Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Building Collapses in Rio

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The JREF nitwits have started a thread about building collapses in Rio and making comparisons to 9/11 based mostly on ridicule since they rarely say anything relevant.

forums.randi.org...

I can't comment there since I was banned a couple of years ago.

Now the report says this building was 20 stories tall. Less than 1/5th the height of the twin towers. This brings up the distribution of mass issue that I keep talking about which applies to the twin towers. Imagine stacking 5 of these twenty story buildings. Do you think it is strong enough to support 4 times its own weight on top of itself? So the building on the bottom would have to be heavily reinforced which would make it heavier. I bet the building could not support triple its own weight.

What little I have read indicates the building collapsed because of unauthorised construction. So if the construction was near the bottom then it was nothing like the supposed top down collapse of the north tower where a lighter weaker portion would have had to destroy the stronger and heavier portion.

So it is JREFers producing nonsense out of irrelevancies. AGAIN!


psik




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   




As the building ascends it tapers. As it goes down the supports thicken. When lighter parts fall onto slightly less lighter parts and successfully break up the floors below, heavier floors are accumulated. You don't need to use Bazant's 'indestructible rigid upper block' hypothesis as the only possible explanation. You could also rely upon what actually happened: a virtual block which engulfs floors as it moves downward, constantly changing mass and morphology, swallowing up increasingly heavier floors, which in turn are more capable of destroying increasingly heavier floors.

Have you ever established if the floor supports got thicker and stronger moving downwards too? Or are you strictly dedicated to an unrealistic column-on-column impact scenario instead of a perimeter peeling funnel?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It is a courtesy to new readers or those unfamiliar with the topical details of the subject to define an often used acronym at the beginning of the piece. I have no idea what JREF stands for and it would have been so easy for the OP (Original Poster) to spell out what the acronym means. So not being able to understand the post I stopped reading it and am moving on.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by lunatux
 


JREF = James Randi Educational Forum.

See randi (dot) org -> forum.

www.lmgtfy.com...
edit on 28-1-2012 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
As the building ascends it tapers. As it goes down the supports thicken. When lighter parts fall onto slightly less lighter parts and successfully break up the floors below, heavier floors are accumulated. You don't need to use Bazant's 'indestructible rigid upper block' hypothesis as the only possible explanation. You could also rely upon what actually happened: a virtual block which engulfs floors as it moves downward, constantly changing mass and morphology, swallowing up increasingly heavier floors, which in turn are more capable of destroying increasingly heavier floors.

Have you ever established if the floor supports got thicker and stronger moving downwards too? Or are you strictly dedicated to an unrealistic column-on-column impact scenario instead of a perimeter peeling funnel?


Are you talking about the floor supports for the slab outside the core. I never claimed floor supports got thicker. I am sure they did not.

Are you saying the core of the building above the impact zone did not come down on the core below? You are talking the pancaking stuff which the NIST says did not happen.

How many connections were there to each floor. How could fire make them give simultaneously when some were more than 200 feet apart?

psik



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Are you talking about the floor supports for the slab outside the core. I never claimed floor supports got thicker. I am sure they did not.


Yes. So the energy required for floor overload (save the mechanical floors) remains the same, then.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Are you saying the core of the building above the impact zone did not come down on the core below?


Yes, but not necessarily by column-on-column impact. Were the core columns designed from one piece from top to bottom?


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You are talking the pancaking stuff which the NIST says did not happen.


I'm talking ROOSD. Remember?


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How many connections were there to each floor. How could fire make them give simultaneously when some were more than 200 feet apart?


WTC 2 tipped and then lost its fulcrum. No simultaneous failure there. WTC 1 core failed first, pulling in the floors, triggering ROOSD. This is initiation. From then on, ROOSD. Some core columns much lower didn't fail in the case of WTC 1. They failed subsequently from Euler buckling. They were unbraced way beyond what they could stand, so they self-buckled.

I acknowledge your mass distribution argument, but I don't see how or why it matters when this is the failure mode.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by lunatux
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


It is a courtesy to new readers or those unfamiliar with the topical details of the subject to define an often used acronym at the beginning of the piece. I have no idea what JREF stands for and it would have been so easy for the OP (Original Poster) to spell out what the acronym means. So not being able to understand the post I stopped reading it and am moving on.


Fine, I provided a link to it. If you don't want to use it that is your business.

psik



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
WTC 2 tipped and then lost its fulcrum. No simultaneous failure there. WTC 1 core failed first, pulling in the floors, triggering ROOSD. This is initiation. From then on, ROOSD. Some core columns much lower didn't fail in the case of WTC 1. They failed subsequently from Euler buckling. They were unbraced way beyond what they could stand, so they self-buckled.


"Tipped and lost its fulcrum", what rubbish.

The bottom of the top 29 stories move horizontally more than 20 feet. No official source even tries to explain it. The don't even talk about the center of mass of those 29 stories.





So if the impact of the plane only moved the building 15 inches what could break columns all of the way across the building so the bottom could move like that.

That is why I only discuss the mass distribution and collapse in relation to the north tower. What happened to the south tower is far more weird. So the pancake collapse rubbish of floors outside the core isn't worth stooping to respond to.

psik



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
It should be a bigger story not sure why it is not getting more coverage here or the news, three buildings is one too many to fall all in one day. maybe like building 7 in NY the crash of the towers quaked the ground so much that nearby buildings were effected.

www.youtube.com...

edit on 28-1-2012 by The time lord because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-1-2012 by The time lord because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-1-2012 by The time lord because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   



Cafe owner Marcelo de Souza said his livelihood had been destroyed and his possessions had "turned to dust", the Associated Press reported



I think it's obvious that the United States Space Beam -Death Ray had something to do with the dustification of this building. Someone call Judy Woods for verification!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The JREF nitwits




Hmmmm....


psikeyhackr
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sol III
Posts: 470


470 posts..Would that not make you a nitwit too?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
"Tipped and lost its fulcrum", what rubbish.

