An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Skyscrapers must withstand the wind.

Any level of wind? So all "skyscrapers" are therefore fully impervious to atmospheric stresses at any loading? Or are there limits? What happend when those limits are exceeded? And I hope you realize, of course, that not all "skyscrapers" are created equal, or the same.

The only reason to respond to that is too point out how dumb it is.

The designers must select some upper limit. The WTC was supposed to withstand 150 mph winds and sway 3 feet at the top in such a wind. That is one of the curious things about this NINE YEAR Charade. How often have we heard the maximum winds the WTC has withstood and how often.

I saw one post that said they took 100 mph winds on 6 occasions but that is all.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The only reason to respond to that is too point out how dumb it is.

Yeah, I agree with you there "skyscrapers must withstand the wind" is a pretty dumb statement.

The designers must select some upper limit. The WTC was supposed to withstand 150 mph winds and sway 3 feet at the top in such a wind. That is one of the curious things about this NINE YEAR Charade. How often have we heard the maximum winds the WTC has withstood and how often.

Yep, in the last nine years there has not been a lot of talk about the fastest wind the World Trade Center towers were ever exposed to. Seems almost as if the whole world has determined that it is an irrelevant piece of trivia.

I saw one post that said they took 100 mph winds on 6 occasions but that is all.

Seriously, I worked on the Jersey side of the river and have experienced winds in excess of 60 mph on more than one occasion at ground level. I am sure the upper limits of the building were often exposed to wind in excess of 100 mph.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
You ignore that (a) no steel-structure high-rise has even collapsed due to fire in his history of engineering,

You ignore that no other building has ever been hit by a 767 diliberately, causing fires over 5 floors instantly, and allowed to burn unabated. So, wanna post some links to your sources? I've asked for them more than once.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
(b) that NIST's own data substantiates that these fires were burning at 500*F and

And anybody with two brain cells to rub together can tell you that a hydrocarbon fire burns at above 500 deg. F in any kind of setting. No matter where it is.

So, wanna post some links to your sources? I've asked for them more than once.

Originally posted by JimFetzer

(c) that there were no conditions that would have brought about a collapse in any case.

Bazant et al. seem to disagree. They have relevant qualifications, and even published a paper about it in a RESPECTABLE, PEER-REVIEWED journal explaining it. Maybe you will be writing a discussion on that paper proving it wrong? When do you plan on submitting it?

So, wanna post some links to your sources? I've asked for them more than once.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
One of us is ignoring the evidence--including even the gross observable evidence from "New 9/11 Photos Released", but it isn't me.

One of us (NOT you) knows the difference between EVIDENCE ( Cardington Fire Tests) and lies and unsubstantiated claims.

Speaking of which, wanna post some links to your sources? I've asked for them more than once.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
John Skilling observed that the towers had been constructed with a safety factor of 20. Chuck Boldwyn has calculated that is was actually much greater than that.

Do you have a link to those calculations? I would love to see them. I have a few engineer friends that would LOVE to see them.

Originally posted by JimFetzer
You are long on words and short on substance, FDNY343. I have already addressed the kinds of questions you ask, including, of course, the source of information about the 236 samples of steel that NIST tested. It is in its own report: In NCSTAR 1-3, NIST admits that (a) it studied 236 samples of steel, (b) that it regarded those samples as sufficient to evaluate their exposure temperatures, (c) that it found only three locations at which temperatures had reached above 250*C (about 500*F), which implies (d) that 233 samples had not been exposed to temperatures above 500*F. So the problem may be that, as this case illustrated, the problem is your lack of reading comprehension. If I played your little game, I would be repeating myself forever. Get a grip. You have been conned.

edit on 24-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

I asked for more sources than just that. So, maybe it's YOU that has the reading comprehension problems?

Do I need to re-post them?

ETA: Upon further research, I have found in NIST's report NCSTAR 1-3 ( the one you cite) says nothing of the sort. In fact, on page 43 PDF (wtc.nist.gov...) it says that

More than 170 area were examined on the recovered perimeter column panels; However, these columns represented only 3% of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors

So, maybe you have the exact wording that you cite so often? As it seems to me, it's a quotemine job. Not that that suprises me.....

