WTC Lightweight Steel Construction

reply to post by thedman


And yet when that lightweight steel fell on top of the lower portion of the building it transmogrified into a heavy, densely packed quasi-solid mass instantaneously.

Amazing construction really.

reply to post by Darkwing01


You obviously didn't read the article, so why did you post?

The CORE is mentioned exactly once in that entire article and just says there is a 60 foot span outside the core. It has nothing about the horizontal beams in the core.

It is easier to read here:

www.fireengineering.com...

psik

One thing missed is that the highest fire controlled was the crash of B25 into Empire State Building

At an altitude of 913 feet, the 15-ton bomber impacted the Empire State Building’s 34th Street face between the 78th and 79th floors, carving an 18 ft x 20 ft hole in the building’s limestone facade.

Despite flaming debris slicing elevator cables within the building and engines and debris flying into neighboring buildings, all of the dead were contained to the floors immediately impacted and burned by the plane. Somewhat ironically, the offices destroyed were occupied by War Relief Services and the National Catholic Welfare Council, both Catholic organizations dedicated to helping European refugees of the ongoing war.

Hundreds of firemen were dispatched to the highest fire in city history, a distinction that would remain until Sept. 11, 2001. (Sadly, it is still the only fire at such a height that was ever successfully controlled). Their spectacular efforts kept damage to the building very minor outside of the impact floors
.

reply to post by godfather420


Physics, simple or complex, is not based on incredulity. Instead, mathematics is used to show whether a certain claim is correct or not. You will notice that the math that shows your claim to be correct is nonexistent.

reply to post by thedman


Pieces of WTC 7 sticking out of other buildings is your proof it didn't land in it's footprint?



You are just making a completely unreasonable argument in order to avoid admitting the obvious.

The difference between 'in its and own footprint' and not 'in its own footprint', is not some of the rubble falling outside the footprint. The difference is night and day. You seem to want to believe they look almost exactly alike, and only a slight difference changes everything.

You fail to consider that at 47 stories it would have been the tallest building by far to be 'implosion demolished'. You fail to consider how close it was to the other buildings. You fail to consider that if the building fell in any one direction, as you claim, there would be more than just a few pieces of it sticking out of other buildings. You fail to consider that the collapse would have been considered a success as a conventional implosion demolition. Other buildings would have been protected ahead of time, WTC 7 would have been gutted lessening the amount of debris and spill outside of the footprint etc. etc. etc...

If you fail to consider the details you can pretend any crap you want to keep yourself happy.

reply to post by budaruskie

Seems to me that basic common sense, as well as physics and every single experience in every person's life ever has shown over and over again that stuff that leans doesn't collapse...IT FALLS OVER!!

Only when it is rigid through out. That's the problem with the wtc's there was nothing to cross brace the floors.
Try to get a playing card tower to topple over.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman

 

Pieces of WTC 7 sticking out of other buildings is your proof it didn't land in it's footprint?

Actually, that's absolute proof. You need to respect the definition of the words "in it's own footprint". It means exactly what it says: the collapsed structure falls in upon itself and does not leave the perimiter of where the building formerly stood.

If you propose some viable alternate definition, please let us know. Otherwise, I'll continue to believe that buildings that collapse and fall across 2 sidewalks and 4 lanes of traffic into buildings across the street have not collapsed "in their own footprint".

That article is rather funny in that it never explains what "lightweight steel" is. In fact there is no mention of lightweight steel in the entire article.



There is also no mention of specific heat. It takes a certain amount of energy to raise the temperature of a given mass of any substance one degree. This amount of energy is a different constant coefficient for various substances. So steel has what is called a specific heat to be multiplied by the amount of steel. So to raise the temperature of tons of steel enough for them to weaken to result in a collapse is significant. So for an article from fire protection experts to not even mention the specific heat of steel is pretty ridiculous.

So this is just a case of "experts" trading on their reputation and implying things but not actually explaining anything. There is no mention of the amount of steel in the towers. This is one of those articles that you have to read and think about to figure out that it is nothing but a waste of time. Like most of the NIST report.

The twin towers are a simple problem being made complicated by experts to maintain the level of confusion.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That article is rather funny in that it never explains what "lightweight steel" is. In fact there is no mention of lightweight steel in the entire article.

As used in the article (if only in the title), 'lightweight steel construction' refers to the use of long, light trusses in floor construction, as opposed to the former practice of using relatively short, heavy, steel beams, as for example in the empire state building. To reiterate, 'lightweight steel' does not refer to a material, but to the way it is used.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Did they say what gauge of Tinpan they used, that is a big factor, along with the depth of the concrete.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That article is rather funny in that it never explains what "lightweight steel" is. In fact there is no mention of lightweight steel in the entire article.

As used in the article (if only in the title), 'lightweight steel construction' refers to the use of long, light trusses in floor construction, as opposed to the former practice of using relatively short, heavy, steel beams, as for example in the empire state building. To reiterate, 'lightweight steel' does not refer to a material, but to the way it is used.

OOPS!

The core and all of its horizontal beams get disappeared again.



The propaganda war is based on distorted information. We can't have information as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level. People might try to apply the conservation of momentum.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The propaganda war is based on distorted information. We can't have information as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level. People might try to apply the conservation of momentum.

Try reading the NIST report.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


OOPS!

The core and all of its horizontal beams get disappeared again.

The propaganda war is based on distorted information. We can't have information as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level. People might try to apply the conservation of momentum.

psik

Nothing got disappeared. Many things about the twin towers are not mentioned in that one article. It's specifically about the portion of construction that was innovative and distinctive about the twin towers at the time of their construction: the lightweight steel trusses spanning so far.

