Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You have communicated with someone who was 12 at the time and he knew

You want to try to tell me I cannot comprehend physics, which, I have stated, it just an asinine statement in here now, but now you are putting your 'faith' in what a made up....er..I mean...a 12 year old you talked too.

Why do you and others constantly count or demand someone else do what you preach and defend? Do you see how silly that sounds? It would rake a very long time, but if you wanted, you could make up and calculate the general mass of the floors within 10's of tons. Why would that not work and why are you not doing it. Don't tell me too because I understand what happened that day and not chasing a phantom. Something that is not there. It is a good story and that is all it is.

Now, if you two are done railroading another thread to talk of weight of concrete and Ke, what was the outside energy that was introduced? What was it that made sure those buildings, after being struck by full jetliners and burning for as long as they did, made them collapse.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You have communicated with someone who was 12 at the time and he knew

It is quite obvious that you either cannot read or just want to interpret things in a stupid manner.

I did not say he figured it out when he was 12. He obviously aged since then. He did not specify when he figured it out. It took me two weeks to decide that airliners could not do that but I was not 12. I decided I was an agnostic at 12. So you can imagine what I think of all of you people who still believe it after TEN YEARS. The very nature of how skyscrapers must be designed to hold themselves up makes it IMPOSSIBLE. So 9/11 is a HUGE global psychological problem. So the people who have to know how to design skyscrapers don't talk about the distributions of steel and concrete and the people who want to believe nonsense do not ask.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You say it right here man....

The very nature of how skyscrapers must be designed to hold themselves up makes it IMPOSSIBLE.

Correct. To hold themselves up when all parts are working in union. Not when you take away part of the support that allows the design to stand as it does. The designers did the job they were supposed to. It survived the impact. It did not survive the damage that the ensuing fires created and gravity working on the unbalanced loads.

I think the weak point was the dampeners and it you Google it you will see others agree. This is what failed on 9/11.You can try to calculate anything you want but this small, simple piece is what made sure that it worked. This connected the inner frame to the outer frame and allowed for the movement needed. Realize that many people would get sick in the WTC from the motion.



and thermite did not cause this...



It twisted when the corner in one case gave way.No need to anything from the outside. That large steel beam is a failure point. Where is any evidence of explosives, ie thermite?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You say it right here man....

The very nature of how skyscrapers must be designed to hold themselves up makes it IMPOSSIBLE.

Correct. To hold themselves up when all parts are working in union

I don't give a damn about your VAGUE BULLSH# about WORKING IN UNION.

The steel on level 10 is only affected by the steel on level 94 by the amount of weight that the steel on level 10 must be strong enough to support. Damage on level 94 has no effect on level 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 etc., etc. So everything below level 90 of the north tower should have been intact UNLESS THERE WERE SOME OTHER FACTORS damaging the building.

So when I drop the mass of the top 12% of my model onto the intact portions of my model bring it to a stop. That is what should have happened to the north tower. Unless of course the top just fell down the side. The top of my model cannot fall down the side because of the dowel.

So your "WORKING IN UNION" is just your rhetorical psychological crap. You just think words can get people to believe in delusional physics.

psik

reply to post by esdad71

Correct. To hold themselves up when all parts are working in union. Not when you take away part of the support that allows the design to stand as it does. The designers did the job they were supposed to. It survived the impact. It did not survive the damage that the ensuing fires created and gravity working on the unbalanced loads


I think the weak point was the dampeners and it you Google it you will see others agree. This is what failed on 9/11.You can try to calculate anything you want but this small, simple piece is what made sure that it worked. This connected the inner frame to the outer frame and allowed for the movement needed. Realize that many people would get sick in the WTC from the motion.

.





Finally, a voice of reason..............

I sometimes leave out the dampers...............

I put it all in two words........Shear strength...........

Well said and definitely a star from me.............logic and reason are not that popular around here on this subject.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You say it right here man....

The very nature of how skyscrapers must be designed to hold themselves up makes it IMPOSSIBLE.

Correct. To hold themselves up when all parts are working in union

I don't give a damn about your VAGUE BULLSH# about WORKING IN UNION.

The steel on level 10 is only affected by the steel on level 94 by the amount of weight that the steel on level 10 must be strong enough to support. Damage on level 94 has no effect on level 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 etc., etc. So everything below level 90 of the north tower should have been intact UNLESS THERE WERE SOME OTHER FACTORS damaging the building.

So when I drop the mass of the top 12% of my model onto the intact portions of my model bring it to a stop. That is what should have happened to the north tower. Unless of course the top just fell down the side. The top of my model cannot fall down the side because of the dowel.

So your "WORKING IN UNION" is just your rhetorical psychological crap. You just think words can get people to believe in delusional physics.

psik

It is clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about....................

