Building Collapses in Rio

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





If the planes severed the columns why did NIST make up the sagging truss hypothesis? They should have just stuck with core failure. The core failing makes more sense, and fits better with the evidence. But of course who would buy that planes severed the core? NIST gave up on that one years ago, yet you OSers still waffle on about the plane. I guess when you have no argument to begin with you have to use whatever you can eh?


Oh really?

I believe the cores lasted nearly 10 seconds longer than the outer main collapse. The core falling first would support a demolition, unfortunately that is not what happened, where were you the last 10 years?

I guess when you have no argument......




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by IrishWristwatch
 


But buildings are designed to hold themselves up many times over. FoS!

FoS applies to as-built geometry. Right? What happens when that geometry is lost? I asked above, do you think the components of the towers could be put together any which way and still stand? Let alone resist momentum? Surely you can see that a column end on a floor slab does not offer the FoS of columns end-to-end. Did you know capacity of even the column ends is proportional to the contact surface area? That if the column ends of the towers were displaced horizontally only a few inches they would only have a small fraction of design capacity with correct alignment?


They are never built so a slight over loading would cause failure.

Obviously true. But we're not talking about a slight overloading once the upper section is motion, it's a gross overloading even for the nominal load paths. Take away the nominal load paths and there isn't even the capacity to support it statically. And that's ostensibly how the whole thing thing initiates. Quasi-static loss of capacity and load redistribution until global failure conditions emerge. Once capacity drops below load, the load begins moving. Once motion occurs, misalignment increases and effective capacity is reduced because it is largely bypassed. Not totally, but does that matter? No.


You can talk about what ifs all day long.

What "what ifs"? I'm relating to you facts concerning physics and engineering mechanics, as opposed to just making **** up and calling it physics. The only speculation I've indulged in is expressing my opinion that core failure precipitated collapse, and I stated it as such.


Facts speak for themselves and when you put all the facts together in context with steel framed buildings the OS fails.

There are times when I have to part company with the OS. Quite a few instances, And, yes, I'm on my own in those circumstances, all I can do is state my opinion and why.


Not sure what you're on about with columns hitting columns on their ends?

You need to be or you'll never even come close to understanding what I say. Does this make it clearer for you?


Total cross-sectional area versus load-bearing cross section. You know why it's called 'load-bearing'?


How would columns hit columns that way?


Almost none would! That's the point! What on earth do you think the nominal load paths are? The paths that provide the FoS you talk about? That FoS comes exclusively from column end bearing on column end, in perfect alignment and perfect plumb. Offset the upper block a few inches and that capacity is nil by comparison!

Why is this so difficult to understand?


How would a gravity fed collapse cause columns to break, in order for them to hit end to end?

They don't, as I keep saying. So, apparently you don't think they hit in perfect axial alignment, either. So tell me where the FoS you're going on about comes from?


Steel would be resisted instantly if it hit another steel column that way.

This is completely made up pseudo science. Do I need to dredge up thousands of YT videos showing steel objects in collision which do not "resist instantly"? Can you think of a few everyday examples yourself?


But there is no reason the columns would break from their own weight. They had successfully held their own weight for years. What severed the columns to begin with?

First of all, it is advantangeous to conceptually separate intiation from progression. There is a difference between the conditions which could lead to the upper section moving due to insufficient capacity, and the conditions which could stop it once it attained a certain threshold velocity. To me (and to anyone who's examined the mechanics in depth), this distinction is paramount. It is very easy to conclude that there is no viable load path to arrest after a certain point, whereas the conditions leading to initiation are subject to no end of speculation. That's another subject and one I was not addressing in replying to you.


If the planes severed the columns why did NIST make up the sagging truss hypothesis?

Again, I'm not a spokeshole for NIST. I disagree with much of their work. I also happen to disagree with some of your claims, that's why I posted.
edit on 29-1-2012 by IrishWristwatch because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2012 by IrishWristwatch because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-1-2012 by IrishWristwatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
I believe the cores lasted nearly 10 seconds longer than the outer main collapse. The core falling first would support a demolition, unfortunately that is not what happened, where were you the last 10 years?

I guess when you have no argument......

To be fair, you're conflating the core as a whole with any localized region of the core, so this argument is flawed as well. Loss of capacity of the core (whatever the root cause) in the region of the airliner impacts can precipitate global collapse, yet the lower previously intact core region can exhibit proportionally greater survivability against the collapse front and leave a portion standing, as was the case.

