"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

reply to post by Varemia


Which .. ONCE AGAIN ... shows your ignorance ... i have shown you MY EVIDENCE ..... and ONCE AGAIN ... where is yours ?
Avoiding FACT is just stupid , but not for you

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
Isn't the purpose of controlled demo to implode buildings? Not explode them.

A controlled demolition is any demolition that is caused by humans, it can be done in many ways, from using hammers to using thermite. It can be 'exploded' or 'imploded'.

A controlled demotion that causes the building to land mostly in its own footprint is a specific type of controlled demolition known as an 'implosion demolition', because the idea is to cause the building to fall in on top of itself (WTC7) as apposed to what would happen if it wasn't controlled to do that. It is the most difficult type of collapse to accomplish. Most demolitions simply cause the building to fall to one side. If there is not enough room it will be 'imploded'.

BTW the WTC towers could not have been 'imploded', like WTC7, as they were too tall. That is why the majority of the rubble was outside of the footprints, rather than inside as in WTC7.

It would really help you OS supporters to know a little bit about demolitions, and how buildings react in collapses. If you have to ask the question you did then you simply do not know enough about this to argue in favor of any hypothesis to do with building collapses.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If your principle was vertical column falling directly on vertical column with no lateral bending or pressure, then you succeeded. Congratulations!

Otherwise, your model serves no purpose other than to say that vertical supports hold each-other up. It does not dictate any kind of collapse behavioral mechanisms whatsoever.

Like your principle is not knowing how many tons of steel were in the horizontal beams on each level in the core. Those beams could not miss each other.

So where is your model that can completely collapse?

Oops, all you can do is talk, talk, talk.

Thanks to 9/11 the Physics Profession has spent a decade proving that physics is history.

It can be rewritten to serve anybodies agenda.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by PhotonEffect


So these videos ... 2 of which i used to support my theory ... are some how supporting the OS ? please explain the difference between the 3rd vid you provided and the WTC collapse...

I`ll save you the trouble....... the amount of explosives / thermite used ... that`s the difference.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

Did i or did i not ask for YOUR science ? YOUR proof ? before i tell you how much BS you have inhaled... you are really really fcuking dumb if you think i`ll play your games... i know the truth, i have shown you the truth , and asked for your honest opinion ,.... if you cant even show your EVIDENCE ... how can you argue ?

Whats with the cursing and the name calling brah. Maintain civility tough guy...

Maybe you can help me with this.. This is very interesting to me:



If controlled demo using explosives were used, as you and your friends assert, then why is the concrete core still standing for some 15sec after the perimeters of the north tower have completely crumbled around it. That core is at least 30 stories tall at that point.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


EXACTLY ... and if you check the speed of its collapse youll see why demolition is the only answer seriously , i`m not here to hurt or offend anyone... the ignorance i have seen would be enough for alot of people to "quit" ... but not me

sorry dudes and dudettes but im out for now ( kids again ).

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
If controlled demo using explosives were used, as you and your friends assert, then why is the concrete core still standing for some 15sec after the perimeters of the north tower have completely crumbled around it. That core is at least 30 stories tall at that point.

Whoa wait a minute, a concrete core?

There used to be a lot of discussion on whether the towers had a concrete core. The OSers saying there wasn't and some 'truthers' speculating perhaps there was. Why do you think there was?

I speculated there was, and the spire was in fact a corner of the concrete core, and not a core column, which would explain why it fell the way it did.

But regardless, why would that indicate it wasn't a controlled demolition? The way a controlled demolition works is dependent on where, and when, the 'explosives' are detonated. Many controlled demo's do not go as exactly planned. It is not a black and white event.

The real question is if that was the steel core, why did it continue to collapse after the floors did? The core didn't need the floors to hold it up, so please don't make that silly assertion, no one is buying it. You still need to explain how the core collapsed at all through an increasing mass.


wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

Has anyone else noticed how as soon as you provide EVIDENCE to your claim ... the people who beleive the Origonal Story seem to just .... stop posting hmmm.

reply to post by ANOK

The real question is if that was the steel core, why did it continue to collapse after the floors did? The core didn't need the floors to hold it up....