The floor truss connection only support the weight of that floor............not the 90 floors above it.

The connections of each truss to each vertical I beam have a designed or set load limit..........If this limit is or force close to the limit is suddenly applied then there is possibility of failure of the connections........

In other words......One floor is not designed to hold up another floor.....Tha is the job of the load bearing perimeter.

So your "WORKING IN UNION" is just your rhetorical psychological crap. You just think words can get people to believe in delusional physics.

The World Trade Center towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns.

The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.[30] The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[31] Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels.

The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. .

en.wikipedia.org...


Yes,,,,,, all of the componets and connections work in UNION to fulfill the job of keeping the load upright.

Everybody should know this

You're right.

Outside energy was introduce. It's called Kinetic and chemical. Such as the mass of an airliner traveling at greater than 500 mph. Chemical energy in the form of thousands of gallons of jet fuel that was gravitationally distributed throughout the structure via elevator shafts and ignited, thereby blowing windows out (that people interpret as squibs, nonsense) with a massive over pressurization.

Originally posted by liejunkie01

It is clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about....................

The floor truss connection only support the weight of that floor............not the 90 floors above it.

The connections of each truss to each vertical I beam have a designed or set load limit..........If this limit is or force close to the limit is suddenly applied then there is possibility of failure of the connections........

In other words......One floor is not designed to hold up another floor.....Tha is the job of the load bearing perimeter.

WHAT WERE THE FLOOR TRUSS CONNECTIONS CONNECTED TO IN ORDER TO HOLD UP THE FLOOR?

Here we have another person disappearing the core. But the NIST report says the perimeter supported 47% of the weight and THE CORE supported 53%.

But I'm the one that doesn't know what he's talking about. YEAH RIGHT!



psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

WHAT WERE THE FLOOR TRUSS CONNECTIONS CONNECTED TO IN ORDER TO HOLD UP THE FLOOR?

Obviously they were connected to the outer and Inner vertical support I beams............

When one floors connections were severed the outer I beams want to expand outwards..........from the sudden loss of stabilty of the severed truss connections and the dampers..........The floors were not load bearing but thay act as stabilizers...........................

You just can't have a 1/4 mile long I beam sticking straight up out of the ground.....It needs stability...

There is nothing to keep the horizontal outer beams stable when the connection failed....sudden shock of the forces letting go, put the beams outside of their design capabilities, hence vertical stabiltiy is lost.

Here we have another person disappearing the core

.

What about the core?

The core of the towers housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.[32] The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors.[33] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch (2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers that helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants.

en.wikipedia.org...

Is the core not a part of the structure as a whole?

There is nothing majical about the buildings core.

But the NIST report says the perimeter supported 47% of the weight and THE CORE supported 53%.

Did I mention the NIST report?

I could care less what that piece of propaganda wannabe paper has to say..........

Politics is dug in too deep in the NIST report....................

I never quote the NIST report........You should'nt either

But I'm the one that doesn't know what he's talking about

.

Like I said.............It is obvious.....

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

WHAT WERE THE FLOOR TRUSS CONNECTIONS CONNECTED TO IN ORDER TO HOLD UP THE FLOOR?

Obviously they were connected to the outer and Inner vertical support I beams............

When one floors connections were severed the outer I beams want to expand outwards..........from the sudden loss of stabilty of the severed truss connections and the dampers..........The floors were not load bearing but thay act as stabilizers......

I beams don't WANT anything. They are inanimate objects.

The core columns were connected by beams stronger than the trusses outside of the core. The Purdue simulation shows the structure of the core @ 2:50.



So where is the explanation of how 90 stories came down so fast?

A simple thought experiment which our engineering schools should have been able to simulate some time ago would be to merely remove five simulated levels from the north tower, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories floating in the air and 90 intact simulated stories below. Then let gravity take its usual immutably boring course. The bottom of the 15 stories would impact the top of the 90 in just under 2 seconds at 44 mph or 65 feet per second.

The 90 stories should be 1080 feet tall so if the 15 stories could maintain a constant 65 ft/sec while destroying them the collapse would take 16.6 second plus the 2 seconds totaling 18.6 seconds. But that is significantly longer then most estimates of collapse time therefore the 15 stories would have to accelerate while crushing stories heavier and stronger than themselves.

Now completely eliminating 5 stories to make that 2 seconds of acceleration possible is more damage than the airliner impact and fire could have done so we know that 60 feet of empty space never existed. But that thought experiment eliminates all argument about how hot the fires got because they could not instantaneously disappear five stories.