The bottom of the top 29 stories move horizontally more than 20 feet. No official source even tries to explain it. The don't even talk about the center of mass of those 29 stories.




I don't see your point.


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
That is why I only discuss the mass distribution and collapse in relation to the north tower. What happened to the south tower is far more weird. So the pancake collapse rubbish of floors outside the core isn't worth stooping to respond to.


Whatever floats your boat.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


It's not my fault that you can't figure out the significance of your own gif. It has all 59 columns on one side.

There were 236 perimeter columns. Even if the plane took out all of the columns on one side that would leave 177 perimeter columns to suddenly break. If the plane took out 1/3rd of the core columns that would still leave 31 columns in the core. So for the top of that building to go like that a minimum of 208 columns would have to suddenly go after 55 minutes of fire and yet we are not told the tons of steel that would have to heat up within 5 stories of the impact.

And steel has the minor problem of conducting heat away from the source.

The tilting top of the building didn't have anything to do with floors pancaking but the top would still have to accelerate the increasing mass below to come down in less than 30 seconds.

And how were fireman able to climb up to the 78th floor and report the fire being able to be "knocked down with two lines" if the damage and fire were so bad as to allow what we see in those videos?

psik



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
As the building ascends it tapers. As it goes down the supports thicken. When lighter parts fall onto slightly less lighter parts and successfully break up the floors below, heavier floors are accumulated.


This is where you make the mistake of assuming something you have no evidence, or precedence for.

You make the assumption that falling part are going to break what they are falling on.

You don't seem to take into consideration the laws of action/reaction, equal opposite reaction and conservation of momentum.

A lighter part is never going to cause a heavier part to break. I think you assume because the lighter part is falling and has momentum that it will break the heavier part, but it doesn't work that way. The forces at impact on both parts will be the same, third law of motion, equal and opposite in direction. For example if the momentum of the falling part increases the forces on BOTH objects increases, remaining equal.

So if the forces are equal, how can the smaller mass break the larger mass? It can't, the falling mass would be resisted by the larger mass. Simple basic physics.

Also do you realise that the sagging truss hypothesis assumes the 5/8 bolts must have been stronger than the columns? Do you think the bolts were stronger than the massive box columns? If you do then how did the bolts break at all in your hypothesis?

Did you notice the contradictions abound yet?

edit on 1/28/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   


First take note that that gif is misleading. It shows the top moving with the green/blue mesh, but the mesh doesn't move with the bottom, giving the impression the bottom isn't moving. It is, look carefully.

So what caused the angular momentum of the top to change?

If the floor connections were able to be broken by the pressure of the top, then why did the top tilt in the first place? Once it did start to tilt then what caused the connections to fail, when there was less direct downward pressure?
If the tilting top caused the floor connections to fail, then why didn't the tilt fulcrum fail first, surely the floor connections were able to withstand more pressure than that one point eh? If the top had the force to break floors it would never have tilted in the first place.

The North tower also shows the same, top collapsing independent of the bottom, it just didn't tilt as much...



It's just more evidence that the top was a separate collapse from the bottom. The top should have continued its angular momentum. The fact that it tilted in the first place is evidence that the bottom offered resistance to it. The fact that it suddenly drops straight down is evidence that some other energy caused the bottom to start collapsing independent of the top.

Have you ever tried to hammer a nail at an angle? Or knock a peg in that was at an angle? Think about that.

Have you noticed the contradictions abound yet?

edit on 1/28/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
The North tower also shows the same, top collapsing independent of the bottom, it just didn't tilt as much...


And there was a huge difference in the amount of tilt The south tower portion was double the height also. The additional 15 stories farther down would be heavier also.

The lack of interest in the tilted top portion of the south tower by the physics profession truly amazes me. Aside from the complete destruction of the buildings that tilted top is the most impressive thing about 9/11. People talking about floors pancaking in the south tower and ignoring that tilt are truly bizarre.

psik



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


It's not my fault that you can't figure out the significance of your own gif. It has all 59 columns on one side.


Right back at ya. It took you a while, and now that you've responded it seems you still don't get it. ANOK resorts to seeing stuff move that isn't moving, in order to discredit it. Mull over it for a while longer.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


JREF forums are for liars. period. you just need to login once to see it is so.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Was it a steele framed building with an Iron Core? Comparing the projects which were probably built by the mafia with materials gone missing to the apex of human architecural engeneering at the time is a bit of a stretch. Else we can give them things like the CCTV building, which was lit like a torch and did not even suffer a partial collapse.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

I'm talking ROOSD. Remember?


Originally posted by psikeyhackr
How many connections were there to each floor. How could fire make them give simultaneously when some were more than 200 feet apart?


WTC 2 tipped and then lost its fulcrum. No simultaneous failure there. WTC 1 core failed first, pulling in the floors, triggering ROOSD. This is initiation. From then on, ROOSD. Some core columns much lower didn't fail in the case of WTC 1. They failed subsequently from Euler buckling. They were unbraced way beyond what they could stand, so they self-buckled.

I acknowledge your mass distribution argument, but I don't see how or why it matters when this is the failure mode.


I don't even try to remember what that stupid acronym means. Th OO is Open Office. It is a tube-in-tube structure. That covers it.

The columns in the core were connected by horizontal beams. Even if the columns miss each other the horizontal beams must impact. But that is what keeps getting disappeared in these so called debates. And then we don't have data on how much thicker the beams got down the building. That would affect the weight of steel on each level.

If the floors outside the core simply pancaked then the core should have remained standing with not much damage. And then stacks of floors were never found in the debris.

psik





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join