What about the WTC 1 Spire?

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Most of the core columns left standing were not unbraced, they were also connected to each other. You can see this in the video I posted earlyer.

I don't believe Euler buckling caused the spire to collapse. It seems much more likely to me that it was the damage as result of the collapse of the floors and perimeter columns. The core columns would be deformed by all the debris. You can see the spire parts starting to fall over, and then either continue falling over, or collapse. With the columns standing at a slight angle there would have been an asymmetric load, which the core structure was unable to sustain, resulting in collapse. Of course Euler buckling could have happened duding collapse, it would not be the cause. I strongly doubt that an intact core structure with inter column bracing (without floors and perimeter columns) would collapse due to Euler buckling. I have never seen evidence of this.

Just for illustration, this is what the core inter-bracing looked like:



edit on 18-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Ok let me try a rundown

Top of wtc1 collapses
as it falls it rips away support for core columns
Once the core reaches Pcr it buckles.
buckled parts of core fall away ( these are the columns we see falling like trees)
Leaving the spire.
Now here we have to recalculate Pcr for the reduced L of the remaining core columns as they are of varying heights.

The tallest unsupported core colums in the spire should have me easiest Pcr to reach and should be the first to buckle.

Eta look at PLBs videos. Any "dust" on the very tip of the spire should have been blown to the side . But if you watch the top of the spire falls many feet ( 20-30 is my guess) before any of that "dust" starts to fall off.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
buckled parts of core fall away ( these are the columns we see falling like trees)


No. Trees also don't buckle when you cut them down. They break at the spot you cut them. I think the same happened at the WTC. The debris that fell down damaged the columns to such a degree, especially at ground level, that they fell over.



Leaving the spire.
Now here we have to recalculate Pcr for the reduced L of the remaining core columns as they are of varying heights.

The tallest unsupported core colums in thefiles.abovetopsecret.com... spire should have me easiest Pcr to reach and should be the first to buckle.


What I believed happened is that, again from damage from the collapse, the spire started to topple. Because of the lack of cross bracing, the structure was chance less. A similar mechanism as here. Small dis-balance makes the whole barn collapse.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Crap, I wrote a lengthy reply to this, but I accidentally closed my browser and lost it. It'll have to wait until later. Sorry.

Short Version: the connections between the core columns and beams are not sufficient to provide effective bracing, absent the perimeter walls and floors.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Crap, I wrote a lengthy reply to this, but I accidentally closed my browser and lost it. It'll have to wait until later. Sorry.

Short Version: the connections between the core columns and beams are not sufficient to provide effective bracing, absent the perimeter walls and floors.



The bracing may not have been effective against instability of the structure, but it seems strong enough to prevent Euler buckling. Therefore the collapse scenario I propose seems more likely to me than Euler buckling as cause. I can be wrong though so I will await your reply if you find time to rewrite it.
edit on 18-12-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


www.11-septiembre-2001.biz...

This photo also seems to show some form of crossbraces between floors?

Looking for better shots of if.



posted on Dec, 19 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


It's going to be a while before I can jump back on this; It's going to require quite a bit of research and a careful write up with links and etc, to make my point clearly enough. I'm getting busy and I'm involved in another debate that's heating up at the moment. Thanks for being a sport and not flinging recriminations. I'll try and do the same....

That's an interesting photo, I'll try to figure out what's going on there: the pattern of braces which is probably what they are, is strange. It could be that these are temporary braces to keep things straight, until the next few floor slabs are in place, or it could be that these are a permanent part of the structure. My Euler-buckling argument certainly hinges on there not being very much of this cross bracing as part of the permanent structure. I'll look into it...

I wish we had the complete structural drawings, as opposed to only having the architectural drawings. It would resolve my argument nicely, one way or the other.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 


Hey have you read this? truthfully I prefer photographic evidence over number theory and this seems to have a lot of that. Seems he( and most if not all those interested ) run into the same problem...that is the pulserization of the concrete.


Also found a site talking about a "concrete core" in wtc2. Looking into that.

www.sharpprintinginc.com...:385



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


What other heat source could turn the steel intio dust? We all know the towers were dustified, but the core steel was made so brittel and lacking in integrity that it turned to dust or was melted. many of the outer support beams were on fire..literally smoking from the heat as they fell. What could create heat of multi-thosand to hundreds of thousands of degrees? Nukes, thats what. Exploding steel simply flings it away from the blast but does not alter it's properties substantially. The steel in these cases was melted and dustified and showed signs of such extreme heat that it defies any other explanation. Remember the " eutectic steel " that was the " greatest puzzle " for engineers? It was exposed to such extreme heat and force that it was made razor thin, curled, literally evaporated in places.

NO FIRE could possibly affect the steel in the manner we find it..no office fire, no kerosene fire, no jet fuel fire..only a nuke could flash the core with a brief almost million degree blast of heat and render the core almost useless...held together by the compenents so lightly that regular explosives finished the job off..the steel provided NO resistance! For steel to lose all of it's ability to withstand force requires extraordinary temperatures, and only nukes can provide that kind of heat. Recall that the basements blasts that lest 50 ton presses evaporated...gone..and sking hanging from people who had no direct exposure to fire, and you get the point.

There is ample evidence of nukes, from EMP effects documented ( the official story drones HATE these first hand testimonies because it cannot be explained by their theories in any way) to the heat and effects, many of which are so highly anomalous that they defy the illogical and empty efforts of the apologists for the fairy tale believing official story partisans to explain. Recall giant upward and outward explosions of massive dust clouds from the towers, how they turned to brown and black dust as eruptions blasted materials in all directions..it was convulsing with energy and expelling vast quantities of dustified concrete, people and furnishings for hundreds of yards around...how plain and clear it is: Nukes explain the effects seen better than any other means. Period.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


ok so the biggest problem I have with mininukes is that it would have shredded everything .

The 9\11 surfer should have been destroyed but instead rode a cloud of dust 200 feet.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by richierich
 


ok so the biggest problem I have with mininukes is that it would have shredded everything .

The 9\11 surfer should have been destroyed but instead rode a cloud of dust 200 feet.


The thought of nuclear reactions taking place is a good start and I'm glad people are taking notice. Elevated levels of Tritium were found at the site. (about 50x backround) so there was some sort of nuclear reaction taking place. But there was no Ionizing radiation detected so this eliminates any kind of fission process or thermo-fusion. So do we know of any processes which involve nuclear reactions but does not produces large amounts of heat or ionizing radiation sense there is no proof for either at the site?



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by BriGuyTM90
 


Tritium is found in many items found in an office. Most commonly in emergency lights and smoke detectors. Does not mean anything about nuclear explosions.

There was no nuclear detonation of ANY kind at the WTC complex. If there as, then Manhattan Island would have a new harbor on its southern tip.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 





What other heat source could turn the steel intio dust? We all know the towers were dustified,

Are you serious?
What were they sending off to be recycled then?
What are all those pictures of bent beams then?

You need a better source of facts.





new topics
 
6
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join