Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

ETA: I know that earlier I said one bolt on one side and two on the other. The diagrams show two 5/8 inch bolts on the top and two 1 inch bolts on the bottom,on each side.......Oh no it's a conspiracy....I would like to correct myself before someone takes issue with it, that is if any of the information available today is correct

So you still can't specify the total number of connections but you think the "conspiracy" psychological BS is significant.

psik

I believe I specified how many bolts there are.

Can you read?

ROFLMAO

You specified how many bolts there were on each end of ONE TRUSS. But you are talking about entire floor slabs falling down.

How many connections were there all around the outer and inner edges of the floor assembly? How could they all come loose simultaneously due to fire?

psik

Who said it was due to fire! Is that what you think happened ?
What do you think an OS believer like me thinks happened ,South Tower first then the North?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

How many connections were there all around the outer and inner edges of the floor assembly? How could they all come loose simultaneously due to fire?

psik

88 truss to outer wall connections.

68 truss to core connections.

20 truss to truss connections.

It was not simultaneous.

When one truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.

It's called a cascading failure.

A cascading failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts.

The Truth Movement is another fine example of a Cascading Failure.

Originally posted by waypastvne
It was not simultaneous.

It had to have been otherwise the floors would have shown signs of obvious resistance, and floors would not have fallen symmetrically. Any resistance would cause the collapse to have been slowed at the point of resistance.
But there is obvioulsy no sign of that happening, as once the collapse was fully initiated the building collapsed with each side falling at the same rate throughout the complete collapse.

The only sign of resistance was the tilting of the tops, both tilted, but building two tilted more obvioulsy. The resistance that was causing the tilt of the top was suddenly removed when the rest of the building started collapsing underneath it. From then on there was no resistance. This to me shows the top and the bottom were two separate collapses. The top started collapsing before the bottom section did, it's the only explanation,

and guess what?...



It's exactly what happened.

Originally posted by ANOK
From then on there was no resistance.

The collapse progressed at 65% of gradational acceleration. You didn't get the memo ? Call David Chandler and have him fill you in. So that means 35% of the potential energy was used up by resistance.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

How many connections were there all around the outer and inner edges of the floor assembly? How could they all come loose simultaneously due to fire?

psik

88 truss to outer wall connections.

68 truss to core connections.

20 truss to truss connections.

It was not simultaneous.

When one truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.
And when that truss fails the force from the load it was carrying is transferred onto the truss next to it.

It's called a cascading failure.

A cascading failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts.

The Truth Movement is another fine example of a Cascading Failure.

And how much time would that take? Didn't the buildings come down in less than 18 seconds?

And because the floor went all of the way around the core wouldn't one side have to tilt down first because of your "delusional" cascade? So wouldn't that squeeze the core creating a lot of friction.

The nice thing about BELIEVING is that it let's you ignore so many details that need to be explained.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr



And how much time would that take? Didn't the buildings come down in less than 18 seconds?

And because the floor went all of the way around the core wouldn't one side have to tilt down first because of your "delusional" cascade? So wouldn't that squeeze the core creating a lot of friction.

The nice thing about BELIEVING is that it let's you ignore so many details that need to be explained.

psik

This is the question i answered.

How could they all come loose simultaneously due to fire?

That question could only mean you were talking about collapse initiation.

So how much time would this take to happen ?

56 minuets for tower 2 And one hour and 42 minuets for tower 1.


The Truth Movement is another fine example of a Cascading Failure.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr



And how much time would that take? Didn't the buildings come down in less than 18 seconds?

And because the floor went all of the way around the core wouldn't one side have to tilt down first because of your "delusional" cascade? So wouldn't that squeeze the core creating a lot of friction.

The nice thing about BELIEVING is that it let's you ignore so many details that need to be explained.

psik

This is the question i answered.

How could they all come loose simultaneously due to fire?

That question could only mean you were talking about collapse initiation.

So how much time would this take to happen ?

56 minuets for tower 2 And one hour and 42 minuets for tower 1.


The Truth Movement is another fine example of a Cascading Failure.

ROFL

Notice that you didn't explain the tilting floor squeezing the core if this cascade occurred.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
[
Notice that you didn't explain the tilting floor squeezing the core if this cascade occurred.

psik

Why should I ? That probably happened. In fact i'm 99.99999999% sure that's what happened. So what.

There is not enough friction drag there to stop the floors momentum.

You know if you build another model that actually fails under shear, you could have your own cascading failure. The model you got which is just a plain failure.

reply to post by waypastvne

This so-called "cascading failure" is an OS'er wet dream. It has absolutely no basis in reality.
The trusses that you say failed because of the weight of those above it that came down? What kind of nonsense is that? They are designed to hold the weight of those above it! In fact, much more than that. They are designed to hold he weight of ALL of the floors above, full of people, with a safety factor to boot.
You are writing absolute nonsense. Where did you get this nonsense?
Really.

Originally posted by SirClem

This so-called "cascading failure" is an OS'er wet dream. It has absolutely no basis in reality.
The trusses that you say failed because of the weight of those above it that came down? What kind of nonsense is that? They are designed to hold the weight of those above it! In fact, much more than that. They are designed to hold he weight of ALL of the floors above, full of people, with a safety factor to boot.
You are writing absolute nonsense. Where did you get this nonsense?
Really.

The trusses are designed to hold up the weight of ONE floor and every thing that's on THAT floor with a safety factor.

The trusses are attached to vertical columns with a steel angle called a truss seat.

