If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Which show cores, or sections of cores, standing after the rest of their respective towers had fallen. Rather than falling to the side, both of those also fell straight down upon themselves as if the bases had been blown out with explosives. [/quote

First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Source

JackJuice,

I agree with your comments - big time! I have stated in the past there is this tendency for people to "marry" their theory and then lose their ability to think critically about the information coming in. It's like they brand the theory on their brain and if information comes in that won't fit to that theory - their brain can't even process it.

Now, with that said, I think you've jumped to conclusions though. For instance, I'm still riding the fence as to whether the planes and the subsequent fires alone brought down the buildings. I'm still trying to process ALL information coming in, because I don't have a theory, I'm just trying to figure out what actually happened. BUT, I'd like to point out that if the planes and fire did NOT take down the buildings all by themselves, that does not equate to the conclusion the government was involved.

I have found information that points to the possibility the terrorists could have planted explosives in lower level floors prior to that day. So, see? There's more than one possibility. And I'm staying open to all of them at this point.

Originally posted by Vushta

Show me enough pre-collapse buckling to actually lend support to your theory and I'll answer you.

O.K....but first, so we just don't waste each others time.
How much is 'enough' for you? How did you determine this?

Over half of the total columns would have to be totally failed before a single floor would totally collapse. This is according to NIST. The actual numbers are higher than half, and more like 75%, but I'm sure we can agree that 50% isn't anything unusual for skyscrapers given that it's standard for them to be over-engineered so that columns could support twice their design loads at any given time, should they have to.

So, since buckling doesn't cause the same loss as a full-out failure, let's say 75% of the perimeter columns only on any given floor. With a 50/50 gravity load distribution between perimeters and the core columns, that amounts to 75% of (perimeter columns') 50% of the gravity load, which should be 37.5% of the over-all structure (much lower than 75%) on any given floor. That's being pretty damned lenient, again, by NIST's figures.


So 75% of the perimeter columns visibly buckled on a single floor.

Its very much like a religion.

But on the stresses of the steel and the fires. I think that people underestimate the stresses on the steel..connectors..welds by the cooling process.

The heated steel expands and twists and sags. Then it cools it contracts, but its no longer in its original shape so now not only can the steel shrink to a lenght shorter than its original length, the ability to transfer loads is distorted.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by Vushta]

Originally posted by Valhall
JackJuice,

I agree with your comments - big time! I have stated in the past there is this tendency for people to "marry" their theory and then lose their ability to think critically about the information coming in. It's like they brand the theory on their brain and if information comes in that won't fit to that theory - their brain can't even process it.

Now, with that said, I think you've jumped to conclusions though. For instance, I'm still riding the fence as to whether the planes and the subsequent fires alone brought down the buildings. I'm still trying to process ALL information coming in, because I don't have a theory, I'm just trying to figure out what actually happened. BUT, I'd like to point out that if the planes and fire did NOT take down the buildings all by themselves, that does not equate to the conclusion the government was involved.

I have found information that points to the possibility the terrorists could have planted explosives in lower level floors prior to that day. So, see? There's more than one possibility. And I'm staying open to all of them at this point.

It's good to see that your mind is still open, if you truly are looking for answer for yourself may i suggest you read the source i listed above, but please don't stop there. There are many sources both for and against my peticular position read them all and whatever you do, DON'T believe me. I am NOT a structural engineer or of any profession or position to give you a real scientific answer. Your best bet is to read all that you can and then talk to someone with the knowledge and education to give you a scientific answer. I'll leave you with a quote i just read that i like.

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Unfortunately credit to the author was not given

Over half of the total columns would have to be totally failed before a single floor would totally collapse. This is according to NIST.

I take it this is pointing out the intact design specs for the construction of the building?

How does that relate to the forces of collision and fires?

There is CONCRETE (not pulverized) EVIDENCE that it was a demolition. ie. Newtonian Mechanics, Physics and Thermate residue.

No steel high-rise has EVER collapsed due to fire (before or after 911)

911 was the only 3 cases in HISTORY for this to ever happen.