The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90? Even assuming a 3 to 1 ratio of destruction, which I regard as unlikely, that would leave 45 stories standing which is not what happened on 9/11. So if that simulation is done and it comes nowhere near complete collapse then what is this nonsense that has been going on for more than TEN YEARS?

Curious how no one tries to account for that but keeps going back to those truss connections like they can change the conservation of momentum.

They need something to hang their silly belief on while ignoring the inertia of tens of thousands of tons of mass.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up.

Here is the info that supports this claim OSers. This is what NIST used for their simulations.

This gif image shows one of the core columns from the bottom to its top...



As you can see it significantly tapers as it goes up, being much more massive at the bottom.

All of them are shown here...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Originally posted by ANOK

As you can see it significantly tapers as it goes up, being much more massive at the bottom.

All of them are shown here...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

And most of the way up it is not I-beams, it is BOX columns.

But we don't have data on the horizontal beams connecting those columns.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

It took me two weeks to decide that airliners could not do that....

How were you ever able to do that without the steel/concrete distribution data? I thought that information was vital? You're just amazing! You are able to draw conclusions without data that everyone else needs! Amazing!

There is no need for images. I have given you this easy analogy before. If you take a book and you hold it up with twelve pencils, 3 on each side, how long does it take for it to fall of you knock one over? After you knock over the first pencil, right? Because the weight is not distributed to all of them and the energy that is no longer supported needs somewhere to go. Well, here enters gravity. Down we go.

reply to post by hooper


Actually it's your claims that require that data, you are the one claiming to know what happened. That being what NIST etc., told us. So how do you, or more importantly how do they know without all the pertinent information? Are you not concerned about that also?

Why are you here trying to blatantly support the OS, when it's the OS that we should ALL be questioning?

What is the point of trying to dissuade people form asking questions hooper?

Originally posted by esdad71
There is no need for images. I have given you this easy analogy before. If you take a book and you hold it up with twelve pencils, 3 on each side, how long does it take for it to fall of you knock one over? After you knock over the first pencil, right? Because the weight is not distributed to all of them and the energy that is no longer supported needs somewhere to go. Well, here enters gravity. Down we go.

How about you anchor the pencils to the ground, and tie them together with cross-bracing? Then see if you get the same result.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It took me two weeks to decide that airliners could not do that....

How were you ever able to do that without the steel/concrete distribution data? I thought that information was vital? You're just amazing! You are able to draw conclusions without data that everyone else needs! Amazing!

It is not my fault that you can't figure out how obviously IMPOSSIBLE it is for a skyscraper to do that. Find a picture of the CN Tower in Toronto. The strength of a skyscraper must be similar to that. But the WTC had to withstand a greater force of the wind because the WTC did not get narrower toward the top like the CN Tower.

The problem is the level of STUPIDITY of the people who think the buildings could collapse.

TEN YEARS and no engineering school talks about building a physical model that can completely collapse. They don't even discuss accurate data for distributions of steel and concrete. Thinking the top of the north tower could destroy everything below in nothing but a gravitational collapse is simply pure unadulterated STOOPID!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The levels had to get stronger and heavier going down and lighter and weaker going up. So how could 15 stories destroy all 90?

This is where you are going wrong,,,,or somewhere in there.

15 floors are not destroying 90....

The entire weight of the "15" floors is coming down on the connections of the floor they are falling onto........then all of that weight falls onto the next floor down.....and so on.........

It is the connections man, not a solid block........I repeat the floors are not solid......they are connections that try to absorb the impact of the super load that was just applied to them. and they fail at a certain load weight......

They need something to hang their silly belief on while ignoring the inertia of tens of thousands of tons of mass.

I believe that you just summed up your whole dilemma right there...............

the tens of thousands of tons of mass exert enough energy from inertia to shear the connections that are designed to withstand a certain load......a load that obviously was exceeded.........

reply to post by ANOK


There are three components to consider.

1. Inner columns
2. Outer Columns
3. What connected said columns.

The Inner and Outer columns relied on one another to balance the towers. To achieve this, you have to connect them. So, for my example, put a paper clip at the top of each pencil and balance the book. Now, when you can design that, take away a paper clip and tell me what happens?

I mean, this is even more apt for failure as was the WTC.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

There are three components to consider.

1. Inner columns
2. Outer Columns
3. What connected said columns.

The Inner and Outer columns relied on one another to balance the towers. To achieve this, you have to connect them. So, for my example, put a paper clip at the top of each pencil and balance the book. Now, when you can design that, take away a paper clip and tell me what happens?

I mean, this is even more apt for failure as was the WTC.

What utter rubbish! The core columns were connected I-beams. There were 2.5 times as many feet of horizontal steel on each level than vertical steel in the core. We just have no data on how thick it was at each level. The core could have stood by itself without the perimeter and the floors outside the cores.

psik