The vertical columns are what supports the weight of every thing above it, not the floor trusses.

The truss seats failed and the floors separated from the columns and to put it simply the building unzipped.

If you want know more about the truss seats read the link.

Link

This is a truss seat:

reply to post by waypastvne

No, the columns do not. The columns hold the trusses, but there is no vertical load on the columns themselves.
This so-called cascading collapse should have left the columns intact.
It didn't. They were blown apart.
You know that.

Originally posted by SirClem
but there is no vertical load on the columns themselves.

You are kidding right ? Do you have a structural engineering degree from Truther U ?

A column or pillar in architecture and structural engineering is a vertical structural element that transmits, through compression, the weight of the structure above to other structural elements below

reply to post by waypastvne

Transmits. The. Weight.
To what?

Since I will not get an answer...
For a so-called "cascading collapse" to ever work, the vertical columns would have HAD to remain intact. The floors collapsing because of the weight above would have had to separate from the vertical columns, leaving them standing in some fashion.
But, that is not what happened. They were blown apart. They simply had to be for the collapse to happen.

Originally posted by SirClem
Since I will not get an answer...
For a so-called "cascading collapse" to ever work, the vertical columns would have HAD to remain intact. The floors collapsing because of the weight above would have had to separate from the vertical columns, leaving them standing in some fashion.
But, that is not what happened. They were blown apart. They simply had to be for the collapse to happen.

The initiator of the collapse was the exterior columns pulling in until they failed and the collapse began. After that, you had a block of 15-30 floors moving down as one block impacting the floor below it, overloading the floor truss seats causing them to fail, either being bent out of alignment, broken off, or completely sheared off. As the collapsing section hit the next floor, it was literally smashing through the seats, causing each floor to fail and join in the growing mass. The floors failed internally, while the exterior columns were left freestanding for a few moments, before they got forced out by the falling debris above.
There were no columns blown out by explosives, as there is no proof or evidence. Remember, someone hearing something go "boom" does not equal explosives, especially in a fire, or a collapse.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by SirClem
Since I will not get an answer...
For a so-called "cascading collapse" to ever work, the vertical columns would have HAD to remain intact. The floors collapsing because of the weight above would have had to separate from the vertical columns, leaving them standing in some fashion.
But, that is not what happened. They were blown apart. They simply had to be for the collapse to happen.

The initiator of the collapse was the exterior columns pulling in until they failed and the collapse began. After that, you had a block of 15-30 floors moving down as one block impacting the floor below it, overloading the floor truss seats causing them to fail, either being bent out of alignment, broken off, or completely sheared off. As the collapsing section hit the next floor, it was literally smashing through the seats, causing each floor to fail and join in the growing mass. The floors failed internally, while the exterior columns were left freestanding for a few moments, before they got forced out by the falling debris above.
There were no columns blown out by explosives, as there is no proof or evidence. Remember, someone hearing something go "boom" does not equal explosives, especially in a fire, or a collapse.

You do understand that would take more than 10-15 secs for such a colapse? Guess you dont...

Originally posted by SirClem
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Transmits. The. Weight.
To what?

The columns transmits the weight all the way down to the foundation.

If you are really interested in understanding structures and what we are discussing, the next term you should look up load paths.

Originally posted by Juanxlink



You do understand that would take more than 10-15 secs for such a colapse? Guess you dont...

Structures that fail under compression do take time. They have to buckle the column and fold it down to the next floor. Structures that fail in tension or shear happen much quicker as they don't have to crush anything and push it out of the way. How long does it take a rubber band to snap under tension ? Have you seen the trick where you hang a ruler half way off a desk edge and place a piece over the ruler on the desk end. Then when you hit the part of the ruler that's sticking out it breaks before the paper can move. That's a shear failure.

After collapse initiation the failure mode was mostly shear.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Notice that you didn't explain the tilting floor squeezing the core if this cascade occurred.

psik

Why should I ? That probably happened. In fact i'm 99.99999999% sure that's what happened. So what.

You obviously don't have enough 9's there.

I don't believe in being SURE of anything. The universe is too complicated.

But eliminating levels 91 thru 95 would leave a 60 foot gap under the top 15 stories. That would result in 15 levels reaching 44 mph. So that still leaves the problem of explaining how 15 levels could crush 90 in less than 18 seconds and all of your NINES don't mean squat compared to that.

The floor connections don't have anything to do with the amount of steel on every level within the core.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


You obviously don't have enough 9's there.

I don't believe in being SURE of anything. The universe is too complicated.

But eliminating levels 91 thru 95 would leave a 60 foot gap under the top 15 stories. That would result in 15 levels reaching 44 mph. So that still leaves the problem of explaining how 15 levels could crush 90 in less than 18 seconds and all of your NINES don't mean squat compared to that.

The floor connections don't have anything to do with the amount of steel on every level within the core.

psik

The amount of steel in the core means diddly squat to the floor truss seat sections. It means nothing, The very fact that the floors (ie floor trusses, steel decking, concrete slabs, desks, offices,) collapsed inside the tube means that they were no longer attached to the core or the exterior columns. That left the exterior free standing and the core freestanding. But as we saw, it was nearly instantly enveloped by the the collapsing debris above which helped push out the exterior columns. The core itself remained partially intact, leaving the infamous "Spires" behind, which also showed how they failed and fell over.

You are right, the floor connections didnt have anything to do with the amount of steel in the core. That is just a strawman constructed by you.