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The dead load is weight of the unoccupied building with respect to the support capacity of each floor, while the live load is the dead load plus the additional weight of the personnel, furnishings, computers and everything else that would add to its weight when occupied. John Skilling observed that the towers had been constructed with a safety factor of 20. Chuck Boldwyn has calculated that is was actually much greater than that. Because the steel tapered off with the height of the building and the reduced weight it had to support, the upper 16 floors of the North Tower, for example, represented only 1.8% of the mass of the building and the lower 94 represented 98.2%. There is no way that those upper floors could overcome the support capacity of the lower--and that is before taking into account the safety factor. The arguments for any kind of collapse have no foundation. They are fantasies, not facts. And I find it extraordinary that so many are willing to display their ignorance and irrationality about this.

Jim I dont have to look at wikipedia to find out what a dead or live load is. Re the 20:1 safety, BS that would make any building to expensive structural fixing are normally a 3:1 safety factor if metal, the upper 16 floors would have had 11,200 tons of concrete ALONE never mind the steelwork ,16x700 ton min concrete per floor so if that without the steelwork included was 1.8% the the whole building would weigh 622,222 tons YOU guys cant even look at stats given to see what BS you are stating IT'S A JOKE!!!

Everyone here should be thankful YOU are not in building design or construction as you cant see the relationship of these numbers you spout

You really need to speak to some high school engineering student you should come to the UK sit in on an applied mechanics or engineering science class to learn some physics re this subject!

I am looking forward to see what you say about this!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by JimFetzer
The dead load is weight of the unoccupied building with respect to the support capacity of each floor, while the live load is the dead load plus the additional weight of the personnel, furnishings, computers and everything else that would add to its weight when occupied. John Skilling observed that the towers had been constructed with a safety factor of 20. Chuck Boldwyn has calculated that is was actually much greater than that. Because the steel tapered off with the height of the building and the reduced weight it had to support, the upper 16 floors of the North Tower, for example, represented only 1.8% of the mass of the building and the lower 94 represented 98.2%. There is no way that those upper floors could overcome the support capacity of the lower--and that is before taking into account the safety factor. The arguments for any kind of collapse have no foundation. They are fantasies, not facts. And I find it extraordinary that so many are willing to display their ignorance and irrationality about this.

Jim I dont have to look at wikipedia to find out what a dead or live load is. Re the 20:1 safety, BS that would make any building to expensive structural fixing are normally a 3:1 safety factor if metal, the upper 16 floors would have had 11,200 tons of concrete ALONE never mind the steelwork ,16x700 ton min concrete per floor so if that without the steelwork included was 1.8% the the whole building would weigh 622,222 tons YOU guys cant even look at stats given to see what BS you are stating IT'S A JOKE!!!

Everyone here should be thankful YOU are not in building design or construction as you cant see the relationship of these numbers you spout

You really need to speak to some high school engineering student you should come to the UK sit in on an applied mechanics or engineering science class to learn some physics re this subject!

I am looking forward to see what you say about this!

Yes, it is pretty absurd that we don't have specs from multiple OFFICIAL SOURCES for the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

1.8% sounds too low.

But expecting to analyze what happened without trustworthy steel and concrete distribution information is absurd also. Not knowing the amount of energy necessary to collapse each level of the CORE is ridiculous too.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Sorry but we do have a fairly reasonable idea of the concrete mass as a weight per cubic foot was quoted and we know the area of the floors and average thickness.

So the floors work out to be in the 700-800 tons range for the concrete used. We can also have a good guess at steelwork by looking at other structures!

What I showed in my post above is that Jim just believes anything that anyone with the same belief tells him he dosen't even do a quick check, HE has shown on this thread and others he has not got a clue and WONT answer any question that throws the slightest doubt on his assumptions.

A 20:1 safety factor would make any commercial building far to expensive to construct and because he has NO construction knowledge he gets caught out!

The same with his 1.8 % fig for the top 16 floors a quick bit of maths again shows he has NO idea what he is talking about.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So the floors work out to be in the 700-800 tons range for the concrete used. We can also have a good guess at steelwork by looking at other structures!

Oh really? How many tons of steel were on the 81st level of the south tower and how do you know?

How did it weaken in less than one hour?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So the floors work out to be in the 700-800 tons range for the concrete used. We can also have a good guess at steelwork by looking at other structures!

Oh really? How many tons of steel were on the 81st level of the south tower and how do you know?

How did it weaken in less than one hour?

psik

How do you suggest we determine this? You keep asking and asking and asking and it's getting ridiculous. Either show us the figures or stop expecting us to have something you in your infinite wisdom cannot find.

