One Smart Chic

reply to post by psikeyhackr


And it took me 5 minutes to find an image that includes the core columns. But seriously, the information is readily available. The problem is that you are unable to find it, or even unable to recognize it when you see it. Which means you are lacking either some search skills or structural engineering skills, it doesn't mean all the experts in the world don't have this data and have it all wrong like you keep repeating.

reply to post by Version100


Welcome to the anonymous age of the internet, where anyone can anonymously spread any kind of information. For some reason it never happened with 911 though. Maybe those experts do not know what the internet is?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

And it took me 5 minutes to find an image that includes the core columns. But seriously, the information is readily available. The problem is that you are unable to find it, or even unable to recognize it when you see it. Which means you are lacking either some search skills or structural engineering skills, it doesn't mean all the experts in the world don't have this data and have it all wrong like you keep repeating.

I DID NOT SAY I had not seen a diagram with the CORE COLUMNS I said I hadn't seen a diagram with the HORIZONTAL BEAMS connecting the core columns.

People talk so much bullsh# around here.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Well know you have. What do you think? Find those distribution numbers yet?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I said I had never seen a layout of the horizontal beams connecting the core columns.

For the love of God, THOSE ARE THE FLOOR BEAMS IN THE CORE AS SHOWN IN THE FRAMING PLAN!!!

I guess it is part of the psychology of liars to assume that everyone listening to them is STUPID.

Anybody can find a diagram of the columns like PLB said. They can then compare that to the diagram you indicated. Anybody that makes the comparison can then decide how dumb you are.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


and I DID NOT SAY the IMAGE does not include THE BEAMS. Yes I CAN use random CAPS too.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by DIDtm

 

This is what he said

In fact it totaled out at 211,454 Americans. 211,454 POOR Americans....the Rich didn't participate

And that, is an out and out lie. I know exactly where he was going.

This is so off topic, I dont even know why I am responding...
That is what he said....HOWEVER.....

When he used the term 'RICH', he was referring to the wealthiest 400.

I could assign variables used in mathematics if you wish to help explain this, but you wouldnt understand that either.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Well know you have. What do you think? Find those distribution numbers yet?

You still trying to claim that crap contains what it doesn't contain after ANOK posted the diagram? If it doesn't even show the core columns then how can it show beams connecting the core columns?

This is insanely stupid.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Well know you have. What do you think? Find those distribution numbers yet?

You still trying to claim that crap contains what it doesn't contain after ANOK posted the diagram? If it doesn't even show the core columns then how can it show beams connecting the core columns?

This is insanely stupid.

psik

So what do you think those little lines on the STRUCTURAL FRAMING PLAN represent? Face it, its the framing plan that shows the location of all those horizontal beams that you've been crowing about. Find the distribution numbers yet?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Do you even remotely realize that the energy that is consumed in crushing a floor largely takes place after the load capacity has been exceeded and the load capacity of the damaged column is completely different from the design load capacity?

Way to divert from the point you were just trying to make earlier.

You "debunkers" certainly have a way to run away from your own assertions after you can't defend them anymore, don't you? Just hop from one thing to the next to the next. Something tells me you would be good at Frogger.


Actually the energy is consumed during the destruction of a floor, if you still have to cling to that failed hypothetical model. Physics isn't like a restaurant, where you eat first and pay at the end. It all happens in real time.

I also don't suppose you realize that the floors below the impacted region weren't previously damaged. And I suppose you're still totally ignoring the fact that Bazant pretends the energy focuses on one floor at a time and isn't transferred down the building at all while all of this is happening, which is physically impossible. If gravity loads didn't transfer down to the ground then buildings would be able to float in the air.


But yeah, the important point I want to make here is that you kept claiming Newtons and Joules were not interchangeable. Not by just slapping a different unit on the same number, but that's not what Ross did. So I showed you the formula that shows how closely they are related (all you have to do is multiply Newtons by meters to convert between the two), and what do you know, you shut up about that. All that bitching you were doing about how you didn't even want to talk to me because I don't understand physics and what do you know, it was you that didn't understand basic physics the whole time.

reply to post by bsbray11


This just shows how stubborn and uneducated you are. I explained in more detail why you can no just take that factor and apply in to energy consumption, and you reply with this garbage. It will never end, and it doesn't matter what the subject is. You are in no way interested in the truth.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Still haven't found the image I found in 5 minutes? I will give you hint, it is in 1-6.

All those people who think that 911 was NOT an inside job know really deep down in their hearts (or guts) that it was an inside job. More and more scientist are giving it their attention because their collegues also do. And just like this woman they will come to the conclusion that the official report stinks.

Based on the collaps of building no.7 any normal person should come to the conclusion and raise the question....this is not normal....what does this mean for buildings no. 1 and 2 ?!

reply to post by zatara


My first question about building 7 would be why it would be demolished if it was an inside job. It makes totally no sense to me that a couple of masterminds thought out a conspiracy to start wars and just blew up an additional building for no reason whatsoever. And before you know it you are asking where the explosions from the demolition charges were and you quickly come to the conclusion that a controlled demolition isn't at all likely. You realize that unexpected (well, at least to some people, some firemen actually expected the building to collapse) things happen all the time.

