heard! "The Hair That Broke The Camel's Back" - by lenbrazil
The towers were designed to redistribute loads (if structural damage occurred) better than virtually any other highrise at the time. Sadly, however, nobody ever realized that they were, in fact, designed too efficiently.
After the planes hit the towers, the loads were redistributed to every critical support structure of the building. That set the structure on the brink of total collapse. All it would take from there was the slightest failure (the “hair that broke the camel’s back”) - maybe a broken truss connector or something - and the whole thing would come down like a house of cards. .“Millions”, “not one”, “never” - I suppose you have some citations for those claims? A couple of Brazilian, Indian, Turkish and American buildings have collapsed pretty much without warning due to age and/or poor construction. On 9/11, fires and damage supposedly caused three buildings to go... from an intact, fully stable structural condition, Immediately into total, symmetrical collapse to the ground, within mere seconds. Your examples are invalid. I'm asking for any previous cases which fit the description above. If there were 3 of them on just one day, then it should be easy for you to find at least one other previous case in the past 100 years or so...... They weren’t built to do so but they did. The terminal at DeGaulle (sp?) airport seemingly collapsed without warning and there was no apparent cause (fire, impact etc) the buildings in Poland and Germany that collapsed a few years ago due to excess snow don’t seem to have give much warning either. Those are not even close comparisons, as I noted above.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 24, 2007 14:47:56 GMT -4
Firefighters face "real danger" all the time. It comes with the job. They don't "ditch the building" at the first sign of it. But if they see signs that the whole building is about to come down on them, the order will go out for them to evacuate. Indeed, it was. However, despite failings known to have been a problem when the basement was bombed, the equipment had never been properly upgraded, so many firefighters never received the order. That's not speculation; that's documented. If you're going to get angry, get angry over that. It has the advantage of being a real problem, whereas your fantasy of a perfect controlled demolition does not.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 24, 2007 14:57:09 GMT -4
If you want to simplify it, that's how would go.
Similarly, I can say this: On April 14, a mass of ice supposedly caused a fully intact ocean liner to sink and split in two in a matter of minutes.
Closer to the topic, how about this: On January 9th, a structurally sound ship was supposedly gutted by a fire and toppled.
Do you get the gist?
Omitting details, and provided a simplified statement, with no reference to a time frame for the events, nor details of the events, leaves questions. When the specifics of a disaster, be it the WTCs, the Titanic, or the Queen Elizabeth, are known, the cause is clearer.
Too bad not all can see this.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 24, 2007 15:51:34 GMT -4
I believe the firefighters who died in the WTC collapses saw no signs of an imminent global collapse, because they were CD'ed. On the other hand, conspiracists argue that the WTC7 collapse was a CD because they pulled the firemen out. Perhaps we should start a thread for 9/11 contradictions, on the lines of the existing Apollo hoax one.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 24, 2007 18:11:50 GMT -4
Although admittedly I haven't checked, wasn't the Hat Truss theory from an initial report and after subsequent investigation considered to be invalid and so was not in the final report? My understanding of the final conclusions are that immediately after the impact, the damaged and broken columns transferred their load to their neighbours, then as the floor trusses sagged, the exterior columns were bowed inward until they were unable to support the load on them. Then as they failed they transferred the load to their neighbours, which were unable to support their increased load and failed, resulting in the top twisting and dropping. The interior columns failed because the core was unable to support itself and the top of the building without the exterior columns help. Being able to handle winds of up to 200x those it would normally have to deal with doesn't factor in at all because it wasn't wind it was dealing with. It was the static or dead loading of the building above it. When the columns were damaged they already lost between 15 and 30% of their load bearing capacity, then as the columns bowed, the amount of dead load they could support lessened further, until the load was more then they could withstand. You also need to understand that the lateral loading of the wind, which is spread out evenly across the columns, is totally different to the point loading experienced by the trusses dragging the columns inwards, and that the bowing of the columns is not speculated, but was seen and documented in both towers, and were seen to be the collapse imitation points. Explain how explosives can possibly cause the exterior columns to bow inwards over a long time?
