Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 


People have to stop thinking the WTC had a steel skeleton like the Empire State Building, with massive steel I-beams interconnected throughout the structure. The floor truss design was the major fault and the reason why it collapsed the way it did. If it had standard I-beams holding up the floors, connecting the exterior and interior columns, it would not have collapsed the way it did. However, It would have required to abandon the tube-in-tube design and have more interior vertical columns for stability.





This is what is meant by steel frame construction, or steel skeleton. The WTC was not built like this.

This is how the floor section looked:




Can you see the difference between how the floors were built in the WTC and the other standard steel skeleton structures?
edit on 5/13/2013 by GenRadek because: links




posted on May, 13 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Why is everybody talking about the mechanics of the collapse? Isnt that just a huge distraction? Why isnt anybody worried about whom pulled the strings, who funded and kept alquaeda, who funded and kept those whom funded and kept alquaeda?



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merinda
Why is everybody talking about the mechanics of the collapse? Isnt that just a huge distraction? Why isnt anybody worried about whom pulled the strings, who funded and kept alquaeda, who funded and kept those whom funded and kept alquaeda?


Because once you rule out that two planes or the damge supposedly done by them or as a result of their impacting the towers.

Nor

A conventional "controlled demolition"

You are left with an unconventional controlled demolition with an unknown mechinish but which results in the global symmetrical collapse and pulverization of two 110 stories buildings.

Tech I dont know of. That alqueda doesn't use. Tech im not sure our government has. Those guys in a cave are just an excuse and smokescreen.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





Can you see the difference between how the floors were built in the WTC and the other standard steel skeleton structures?


Maybe it might help to explain things construction wise.

If they had used typical steel superstructure for WTC, they could have built the steel from the ground tothe 110th floor without ever installing any floor pans. Just steel beams in a box configuration. One on top of another.

But with WTC they had to install the floors as soon as they installed the next level of exterior steel. Otherwise the exterior steel sections would buckle in on themselves. They needed the floors to steady them.
The light weight floor trusses would easily bow sideways until they installed the steel floor pans.
Each part of the building depended on another part to remain ridgid enough to climb up to 110 stories.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Akareyon
 

Its funny how single tracked you can be, and so many in the Truth Movement are.
I'm funny sometimes maybe, but I don't consider myself single tracked. About the Truth Movement I know nothing. As far as I can tell, truth is not in movement at all, but quite a static thing. One could argue with that, but that would become quite an esoteric discussion, so let's stay within the Newtonian/Cartesian frame of reference here ;-)

We never said its just one thing, but a whole combination of things!
That's what I'm trying to say.

It is a combo of the plane crash,
...which both towers survived, hardly swaying,

the fires from the plane, the fires that moved around,
...which both towers seemed to endure well enough, and had survived before, because that's what they were built for,

the fireproofing knocked off,
...in an utterly chaotic manner, not like someone meticulously scraped off every square inch of fireproofing,

the damage, the design of the structures, time, etc. Why do you assume that we say its only one thing? We do no such thing! We have been saying forever that it was numerous reasons why they fell the way they did.
That's what I'm saying exactly. The collapse is the result of a combination of many, many factors that have to come together, all at the right time, the right angle, the right place. If one thing were out of place or just a little bit different: no collapse. Different material, no collapse. Different architecture: no collapse. Fire only: no collapse. Planes only: no collapse. Kerosene only: no collapse. But all of it together...

This thing couldn't have gone better if it had been planned. There's a huge chance that something wouldn't work the way it should - the collapse MECHANISM for example. Just imagine, the collapse coming to a screeching halt half way down... as can often times be seen on those CDs gone wrong... you know what I mean...

In other words, the physical phenomenon observed on 9/11 cannot be replicated, it is unique in any aspect. One would have to rebuild the towers 1:1, stuff office furniture and tons of paper in them, and then crash real planes (radio controlled this time, no need for any more martyrs) into them for a REAL scientific settlement of this argument.

Please make a list of all the other conditions that have to be met so that the replicas behave the way the original towers did on September 11th, 2001: burn for an hour or so and suddenly start vanishing in a cloud of dust - in a matter of seconds, with an average acceleration rate above 5 m/s².

Even then, my bet is that you can crash five airliners into the belly of each tower, and the worst thing that would happen is for the top to break off and come tumbling down - with the base of the tower still standing. Because that's what Newton and Euler said how solid objects should behave within these orders of magnitude.