Are you sure you want to stick with the premise that a core-first failure strictly implies demolition? I favor core-led initiation, and I have no demolition theories. Of course, even core-led is a misnomer. Perimeter overload and possible partial floor collapses leading to load transfer to the core in excess of its capacity in the impact regions. When the core starts to yield, the load transfer is back to the perimeters which are already in no condition to handle it, and down it comes. (For the picayune, this is my speculation and not fact).
edit on 29-1-2012 by IrishWristwatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I seem to have a remarkable capacity to stall or even shut down discussions rife with pseudoscience. Last time we locked horns, ANOK, I believe silence was your final word. Granted, it's only been a few minutes, but the posts were coming fast and furious 'til now.

If you think I'm full of it, please articulate why. If you think that I might have a point, have the integrity to acknowledge it. I'm quite accustomed to the arguments on these sorts of points to stop on a dime, as if there was a resolution, only to see the opponent has simply gone somewhere else where they perceive it easier to say the same things without the opposition they left behind.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
I believe the cores lasted nearly 10 seconds longer than the outer main collapse. The core falling first would support a demolition, unfortunately that is not what happened, where were you the last 10 years?


Then you haven't looked at all the evidence.

If the core lasted 10 seconds longer than the outer walls, then why did the antenna, that is attached to the top of the CORE, drop ahead of everything?



Also note the whole top section starts collapsing in on itself BEFORE the bottom even starts to move. More evidence the top and bottom were separate events, and the top did not do the 'crushing' of the bottom.

Where did you get that 10 seconds from? Why do you not supply sources for your claims?

Anyway, thanx for helping support the truth.


edit on 1/29/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

Originally posted by ANOK

Steel would be resisted instantly if it hit another steel column that way.

This is completely made up pseudo science. Do I need to dredge up thousands of YT videos showing steel objects in collision which do not "resist instantly"? Can you think of a few everyday examples yourself?

Jus to be clear, ANY material impacting any other or the same material will experience resistance instantaneously, if only from inertial effects. But that's not the same as resistance sufficient to bring an impactor to rest. A bag of cotton will resist the forward motion of a cannonball traveling 1000 m/s. While you didn't say it, ANOK, you certainly implied you were talking about the stronger sense of resistance.

There is no special property of steel that it can arrest another steel impactor with arbitrary capacities and momentum.
edit on 29-1-2012 by IrishWristwatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Illustronic
I believe the cores lasted nearly 10 seconds longer than the outer main collapse. The core falling first would support a demolition, unfortunately that is not what happened, where were you the last 10 years?


Then you haven't looked at all the evidence.

If the core lasted 10 seconds longer than the outer walls, then why did the antenna, that is attached to the top of the CORE, drop ahead of everything?

Once again, the whole of the core is not the same as a part of the core. Neither is the core below story 60 the same thing as the core in the mid 80's. There were core remnants in both collapses, rather tall. They didn't last long, but much of the lower inner core survived the passage of debris in the interior office space and peeling of the perimeters.

See Aman Zafar photos for WTC2 remnant and Gldbr video for WTC1. Not the only views, but perhaps the best.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





If the core lasted 10 seconds longer than the outer walls, then why did the antenna, that is attached to the top of the CORE, drop ahead of everything?


That can't be a serious analysis. I told you the building went in motion, the structure was supposed to support a vertical stress and it was breached by the big giant hole in its main 3-phase structure, and was hot enough to weaken the steel supports, and the floors went first causing the outer honeycomb outer grid to further breach the bridge support system.

Once that kind of mass goes in motion nothing is going to stop it and gravity will pull it straight down, it wont tip over like a tree, thats just elementary ludicrous.

BTW, don't you think the vertical mass of a 200 some foot tall steel pole, (its actually very big) wouldn't follow the path of least resistance? Like right through a burnt out building?

You can't be serious.

You seem to be inept at what you think you know. What do you do for a living? I hope not involved in structural engineering, because you misrepresented the building structure and I just entered this thread and called you out on your bullcrap.

Besides you must not have seen many videos of the collapses, you don't seem to shine the light on the fact you ever did, or you are blind, or a disinformation rookie.

Take a couple college courses would be my suggestion.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by ANOK
 

If the core lasted 10 seconds longer than the outer walls, then why did the antenna, that is attached to the top of the CORE, drop ahead of everything?


That can't be a serious analysis. I told you the building went in motion, the structure was supposed to support a vertical stress and it was breached by the big giant hole in its main 3-phase structure, and was hot enough to weaken the steel supports, and the floors went first causing the outer honeycomb outer grid to further breach the bridge support system.

Once that kind of mass goes in motion nothing is going to stop it and gravity will pull it straight down, it wont tip over like a tree, thats just elementary ludicrous.

Take a couple college courses would be my suggestion.


If college courses have done you so much good let's see you build a physical self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15% while damaging its support components.

psik



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The only true way one can 'model' such mass is to build the same structure, relating other stupidly inexplicable different designs with different mass is like trying to run you car on piss, even if you are an alcoholic.