Firstly, they are irrelevant to the NIST study. NIST studied the collapse initiation, since the mechanical floors were not part of the collapse initiation, they are irrelevant to the NIST study. If you want to argue that they should have stopped the collapses, then leave NIST out of it because they never dealt with the global collapse other than to say that once it started global collapse was certain. Arguing the mechanical floors should have stopped the collapses is a simple thing however. All you need to do is provide the math showing that they were strong enough to resist the impact of the 34 floors above them (for 75-76) or the 68 floors in the case of 41-42. Since you obviously know that they could have prevented the collapse proceeding beyond them, the math should be easy. I'll get you started. Work out the energy of the falling mass, then determine the energy loading that the mechanical floors could take. See if the energy of the falling mass was greater then the energy loading required to dislodge the mechanical floors. I'm sure that once you have done that you will be able to present your work to the world and bust this thing wide open. Hey there might even be a Nobel Prize for Physics in it for you. Get to it, snap, snap.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 24, 2007 18:41:48 GMT -4
I'm curious as to what sort of handwaving will be used to refute your challenge, PW.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 24, 2007 18:58:04 GMT -4
I've asked him to provide the math a few times now, and there is just handwaving. If he doesn't actually bother to provide the math to prove that the floors could have prevented the collapse, then since B,Z and G have in their latest paper (though it still isn't perfect and still needs refinement, which even Greening admits) have shown that the collapse would have progressed as it did, I can't see the point in taking him seriously and he can go on ignore with the other one.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 24, 2007 19:31:55 GMT -4
I thought, just to show 3onthetree what sort of thing my challenge involves. This is from Dr Frank Greening, found here
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 25, 2007 3:15:29 GMT -4
I've asked him to provide the math a few times now, and there is just handwaving. If he doesn't actually bother to provide the math to prove that the floors could have prevented the collapse, then since B,Z and G have in their latest paper (though it still isn't perfect and still needs refinement, which even Greening admits) have shown that the collapse would have progressed as it did, I can't see the point in taking him seriously and he can go on ignore with the other one. What a lot of rubbish, any mathemagical formula will be based on guesstimates at best, remember they're still hiding the construction documents. Also remember they removed the evidence from the crime scene in record time courtesy of Ghooliani. That's not the point, you're handwaving about providing calculations and what do you do? You cut and paste the latest guesstimates from the Randi pinup boy. I'm at a disadvantage because I don't have any idols, I do prefer my scientists to be specific when they're talking about concrete since the concrete used in the tower floors was a specific type. Certain polymers can be used to form concrete-like materials as well. See, anyone can be a Jreffer.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 25, 2007 3:21:16 GMT -4
If you want to simplify it, that's how would go. Similarly, I can say this: On April 14, a mass of ice supposedly caused a fully intact ocean liner to sink and split in two in a matter of minutes.Closer to the topic, how about this: On January 9th, a structurally sound ship was supposedly gutted by a fire and toppled.Do you get the gist? Omitting details, and provided a simplified statement, with no reference to a time frame for the events, nor details of the events, leaves questions. When the specifics of a disaster, be it the WTCs, the Titanic, or the Queen Elizabeth, are known, the cause is clearer. Too bad not all can see this. I fear the only one who has failed to "get the gist" of the issue is yourself. The first key difference is that your two examples are quite uncommon events in themselves. To wit, how many cruise ships have even been sunk by hitting an iceberg in the past century? How many cruise ships have had large scale structural fires during that same period? Even if the century total for each event is in the thousands, it would still only be about 1/20th of the average number of structural fires per year in NYC alone (app. 26,000/year) The point is that your examples have much a smaller total to work with in the first place, which gives them much greater statistical uncertainty. Then consider how you describe the events....... The Titanic - "a mass of ice supposedly caused a fully intact ocean liner to sink and split in two in a matter of minutes." Surely you must know that other fully intact ships have been sunk in minutes.by a mass of ice over the past century? Whether or not any of the other ships have also split in two is a single, irrelevant factor. And the RMS QE is not the only ship to have been gutted by fire and toppled. My comparison is entirely valid.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 25, 2007 4:36:25 GMT -4
Actually, no ocean liner since the Titanic has struck an iceberg. Don't you find that suspicious?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 25, 2007 7:42:06 GMT -4
If you want to simplify it, that's how would go. Similarly, I can say this: On April 14, a mass of ice supposedly caused a fully intact ocean liner to sink and split in two in a matter of minutes.Closer to the topic, how about this: On January 9th, a structurally sound ship was supposedly gutted by a fire and toppled.Do you get the gist? Omitting details, and provided a simplified statement, with no reference to a time frame for the events, nor details of the events, leaves questions. When the specifics of a disaster, be it the WTCs, the Titanic, or the Queen Elizabeth, are known, the cause is clearer. Too bad not all can see this. I fear the only one who has failed to "get the gist" of the issue is yourself. The first key difference is that your two examples are quite uncommon events in themselves. To wit, how many cruise ships have even been sunk by hitting an iceberg in the past century? How many cruise ships have had large scale structural fires during that same period? Even if the century total for each event is in the thousands, it would still only be about 1/20th of the average number of structural fires per year in NYC alone (app. 26,000/year) The point is that your examples have much a smaller total to work with in the first place, which gives them much greater statistical uncertainty. Then consider how you describe the events....... The Titanic - "a mass of ice supposedly caused a fully intact ocean liner to sink and split in two in a matter of minutes." Surely you must know that other fully intact ships have been sunk in minutes.by a mass of ice over the past century? Whether or not any of the other ships have also split in two is a single, irrelevant factor. And the RMS QE is not the only ship to have been gutted by fire and toppled. My comparison is entirely valid. The gist I'm getting at is that you simplified the events of 9/11 in that post. How many buildings, built like WTC 1 and 2, have been struck by planes going about 500 knots? Surely this is a most uncommon event if I ever heard one. Now, how many buildings built like WTC 7 have endured fires that have lasted several hours? Remember, it's a tube in tube design. Now, more than one steel framed building in history have been collasped, just as you say that more than one ocean liner in history has been gutted and sank. Do you see what research can do for you? The claims of conspiracy theorists turn out to not to be valid. Rather than apply a double standard the situations I provided, and that of 9/11, why not use the same researching skills? You'll find the theories regarding 9/11 do not hold water (no pun intended). Gillianren makes a good point that conspiracy theorists don't latch onto.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 25, 2007 7:43:12 GMT -4
I've asked him to provide the math a few times now, and there is just handwaving. If he doesn't actually bother to provide the math to prove that the floors could have prevented the collapse, then since B,Z and G have in their latest paper (though it still isn't perfect and still needs refinement, which even Greening admits) have shown that the collapse would have progressed as it did, I can't see the point in taking him seriously and he can go on ignore with the other one. What a lot of rubbish, any mathemagical formula will be based on guesstimates at best, remember they're still hiding the construction documents. Also remember they removed the evidence from the crime scene in record time courtesy of Ghooliani. That's not the point, you're handwaving about providing calculations and what do you do? You cut and paste the latest guesstimates from the Randi pinup boy. I'm at a disadvantage because I don't have any idols, I do prefer my scientists to be specific when they're talking about concrete since the concrete used in the tower floors was a specific type. Certain polymers can be used to form concrete-like materials as well. See, anyone can be a Jreffer. Hmm, interesting handwaving here. Should have expected no less.
|
|