Explain to me exactly where are the floors suppose to hold their weight five times over, when they had 15+ floors moving down in a dynamic loading scenario, not a static load?
I was talking about the frame, not the floor slabs, which were designed for their respective loads only. But while we're at it, please explain how each floor would manage to be resistant enough to tear the core and outer frame downwards (instead of just giving way for all the rubble, effectively letting it fall through in between the tubes), while NOT substantially descelerating the force of the impacting masses in the process.

Wait, better even. Please show me a model of the collapse sequence to bring an end to this silly argument. No, wait, just give me any real-world example of something that progressively and globally collapses from top to bottom. No, not WTC 1, and no, not WTC 2. Something else. Quick.

Ah, take your time.

Hint: what you're looking for is called "adiabatic process" according to Professor Bazant et al.("Mechanics Of Progressive Collapse", 2007). Good luck with that. If you need any help, let me know.

Can you see the difference between how the floors were built in the WTC and the other standard steel skeleton structures?
Yes. Do you understand the statements I have made and sources I have linked in my previous posts, do you understand I'm not your enemy, and have no agenda of my own, just proving bad and false arguments wrong, building bridges of understanding and independent thought for you to walk over so you can better deflect false "Truth Movement" arguments?

²Merinda: You're absolutely right, however, this thread is about the architecture and collapse mechanics. Other threads are dedicated to other topics. Maybe that's why :-)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 


You brought up the following buildings the Petronas Towers , Jin Mao Tower and the Burj Khalifa lets see you claim again.


Originally posted by AkareyonWhy have the The Petronas Twin Towers or the Jin Mao Building, which feature the very same tube-in-tube design, not been evacuated and torn down immediately; why has Fazlur Khans entire Architecture of Chicago style not been revised, if it is so clear that this design is responsible for the never-before-seen catastrophic failure of the WTC Twin Tower architecture?


Whats even funnier is people giving you stars for your error!!!

Now they don't feature tube in tube as you claim they are not made using the same construction methods as the Twin Towers but you just brush that aside because you think you can score some brownie points talking about the New York Times Tower you were almost correct it is a tube in tube SIMILAR to the WTC but the floor design is different.

As has been stated a combination of things are responsible for the demise of the Towers.
Impact damage, fires, problems with fire proofing , the floor design and the simple fact that designers didn't have to account for thermal loading caused by fires
that has only just changed in the last few years.

You people always forget one thing NOBODY on either side can know for sure the amount of damage caused during the events we can only see the result.

As for claims of floors designed to take 5 times there load DO you know what that was, lets look at the South Tower as an example it was struck second lower down greater load above impact point and it fell first although it was hit second ,it wasn't 5 floors above impact point there wasn't just 5 floors above the North Tower impact either.

If you are wanting to talk loads what about the load of 15 floors or 30 floors dropping the height of one WTC floor as seen on the collapse videos.

I also got a claim from someone like you here that the steel had been tested to 2400 degress for several hours didn't say whether it was f or c it didn't matter at 2400 f (1315 c) its more or less liquid.

Do worry you sarcastic remarks are noted but so is the fact that you are just another arm chair expert with NO experience in actual construction or construction methods.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
If one thing were out of place or just a little bit different: no collapse. Different material, no collapse. Different architecture: no collapse. Fire only: no collapse. Planes only: no collapse. Kerosene only: no collapse. But all of it together...


How do you know this? It seems to me there are plenty of architectures that can collapse due to fire or plane impact only. Ditto for used materials.


en, my bet is that you can crash five airliners into the belly of each tower, and the worst thing that would happen is for the top to break off and come tumbling down - with the base of the tower still standing. Because that's what Newton and Euler said how solid objects should behave within these orders of magnitude.


Solid blocks? The WTC Buildings were much closer to card houses than solid blocks. Simple 2 body physics don't apply here.



But while we're at it, please explain how each floor would manage to be resistant enough to tear the core and outer frame downwards (instead of just giving way for all the rubble, effectively letting it fall through in between the tubes), while NOT substantially descelerating the force of the impacting masses in the process.


They wouldn't need to be torn down. Without restrains, the columns are not hard to push over. You can see this happening in the video in the OP.


Wait, better even. Please show me a model of the collapse sequence to bring an end to this silly argument. No, wait, just give me any real-world example of something that progressively and globally collapses from top to bottom. No, not WTC 1, and no, not WTC 2. Something else. Quick.


I can think of a very simple model. Just with rectangle blocks (as seen here) and (thick) paper (Letter/A4). Place 4 blocks in each corner of a paper, place a paper on top of it, place again 4 block in the corners and so on, build it 10 stories high like this. then drop 10 blocks on top of the top paper. I predict global progressive collapse. While if you had placed a plate on top your structure it would have hold it.