Oh, really? Perhaps when it was in a completely undamaged condition. Of course, this was not built first, all the way up, and then the exterior components added later...it was constructed progressively, from the ground up (as skyscrapers are usually built).

It collapsed in the reverse order in which it was built.

But, in any case, re: the central core structure --- it could not withstand the uncontrolled forces acting on it from the mass impacting it, as that mass fell and accelerated. The core was not intact, it was severely damaged during the collapse progression. Individual spires of steel columns don't stand unsupported for long...they topple.

Originally posted by ProudBird

Oh, really? Perhaps when it was in a completely undamaged condition. Of course, this was not built first, all the way up, and then the exterior components added later...it was constructed progressively, from the ground up (as skyscrapers are usually built).

Tall buildings are constructed like that because it is easier, not because the core needs the floors to hold it up. , strike one.

You just have to look at the core, if you have had any engineering experience at all you can see by its very construction it could hold itself up without lateral support...



That is a common engineering structure, vertical columns cross braced. Tie 47 broom sticks together with cross bracing, they will stand by themselves.

It collapsed in the reverse order in which it was built.

LOL

But, in any case, re: the central core structure --- it could not withstand the uncontrolled forces acting on it from the mass impacting it, as that mass fell and accelerated. The core was not intact, it was severely damaged during the collapse progression. Individual spires of steel columns don't stand unsupported for long...they topple.

Yet the core didn't topple, it fell straight down. If the core had toppled it would be obvious as the core debris would be in one direction. But as evidenced by post collapse pics, and FEMA, the debris was not positioned in any one direction, indicating the mass fell straight down and spread out symmetrically on the ground.

Did you look at the gif I supplied? Here it is again... (if it isn't animating refresh yer browser)



That is one of the 47 columns showing its size throughout its length. It gets progressively, and significantly, smaller and lighter, as it goes up. In other words the weight of each floors section was less as it went up. The weight of the steel on the top floor was far less than the weight on the ground floor. The top 15 floor sections weighed less than the 15 floor sections bellow it, not to mention the rest of the floors. All that steel was collapsing through an increasing mass, an increasing path of MOST resistance. Impossible.

reply to post by ProudBird


reply to post by ProudBird


But if it was weak enough to bend buckle melt or snap under low temperatures wouldnt it have collapsed under the preassure applied by the top floors .. both towers were built in three sections .... infact ... wouldnt it have collapsed due to the strain applied by the cranes which were fixed to the lower floors for easier construction ?

And EXACTLY how much preassure are we talking for the core to fail ? with your knowladge which you clearly got from the so called "experts" ... what completley oblitorated the core of each tower ? burning kerosene ?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Has anyone else noticed how as soon as you provide EVIDENCE to your claim ... the people who beleive the Origonal Story seem to just .... stop posting

hmmm.

What evidence? You've refused to give it EVERY time I've asked. I asked you a very simple question. Explain why this is incorrect:

www.slideshare.net...

You literally refuse every time, and not in a courteous manner. You tell me you have the "EVIDENCE" already presented. You tell me you don't have to explain yourself.

Well fine then. Two can play at that game. All the EVIDENCE supporting the OS has already been posted by me. I don't have to prove anything more to you because I KNOW that I have the TRUTH. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. (As you can tell, this gets everyone literally nowhere, so perhaps you could change your game up a bit and actually respond to my inquiry?)

If you are as sure as you say, you should be able to debunk the points made in the link I posted.

Oh, and remember, none of the steel in the tower melted.

Since we're apparently on the subject of the core, isn't it obvious that the collapse was imperfect?

reply to post by ANOK

Yet the core didn't topple, it fell straight down.

"topple" was just a term to describe falling...not "topple" as say, a tree (which is one long, solid piece...its trunk anyway).