It could weaken in less than one hour because it was damaged as well as on fire. I'll spell that out for you real slow so it can sink in: d. a. m. a. g. e. d. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I mean, come on! It's like you are deliberately ignoring common sense.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So the floors work out to be in the 700-800 tons range for the concrete used. We can also have a good guess at steelwork by looking at other structures!

Oh really? How many tons of steel were on the 81st level of the south tower and how do you know?

How did it weaken in less than one hour?

psik

How do you suggest we determine this? You keep asking and asking and asking and it's getting ridiculous. Either show us the figures or stop expecting us to have something you in your infinite wisdom cannot find.

It could weaken in less than one hour because it was damaged as well as on fire. I'll spell that out for you real slow so it can sink in: d. a. m. a. g. e. d. I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I mean, come on! It's like you are deliberately ignoring common sense.

No, it is just a matter of what you CLAIM is common sense. And you do a very good job of sounding that way. Natural talent I suspect. What is stopping you from building a model that can totally collapse rather than just talking?

My point is you tolerate the NIST not supplying that kind of information and yet they could not possibly have made an accurate computer simulation without that data. They can just say "global collapse was inevitable" and everybody is supposed to believe it even if they are not given specifications that had to be figured out to construct the building.

There were about 2900 perimeter panels on each building from the 10th floor to the top. How many different weights of panels were there? What were the weights of each type? What were the quantities of each type? Why shouldn't we be told all of that? Why should we BELIEVE anything if we are not supplied with complete information? I really don't care if you can't figure out how ridiculous it is to think a plane could bring those buildings down in that little time or how much you trust authority but I find the lack of scientific interest in this subject is very interesting. So many questions were not asked in 2002. We are just expected to BELIEVE.

You can BELIEVE any damn thing you want. I would like to see three major engineering schools independently design and build self supporting physical models that can be completely collapsed by dropping the top 15% on the rest. That should cost a hell of a lot less than the $20,000,000 that the NIST spent.

If schools can afford to do this:

www.youtube.com...

I don't see what the problem is.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I don't see what the problem is.

psik

Maybe you should do your OWN research!! I have told you that AE911T have the blueprints available. Please look at them, and start doing the math.

It should take you about a month. Get to it, and quit being lazy.


Jim Fetzer,

Do you have those sources I keep asking for? It's been a few days, so you should have them by now, right?

Right?

Jim?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


There are thousands upon thousands of structural engineers world wide THAT dont agree with Jim or YOU, I speak to that type of person on a very regular basis when this subject is mentioned not one I have spoken to thinks it was a demolition job.

The problem with the internet is it creates armchair experts in subjects, people who never completed school or never did any science subjects or have never worked in the construction industry believing BS like Jim spouts.
A lot of which the most technical question they ask during the day is "do you want fries with that!" or "can I go to the toilet miss"

Look how he would not answer questions that throw his theories into doubt he claims that soft objects cant damage harder objects, when I asked him about the paint fleck that damaged the shuttle window he would not answer why it did, he tried to deflect it by saying it didn't go through yet he claimed the planes should have hit the walls stopped dead and fell to the ground.

Its all about energy have a look at drawing of an aicraft fuselage look around the area where the wings attach to the body,its the strongest part, has to take the weight of those two huge fuel tanks the wings, the engines and landing gear all extremely tough parts of the plane.

We have never said or claimed the planes would go through undamaged but Jim and it seems you just cant get your head round the effects of KINETIC ENERGY.

Look at the hole that was created bigger in the middle and getting narrower at both sides Like a plane!!!

Look at his guesses for the mass of the buildings and his 1.8% for the top 16 floors you and he had seen data for the concrete weight per cubic foot ,we know the floor area we know the average floor thickness whats really ironic Jim claims the floors were thicker than I claimed which would make them even heavier which makes his 1.8% fig look even more STUPID than it was.

He has not even got the brains to do a quick check on the figs he gets from his cronies to see if its even possible.

He has not got a clue re building design when the towers were UNDAMAGED it was a static load,live load and wind load the floors below were supporting when the area above the impact dropped which you see on the video that became a DYNAMIC load which was greater than the max load the floors below could take!

His 20:1 safety fig is total BS no commercial building could be designed to that due to COSTS!!!
Structural engineers are happy to see a 3:1 safety factor on structural fixings I know I test them !!!!