The very fact it didn't fall like you think it should is the very fact we have no test model, the fact it fell mostly straight down is simple gravity of the mass and it will take out everything on its way. There is no other mass that huge that has collapsed to use as a basis of comparison.

But I have many smaller demolition videos that required explosives at the base core to set gravity in motion and the thunderous sounds of explosive cannot be confused with impact, one would have to be really stupid to confuse the two, or deaf. But if the deaf could see, they saw no explosives at the base of the building, in fact, they would be able to feel it. You ever been to a top fuel drag race?

Have you ever been in the vicinity of a very huge explosion? You could be blind and deaf and feel it.
edit on 29-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Ten Years After, A Space In Time. Seems appropriate here.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch
Once again, the whole of the core is not the same as a part of the core. Neither is the core below story 60 the same thing as the core in the mid 80's. There were core remnants in both collapses, rather tall. They didn't last long, but much of the lower inner core survived the passage of debris in the interior office space and peeling of the perimeters.

See Aman Zafar photos for WTC2 remnant and Gldbr video for WTC1. Not the only views, but perhaps the best.


I have no idea what your talking about?

If the antenna dropped before the outer walls then how could the outer walls have dropped 10 seconds ahead of the core?

What has the core at floor 60 got to do with it?

The core columns were continuous the whole height of the building. The antenna was attached to the massive hat truss at the top of the core structure. The core was the strongest part of the building, if the outer walls and floors simply peeled away then the core should not have collapsed, especially ahead of the rest of the building.

And don't give me homework, provide your sources.

Hat truss at the top of the core structure...



And remember the core columns were much smaller at the top. The core could not have collapsed straight down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance...

Pay attention to the core column data supplied by NIST...

wtcmodel.wikidot.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by ANOK
 





If the core lasted 10 seconds longer than the outer walls, then why did the antenna, that is attached to the top of the CORE, drop ahead of everything?


That can't be a serious analysis. I told you the building went in motion, the structure was supposed to support a vertical stress and it was breached by the big giant hole in its main 3-phase structure, and was hot enough to weaken the steel supports, and the floors went first causing the outer honeycomb outer grid to further breach the bridge support system.


Again I disagree with your analysis. There is no evidence that the hole in the mesh would do anything to compromise the structure.


Once that kind of mass goes in motion nothing is going to stop it and gravity will pull it straight down, it wont tip over like a tree, thats just elementary ludicrous.


Again I disagree. No one said it should have fallen like a tree, I'm saying it should never have fell in the first place.


BTW, don't you think the vertical mass of a 200 some foot tall steel pole, (its actually very big) wouldn't follow the path of least resistance? Like right through a burnt out building?


The WTC were not burned out buildings. There were no fires bellow the impact of the planes.

What vertical mass of 200ft steel poles? There is no evidence of that. The evidence shows the tops above the impacts started collapsing down before the bottom even moves.

Try this at home, take a wooden pole and pretend its a column, then try to get it to do what you are thinking the towers columns did. Can you make any part of the pole fall straight down vertically while maintaining its vertical position.


You seem to be inept at what you think you know. What do you do for a living? I hope not involved in structural engineering, because you misrepresented the building structure and I just entered this thread and called you out on your bullcrap.


Really? You have not called me out on anything, I'm here replying to your post. I know enough about engineering to discus the topic, thanks to City and Guilds of London's engineering fundamentals course and years working in engineering mechanics. You don't have to be a fully fledged engineer to understand basic engineering, and physics principles.


Besides you must not have seen many videos of the collapses, you don't seem to shine the light on the fact you ever did, or you are blind, or a disinformation rookie. Take a couple college courses would be my suggestion.


Then show me a vid that contradicts what I'm saying. Explain how your claim is consistent with Newtonian physics. Otherwise you make empty claims.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic

Have you ever been in the vicinity of a very huge explosion? You could be blind and deaf and feel it.


You make ridiculous claims.

No one ever said the 'explosions' had to be huge.

And there is so much evidence of explosions heard that to keep denying this just shows your real motive for being here. Either you just believe the OS arguments without ever really researching them, or you are a shill.

Not hearing explosions is such a weak argument anyway, what you can hear is never going to trump physics.
Not hearing explosions doesn't mean fire can cause a steel framed building to completely collapse.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


The only true way one can 'model' such mass is to build the same structure, relating other stupidly inexplicable different designs with different mass is like trying to run you car on piss, even if you are an alcoholic.


Wow! What a brilliant analogy.

But to build the same structure then you need to know the distribution of steel and concrete in the original structure. So am I to assume you are in favor of demanding that information?

psik



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by IrishWristwatch
 



Surely you can see that a column end on a floor slab does not offer the FoS of columns end-to-end.