But, the "core" is not on solid piece, nor is each vertical column one solid piece. The pieces broke, at the points where they were connected. There was just too much energy being introduced to the structure, from angles and directions it wasn't designed to withstand.

Originally posted by ProudBird

But, the "core" is not on solid piece, nor is each vertical column one solid piece. The pieces broke, at the points where they were connected. There was just too much energy being introduced to the structure, from angles and directions it wasn't designed to withstand.

The 47 main core columns did go from bottom to top in one continuous piece, welded I believe at each floor level.

What forces caused the welds and connections to fail is what you need to explain. The only force acting on the collapse was gravity, and the only things that should have been falling according to the OS was the floors that fell, according to the OS due to sagging of trusses, they didn't explain the core at all. There is no connection between the floor trusses failing, and the steel welds and connections of the cross bracing failing. There is simply not enough energy in the collapse to cause connections to fail, AND destroy floors all at the same time.

Even if sections of the core between the floor sections failed, it would still topple at the point it fails not fall straight down.

A good example of that is in the collapses themselves, the obvious tilt of WTC 2, and the not so obvious tilt of WTC 1. The tilts shows that the core must have been severed, and the top section collapse was independent of the bottoms collapse, not the cause of it. If you watch the collapse carefully you can see that the top was tilting, which means it had angular momentum, it can't stop that momentum by itself and suddenly decide to drop straight down. Even if the pivot point of the tilt gave way the top would not fall straight down through the path of most resistance, it would simply hit another pivot point (resistance) and continue its angular momentum. The only way that could have happened is if the pivot point was dropped independently of the top, that would leave the top with no resistance and it would fall straight down.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by ProudBird

But, the "core" is not on solid piece, nor is each vertical column one solid piece. The pieces broke, at the points where they were connected. There was just too much energy being introduced to the structure, from angles and directions it wasn't designed to withstand.

The 47 main core columns did go from bottom to top in one continuous piece, welded I believe at each floor level.

No way dude those columns sections were about 36 feet long. And they would have staggered them so that only about a third of the welds would be on any level.

I counted 41 different column shapes in the gif that you linked to. Divide that into the height of the towers. And there were 60 feet of basements.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
No way dude those columns sections were about 36 feet long. And they would have staggered them so that only about a third of the welds would be on any level.

psik

OK cool, I wasn't sure where they were welded exactly, but it's not really the point.

The point is the main 47 columns were continuous from top to bottom, and tapered in size quite considerably. They would have been arc welded, which is simply melting the metal together at the joint, which makes it as strong as the steel itself.

Originally posted by ANOK
which makes it as strong as the steel itself.

Definitely not true.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK
which makes it as strong as the steel itself.

Definitely not true.

This is funny, I had one man tell me he was a welder and that the welds were stronger than the rest of the steel.

I really don't know.. But how do they connect ends that have different shapes? Do they put a flat pieces in between and weld both of them to that? That is one of the funny things about this debate. I have thought of that many times and never seen anyone mention it.

But the columns are under compression. They don't have much bending so I don't think it is that critical.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Depends on the weld, from what I'm reading. I can't seem to locate what type of welds were used in the towers, so it's not really helpful at all.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK
which makes it as strong as the steel itself.

Definitely not true.

You want to put a bet on that mate?

A good example of what the strength of a weld is the rod numbers themselves. A 6011 rod using the first two digits (60XX) stands for a minimum of 60,000 pounds of tensile strength per square inch of weld. A 7018 is 70,000 pounds of tensile strength per square inch. In comparison, typical steel, which is graded A36 steel, has 36,000 pounds of tensile strength per square inch. The weld is usually two times stronger than the steel it is welding!

www.gowelding.org...

As previously mentioned in the effective area discussion, there is a point where increasing fillet weld size is ineffective because the base metal strength controls. This can be seen by looking at the strength equations.

Figure 5.5.3 shows an example where the weld is obviously stronger than the base metal. Adding additional weld to this connection would not have strengthened it. Additional weld would have been a waste of resources.

www.bgstructuralengineering.com...

Huh?