Why is it that you think these mass figures are so important? Any calculation you could do with an exact measurement can also be done with upper and lower boundary conditions, and possibly you could learn something that way.

Not every thread needs to turn into a "mass of concrete and steel on every level" gripe session.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr


OOPS!

The core and all of its horizontal beams get disappeared again.

The propaganda war is based on distorted information. We can't have information as simple as the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level. People might try to apply the conservation of momentum.

psik

Nothing got disappeared. Many things about the twin towers are not mentioned in that one article. It's specifically about the portion of construction that was innovative and distinctive about the twin towers at the time of their construction: the lightweight steel trusses spanning so far.

Why is it that you think these mass figures are so important? Any calculation you could do with an exact measurement can also be done with upper and lower boundary conditions, and possibly you could learn something that way.

Not every thread needs to turn into a "mass of concrete and steel on every level" gripe session.

But you complain every time I post a video of a collapse model that shows what the inertia of that mass does when attempted to be forced down from above. Of course my model can't have the correct distribution of mass since we don't know what it was. But my minimal supports to hold that mass still require energy to be crushed and the only source is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. So it slows down. It cannot complete the collapse.

So why can't the physics profession deal with that because this is not just an issue of fire and lightweight steel construction? That lightweight construction was held up by steel that was not lightweight.

My paper loops are lightweight. But they stopped the steel.



I built my model based on lower boundary conditions. The paper loops are as weak as I can make them and still support the static load. It still arrested.

psik

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman

 

You post something from 2002, and you think it trumps all the discussions on physics we have had here at ATS?

When are any of you debunkers going to actually post something of your own, all you can do is post other peoples opinions.

There is nothing in that article that concludes the OS is correct.

I would love one of you to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? You can't do it. All you can do is claim that these people you put all your faith in are telling you the truth, or are not just as clueless as you are. Why do you always seem to think if it is printed somewhere by someone with a title it's proof of anything?

Well guess what?

9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie

Do you still believe them now? Time to reconsider your position? Or will you continue to pick and choose who you believe based on their support of the OS?

So basically the 9/11 commissioners are saying the official story is a fluke and the book that they printed which many took as gospel is full of holes. Yet coupled with all the unlikely events and crazy coincidences (and fuzzy physics) people are still chirping the OS? Anyone noticed the same "debunkers" always show up on 9/11 threads? One that I looked up specifically (I leave no names) has under 1k posts all them on 9/11. Hmmmm.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by budaruskie

 

Seems to me that basic common sense, as well as physics and every single experience in every person's life ever has shown over and over again that stuff that leans doesn't collapse...IT FALLS OVER!!

Only when it is rigid through out. That's the problem with the wtc's there was nothing to cross brace the floors.
Try to get a playing card tower to topple over.

You really can't be serious, right? You are going to actually argue that all 3 WTC buildings that fell "had nothing to cross brace the floors" and consequently were not rigid structures. I honestly don't even know where to begin. I assume that you aren't blind, so you could actually see these structures standing in place holding up millions of pounds of materials for more than two decades, correct. How are also aware that the NY city and state as well as federal governments reviewed the plans for these particular buildings before they were even built, correct. So, you are saying that they failed to notice that these buildings were built like a "house of cards"?

The irony is that the only "house of cards" related to the WTC buildings is the gov'ts version of events and consequently....your argument.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
reply to post by samkent

 

It is simple physics. Matter cannot fall at free-fall speed unless there is nothing to stop it. If the world trade center was not intentionally demolished, those buildings wouldn't have fallen into their own footprints at free-fall speed. There would be too much material blocking this type of fall. I could see the top part of the building falling to the side in the direction of the initial plane hit, but falling perfectly flat, imploding on itself?

Explain world trade center building 7's collapse, when it had no fire.

So many erroneous assumptions and falsehoods.

First off, The only things falling at free-fall was the debris that was thrown from the building during collapse. The building did NOT collapse at free-fall.


WTC 7 had a LOT of fire. It was burning for 5-6 hours.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by thedman

 

You post something from 2002, and you think it trumps all the discussions on physics we have had here at ATS?

When are any of you debunkers going to actually post something of your own, all you can do is post other peoples opinions.

That has to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time!! Thanks ANOK

There is nothing in that article that concludes the OS is correct.

I doubt you even understood it, much less read it.

I would love one of you to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns? You can't do it. All you can do is claim that these people you put all your faith in are telling you the truth, or are not just as clueless as you are. Why do you always seem to think if it is printed somewhere by someone with a title it's proof of anything?

Another stundie award. This comedy is truly a hilarious read. They are telling the truth, unlike the so called "truth" movement. You should take your own advice chief.

Well guess what?

9/11 Commissioners say "Official Story" a Lie

Do you still believe them now? Time to reconsider your position? Or will you continue to pick and choose who you believe based on their support of the OS?

ANOK, you cant even get the facts straight regarding what the 9./11 Commission is. Here is a hint, it had nothing to do with the investigation of how the WTC collapsed. Geeze, I thought by now you at least understood the basics.

Originally posted by budaruskie

Originally posted by huh2142
WTC 7 was on fire for many hours. It also was leaning so it was inevitable that it would collapse. Also brief instances of free fall are not necessarily an indicator of controlled demolition.

There are no words to describe the atrocity that is this post. Water falling from the sky isn't necessarily an indicator of rain either...sometimes it some douchebag pissing down your back.

Wow. Are you going to add anything useful, or are you just going to troll and use your personal incredulity?