REMEMBER: all 3 buildings fell at FREE FALL SPEED.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fall through 110 floors of concrete reinforced steel as fast as you fall through THIN AIR. It is ludicris to suggest otherwise. This violates imperical natural law.

PLEASE read my essays on the 911 demolitions and Willful Denial
www.ealchemy.org...

Originally posted by Vushta
I take it this is pointing out the intact design specs for the construction of the building?

How does that relate to the forces of collision and fires?

I take it that you can't meet my challenge.

Collision = structural damage.
Fire = structural damage.

The whole point is for you to try to FIND structural damage from the fire (ie sufficient buckling). The damage from the collision is pretty well known by this point. The building stood still after it was impacted, too, so it wasn't like energy was still there from the impact just waiting to go crazy for all that time.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
I would say no as well.

That buildings could've taken about 75% total column loss on any given floor before the whole floor would give way, columns and all. That leaves about >60% for the fires.

Can you please provide a link to a legitimate analysis from a degreed structural engineer supporting the numbers quoted above.


As a follow-up question can you also descibe how non-uniform damage would work with-in those calculations.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
There is CONCRETE (not pulverized) EVIDENCE that it was a demolition. ie. Newtonian Mechanics, Physics and Thermate residue.

No steel high-rise has EVER collapsed due to fire (before or after 911)

911 was the only 3 cases in HISTORY for this to ever happen.

REMEMBER: all 3 buildings fell at FREE FALL SPEED.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fall through 110 floors of concrete reinforced steel as fast as you fall through THIN AIR. It is ludicris to suggest otherwise. This violates imperical natural law.

PLEASE read my essays on the 911 demolitions and Willful Denial
www.ealchemy.org...

...Chris???

Originally posted by JackJuice
Your best bet is to read all that you can and then talk to someone with the knowledge and education to give you a scientific answer. I'll leave you with a quote i just read that i like.

There are no scientific answers, from either side. Real science is based upon reproducibility. NIST attempted to reproduce its findings in its very own report -- very basic stuff, like making a single floor collapse from fire -- and failed. Everything else is theory, and theories may be scientific but I wouldn't consider them scientific in that they are factual, in the least.

Btw, I think Valhall is a structural engineer. And your quote was from Kelvin.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I take it that you can't meet my challenge.

Collision = structural damage.
Fire = structural damage.

The whole point is for you to try to FIND structural damage from the fire (ie sufficient buckling). The damage from the collision is pretty well known by this point. The building stood still after it was impacted, too, so it wasn't like energy was still there from the impact just waiting to go crazy for all that time.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Always jumping to conclusions.

Will you answer my question for the sake of accurate comparisions?

Are the calcs. you gave the structural specs for an intact structure?

no, not Chris. Estanislao

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
There is CONCRETE (not pulverized) EVIDENCE that it was a demolition. ie. Newtonian Mechanics, Physics and Thermate residue.

No steel high-rise has EVER collapsed due to fire (before or after 911)

911 was the only 3 cases in HISTORY for this to ever happen.

REMEMBER: all 3 buildings fell at FREE FALL SPEED.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fall through 110 floors of concrete reinforced steel as fast as you fall through THIN AIR. It is ludicris to suggest otherwise. This violates imperical natural law.

PLEASE read my essays on the 911 demolitions and Willful Denial
www.ealchemy.org...

...Chris???

Originally posted by bsbray11

There are no scientific answers, from either side. Real science is based upon reproducibility. NIST attempted to reproduce its findings in its very own report -- very basic stuff, like making a single floor collapse from fire -- and failed. Everything else is theory, and theories may be scientific but I wouldn't consider them scientific in that they are factual, in the least.

Btw, I think Valhall is a structural engineer. And your quote was from Kelvin.

True they may not be able to recreate the circumstances but it is better to talk to people that know what they are talking about than to just believe some skewed website.

Thanks for letting me know who authored the quote.

well, i saw something on the history channel about the world trade center, i think it was called World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon and it had info about the attacks as well as the Towers' construction so i have 2 things to bring up one possibly able to create a whole new thread of what ifs.