Why did countries all over the world change building standards and codes after 9/11 I wonder

The guy has NO clue on Physics,Kinetic Energy, Elastic/Inelastic collisions,Loadings or construction! OH and simple maths its seems!!!

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I don't see what the problem is.

psik

Maybe you should do your OWN research!! I have told you that AE911T have the blueprints available. Please look at them, and start doing the math.

It should take you about a month. Get to it, and quit being lazy.


Jim Fetzer,

Do you have those sources I keep asking for? It's been a few days, so you should have them by now, right?

Right?

Jim?

Yeah people keep claiming stuff is in the blueprints and it is easy to find but you never see a layout of how the horizontal beams in the core were arranged. The blueprints show where the toilets were though.

I drove into Chicago in 2008 when Richard Gage did his dog and pony show there. I asked him point blank about the distributions of steel and concrete. He gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. But there is no table of the tons of steel and concrete on every level of any skyscraper that I could find on the net.

It is like IBM. All of their computers were von Neumann machines but the term was never mentioned even though John von Neumann was hired as a consultant in 1952. People need to pretend that simple stuff is complicated.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Yeah people keep claiming stuff is in the blueprints and it is easy to find but you never see a layout of how the horizontal beams in the core were arranged.

What do you care? You've already declared it impossible without this information so what good does having the information offer? Unless, of course, your backpedaling and implying that the NIST scenario is possible.

Which is it - possible or impossible?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Yeah people keep claiming stuff is in the blueprints and it is easy to find but you never see a layout of how the horizontal beams in the core were arranged. The blueprints show where the toilets were though.

Maybe the problem is your ignorance of blueprints?

BTW, NIST did not have the authority or the right to release private property. Maybe you should contact the owners of the building, or the architectual firm that designed them.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So the floors work out to be in the 700-800 tons range for the concrete used. We can also have a good guess at steelwork by looking at other structures!

Oh really? How many tons of steel were on the 81st level of the south tower and how do you know?

How did it weaken in less than one hour?

psik

Jim claimed that the top 16 floors of the north tower contained only 1.8% of the mass of the building we had data for the concrete and I did say the working it out using ONLY the mass of the concrete on the floors that his 1.8% fig was BS. We dont even need the mass of the steel to see he was talking BS

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So the floors work out to be in the 700-800 tons range for the concrete used. We can also have a good guess at steelwork by looking at other structures!

Oh really? How many tons of steel were on the 81st level of the south tower and how do you know?

How did it weaken in less than one hour?

psik

Jim claimed that the top 16 floors of the north tower contained only 1.8% of the mass of the building we had data for the concrete and I did say the working it out using ONLY the mass of the concrete on the floors that his 1.8% fig was BS. We don't even need the mass of the steel to see he was talking BS

I don't care if he was talking BS. I want to know how an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could TOTALLY DESTROY a 400,000+ tons building in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

The trouble with these sites is that they turn into DEBATES where people are only interested in BEATING EACH OTHER rather than in solving the problem. And then some people will lie because they think that will help them win. And that simply turns into more BS when it is found out. We have already spent NINE YEARS on what should have been resolved in SIX MONTHS.

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up so the designers must figure out how to distribute the steel and concrete. So why wasn't everyone getting that straight 8 1/2 years ago?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So why wasn't everyone getting that straight 8 1/2 years ago?

Because when Osama Bin Laden is not wanted for 9/11 according to the FBI and even Bush said he was not important, the inside job is the next most likely suspect. The resistance to the 9/11 Commission with a lack of answers and many leads not followed support this conclusion. The games NIST and others have been playing just reinforce the case for an inside job.

Something rotten has clawed its way into the halls of power and there is going to be a lot of fallout to cleanse the system of this infection. If society is not smart enough to wake up to this perhaps the world is better of without this ignorance and the rot continues to grow.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I don't care if he was talking BS. I want to know how an airliner weighing less than 200 tons could TOTALLY DESTROY a 400,000+ tons building in LESS THAN TWO HOURS.

It didn't. That is your problem.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Skyscrapers must hold themselves up so the designers must figure out how to distribute the steel and concrete. So why wasn't everyone getting that straight 8 1/2 years ago?

psik

Because it has been done already. Obviously the building did stand at one time. Why don't you find the relevant blueprints and take them to an engineer and pay them to help you understand them?

Why are you being so lazy about this?