Why not? Are you suggesting that if columns are impacted by floor slabs rather than the ends of other columns, the impacted columns will decrease in capacity and provide less resistance?

reply to post by Illustronic
 



That can't be a serious analysis. I told you the building went in motion


Once that kind of mass goes in motion nothing is going to stop it


You can't be serious.


You seem to be inept at what you think you know.


Take a couple college courses would be my suggestion.

What a cop-out. You completely failed to address any of the points Anok made in disproving your statement:

I believe the cores lasted nearly 10 seconds longer than the outer main collapse. The core falling first would support a demolition, unfortunately that is not what happened

And also provided nothing more to back up that statement. GG.


it wont tip over like a tree, thats just elementary ludicrous.

Yeah, it's not like that sometimes happens when some controlled demos go wrong..


Like right through a burnt out building?

The tower was not burnt out.


The very fact it didn't fall like you think it should is the very fact we have no test model

So you agree with investigators not modelling or computer simulating the collapse after initiation had begun?


There is no other mass that huge that has collapsed to use as a basis of comparison.

Modeling this collapse would have provided no beneficial insight to the structural engineering industry?
edit on 29-1-2012 by DrinkYourDrug because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I have no idea what your talking about?

Is that a question or a statement?


If the antenna dropped before the outer walls then how could the outer walls have dropped 10 seconds ahead of the core?

First off, I didn't say that (10 seconds) so it's not even a question I need to answer. All the same, I'll answer it. Different sections of core! What I've been saying and you don't apparently get.


What has the core at floor 60 got to do with it?

The core remnants were brought up. You objected on the basis that "the" core could not simultaneously fail and also survive the collapse. I pointed out the obvious and I will yet again: the remnants and the impact/failure zone are two entirely different sections of core.


The core columns were continuous the whole height of the building.

Technically, contiguous, there's a difference. But forget that. You don't think one part can fail and 25 stories below another part remain intact after the collapse wave passes? Different sections of core! Get it now?


The antenna was attached to the massive hat truss at the top of the core structure. The core was the strongest part of the building, if the outer walls and floors simply peeled away then the core should not have collapsed, especially ahead of the rest of the building.

Who said the core collapsed ahead of the rest of the building? I never did. In fact, in pointing out the very obviously visible remnants you're still unaware of, I claimed the opposite. I said I believe the core failed in a specific region, precipitating global collapsed, my opinion. I also said that a goodly amount of core survived the passage of the collapse wave. That's a fact.


And don't give me homework, provide your sources.

I don't know what you're talking about. That's a statement, not a question.


Hat truss at the top of the core structure...


And... so what?


And remember the core columns were much smaller at the top.

So what?


The core could not have collapsed straight down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance...

Naked, unproven assertion, already shown to be false by many analyses.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug

Surely you can see that a column end on a floor slab does not offer the FoS of columns end-to-end.

Why not? Are you suggesting that if columns are impacted by floor slabs rather than the ends of other columns, the impacted columns will decrease in capacity and provide less resistance?

Of course I'm not suggesting the column loses capacity because it hits a floor. I was clearly talking about the FOS of the combined systems of column-column versus column-floor.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
For those without an education which includes undergraduate mechanics: The governing principle here is least action, not path of least resistance. Physicists also understand, in this context, action does not mean force (as in the statement of Newton's 3rd law) but rather the integral of the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian over time.
edit on 29-1-2012 by IrishWristwatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
And don't give me homework, provide your sources.

In case you were talking about this: "See Aman Zafar photos for WTC2 remnant and Gldbr video for WTC1. Not the only views, but perhaps the best."


Aman Zafar:
www.amanzafar.com...

GldBear video:
dprogram.net...

Here's where I'm going to be perfectly frank. Any 9/11 researcher worth a mound of squat not only knows who these sources are, they're already familiar with the contents of the photos and video. And also aware of the points I'm trying to make, such that there would be no need whatever to make the point.

Where does that put you?

Over 7000 posts here (I can only guess that most are in this subforum, given the posting rate here) is awful lot to say. But how much research have you done in all that time? It doesn't appear to be much at all. A lot of what I say and what you question is common knowledge to most people investigating the events of 9/11, regardless of where they stand ideologically.

The fact is, given how far behind the curve of known facts you seem to be, you'd do well to spend considerably more time chasing down helpful suggestions like the ones I gave you, instead of complaining about sources. It might aid in learning and internalizing the obvious, incontrovertible empirical observations you seem unaware of.

A good starting place for catching up is here:

www.sharpprintinginc.com...

You may not agree with some of the opinions offered, but it's an extremely comprehensive source of information about the physical evidence associated with the tower collapses.
edit on 30-1-2012 by IrishWristwatch because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join