1st off during the construction the center core of the building was supposed to have cement or concrete around it but they got cheap and just put up drywall so do you think if they used concrete instead of the drywall, do you think it would have been harder for the fires to spread and also could it have kept the buildings up for longer, or even just kept them from collapsing?

2nd they made a point about if the towers didnt collapse they still would have had to tear them down because the structure would have been too weak and there would have been no way for crews to just repair the main areas with damage without dismantling the other floors too.

although i wonder what it would have been like if they didnt collapse, i wonder if they would have ever gotten the fires out and how long they would have left them standing untill they tore them down, also i wonder how many people would have lived.....

oh and how come they didnt use helicopters to get people off from the roof, it would have helped for people trapped on the floors above the areas hit.

No, not structural. Degreed Aerospace Engineer with 15 years experience in mechanical designs, and about 10 of that heavy in metallurgical aspects of mechanical design. I know a fair bit about metallurgy, but just because 1. it turned out that way, and 2. some of the neatest people I've ever met were metallurgists (they're like the hippies of the engineering world - ever damned one of them are eccentric and totally unique characters) - so me being a weirdo as well, I just naturally gravitated toward them and learned a lot at the same time. One of my dearest friends is a major specialist in welding and welding metallurgy, and my dad was a welder by trade, so I've picked up quite a bit on that as well.

Originally posted by bsbray11


So, since buckling doesn't cause the same loss as a full-out failure,

So 75% of the perimeter columns visibly buckled on a single floor.

Its my understanding that a buckled column has very little of its original load carrying capacity left. It is also my understanding that a greater percentage of the load is transferred to the next adjacent intact column(s) with a smaller percentage tranferred to the other intact structural elements.

Ie: One cannot assume even distribution across entire structure in calculation.

If you could make that assumption then it would be a true statement to say: My calculations show that the removal of 50-75% of columns from anyone side would stil leave the towers standing - it just flies in the face of logic to me.

Symetrical calcs don't work for me, I think that they tend more towards a diagonal cut or perpendicular effect on one side in relation to the core. To me the loads put on the core are dramatically higher than most assert.

Valhall - Opinion?

Originally posted by Phoenix
Can you please provide a link to a legitimate analysis from a degreed structural engineer supporting the numbers quoted above.

The raw numbers are from NIST's report, as they list the safety factor ratings of the perimeter and core columns themselves.

Those ratings, with other figures from NIST, are then used by Trumpman to derive the %'s in this paper:
911research.wtc7.net...

Trumpman doesn't offer up any information on himself, but I think it's kind of pathetic that that's your method of determining legitimacy in the first place.

He actually uses 60/40, core/perimeter gravity load distribution, whereas I've only seen actual NIST documents suggest "about" 50/50. More load on the perimeters just means more overall redundancy, though, as NIST has the perimeter columns at a higher safety factor rating than the core columns.

As a follow-up question can you also descibe how non-uniform damage would work with-in those calculations.

Considering the "non-uniform damage" consisted of only the impacted region, of about 11% and 13% perimeter columns in either tower (FEMA figures) and similar damage to the core (NIST models), I don't think redistribution would be a HUGE problem.

I don't think this would be an issue except for maybe a couple of perimeter columns at the edges of the impact holes, if that.

I've never really followed the 9/11 CT theories but I remember when watching the tube on that day, the first thing I thought was "How the heck did fire cause those buildings to collapse?"

As bsb said, if the initial collision wasnt sufficent to collapse the towers, then the only thing left was the fire. In order to believe that fire alone collapsed the buildings we have to assume that the fire on the 110th floor was hot enough to transmit enough heat to the base of building in order for the steel to buckle at the base.
Even if the fires got hot enough on the upper floors wouldnt just portions of the upper floors collapse upon itself? The building was designed to carry its total weight so how would the building collapse from the bottom even if the upper portion was partially collapsing?

I dunno im not engineer, but the whole thing confused me even when I first initially saw it