Originally posted by -PLB-
This just shows how stubborn and uneducated you are. I explained in more detail why you can no just take that factor and apply in to energy consumption, and you reply with this garbage. It will never end, and it doesn't matter what the subject is. You are in no way interested in the truth.

Would you like to actually try to respond to my post above, or has your trolling really got to the point now where you're just going to insult me and leave it at that? If you're going to respond at all, can you please be a little more mature?

reply to post by bsbray11



Nothing you say invalidates what I say, its just a lame attempt to ridicule me. Yes, energy is consumed during crushing of a floor. Yes, floors were not previously damaged. Yes, some energy is transfered to lower floors. Those are all non arguments, it doesn't change the fact you can just take a safety factor for loads and apply it to energy consumed.

Originally posted by bsbray11
FEMA appendix C actually says steel was melted at a lower temperature than it normally would melt at, because of the presence of other compounds that ate into the steel and caused a eutectic reaction.

So then you agree that this study proves that:

1- it wasn't melted by thermxte, since those temps weren't reached

2- that your quoted poster and NISt is correct that 2500C was never reached.

Excellent.

Originally posted by bsbray11

He assumes a 100% free-fall drop of one story, of the upper block onto the lower block (this obviously did not actually happen).

We'd all like to see the motion analysis that shows him to be incorrect. Otherwise your statement is pure fantasy.

He assumes that up to 95% of the total building mass in either case, not only stayed within the footprints the entire time

We'd all like to see your evidence of your previous claims that >75% was blown out during the collapse. This would need an estimate of steel weights/floor and how much was expelled, concrete,drywall, fireproofing, and office content weights/floor and your estimate of how much is expelled during the collapse. Assertions from a simple overhead photo won't cut it for the few rational amongst us. SHOW it happening. And then tell us how much explosives (I'm assuming this is your explanation for this fantasy) it would take in order for it to happen in the time it took for a single story descent.

but that all of it exerted its full gravitational potential on each and every floor

Gravity doesn't "shut off". Therefore any assertion that it didn't exert its full gravitational potential duting descent is yet another fantasy.

including the concrete dust

It can be agreed upon that any dust that made it out during the collapse progression didn't aid in the collapse. But any larger fragments that didn't make it out sure would.

and other dismembered debris that flew out over the sides of the buildings)

Out and over? Explain that please. Sounds like yet another fantasy. It can be agreed however that ext columns didn't aid in the collapse progression, since they didn't fols "into" the building for the most part. They fell outside.

He assumes that all of that gravitational energy is absorbed only by the floor that is currently being destroyed,

Wrong. He assumes that it is being absorbed by the columns, which as he noted in his paper, is most favorable for collapse arrest, since they are stronger than the floors. In real life, it happened as you state - stuff fell on the floors. And they failed.

and that none of that energy or force is experiencing in any way whatsoever by the bottom-most floors

This is correct for both Bazant's study AND reality. In reality, stuff fell on the floors, and the force transmitted to the columns by each floor can at best be regulated by the truss seats, as noted by a previous poster. In layman's terms, and using simplified maths: if a floors truss seats can only transmit 10,000 tons of force under optimal conditions (as in undamaged) to the columns, it is irrelevant if the columns can resist 100,000 tons of force when stuff is falling onto the floors.That reserve capacity will never be utilized.

which in reality would definitely experience compressional waves of the dynamic force traveling down the building no different than the uppermost floor of the upper block would transmit its own gravitational potential to the lowermost floor of the upper block

The lowermost floors can't resist a thing, when the collapse is happening 70 stories above. It is pure fantasy to believe otherwise.

He assumes no safety factor, only enough steel to handle design loads when calculating how much energy it would take to fail a floor, effectively pretending that much of the actual steel wasn't even there.

Wrong. He used the best estimate that he could make of what the actual steel was at each floor. By assuming the actual cross section of the steel, the safety facor is already accounted for.

I could go on, .

Yes we know.

And it's sad to see that you think that repeating errors and falsehoods will somehow make it right.

Originally posted by turbofan

Do you still think AIR cut up the steel columns?

Oxy acetelyene torches did.

While that ain't exactly "air", I think everyone can agree that it ain't explosives either.

Well, the rational amongst us can.....

Originally posted by Version100

Most "experts" won't say anything about 9/11 because they have careers to protect.

False on many accounts.

There have been several papers that are critical to the NIST report, and the autor's career is just fine. Unfortunately for truthers, none of these engineers are crackpots and expouse explosives or thermxte. They all agree that while NIST has the basics right - plane impact damage + uncontrolled fires = collapse, they mostly state that NIST was too kind in their analysis, and that collapse was much more likely given the circumstances given.