Note that this is only a (physical) model to show the concept not to model the WTC itself. But it seems you want to have a model that shows the concept. Please post your results on Youtube
(I don't have blocks as I don't have kids).
edit on 13-5-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-5-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon

... why haven't these buildings been evacuated and demolished?



ummm because they haven't been struck by airplanes?



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Akareyon

... why haven't these buildings been evacuated and demolished?



ummm because they haven't been struck by airplanes?


Full circle back to planes. Have you not been paying attention?

Planes are not the problem.

Period.

As the wise man pointed out above Now continue with fire etc.

Do that with all three buildings (substitute plane with building debris for wtc7)

And if you notice the conventional cd people so the same thing.

And they have kept fighting and bickering for the last ten years

While the government released the nist report and prayed for no unified resistance before the y turned them into

Another nut.

and the 2 bulletholes that were the wtc1&2 ignored.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Planes didn't make the floors trusses sag, and pull in columns.

Without NIST's hypothesis, the plane impacts are irrelevant. The aircraft impacts alone did not cause the collapses.

They caused the fire that NIST claims caused a truss to sag and pull in columns.

So unless you can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns, the NIST report remains an hypothesis, unprovable.

All the words in the world will not change that fact. Repeating your circular logic will not change that fact.

Anything you all claim that is not in the NIST hypothesis is nothing but uneducated guesses. NIST didn't even attempt to explain the collapses, they only offered an hypothesis for collapse initiation, so if you think the NIST report explains it all then you'd be wrong. If you think you can explain how the collapses were global then you need to talk to NIST, and explain it to them. If NIST couldn't explain the collapses, without contradicting themselves, then what makes you think you can?



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
ummm because they haven't been struck by airplanes?


Neither was WTC 7.

Hmmm?



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 

that has horizontal i-beams and not really the best pictures to compare how bout some blueprints?



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

show me the damage... never mind here:


edit on 13-5-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


So unless you can demonstrate sagging trusses pulling in columns, the NIST report remains an hypothesis, unprovable.








posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


That is a simulation, not real life. Where are the 1" and 5/8" bolts in that simulation? They didn't simulate them did they? They didn't even simulate the sagging truss hypothesis.

You can make a simulation do whatever you want, depending on the input.

Show me this happening in real life, and you might be on to something. But it ain't going to happen, I have already provided the technical info, thanks PLB who provided part of it, that shows trusses do not pull in columns, especially when they are supposed to be sagging from heat.

I'm not sure you understand sagging. You are appealing to authority that you don't even understand.

Keep on showing me stuff mate, I have been here doing this for nine years, do you really think there is anything I haven't debated here already a million times? You don't even understand the NIST report that you're defending.



edit on 5/13/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by Akareyon
 


You brought up the following buildings the Petronas Towers , Jin Mao Tower and the Burj Khalifa lets see you claim again.


Originally posted by AkareyonWhy have the The Petronas Twin Towers or the Jin Mao Building, which feature the very same tube-in-tube design, not been evacuated and torn down immediately; why has Fazlur Khans entire Architecture of Chicago style not been revised, if it is so clear that this design is responsible for the never-before-seen catastrophic failure of the WTC Twin Tower architecture?


Whats even funnier is people giving you stars for your error!!!
I don't know about recieving stars, I like them better twinkling in the velvet skies above. However, these people seem to be better at research than those who claim I have erred:

The tubular systems are fundamental to tall building design. Most buildings over 40-storeys constructed since the 1960s now use a tube design derived from Khan’s structural engineering principles,[3][44] examples including the construction of the World Trade Center, Aon Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[37] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[47]
Source

you just brush that aside
Ooops, I thought that was the way to go in this thread, ever since I brought up the BOK and the question why, if this particular concept is so uniquely prone to global collapse once one single floor fails, all the other buildings which feature the same - or a similar - design haven't been evacuated yet (and even continue to be constructed).

Best answer so far: because the owners can't be forced to demo their building if it meets the requirements of their time.

I see what you did there... So, we learn a new thing: that thousands of lives in skyscrapers world wide are under the threat of a single floor giving way (due to some kind of unexpected accident of any sort), thus initiating a global collapse, squeezing them paper flat between floor slabs in a matter of seconds -- yet nothing can be done about it because the buildings meet the legal requirements of the time of their construction. Sounds plausible...

...not.

simple fact that designers didn't have to account for thermal loading caused by fires
that has only just changed in the last few years.
You don't truly believe what you're saying there, do you?

I also got a claim from someone like you
I doubt it, there is noone else like me. The next best thing, but not quite like me.

you are just another arm chair expert with NO experience in actual construction or construction methods.
Good stuff, keep it coming :-)

The WTC Buildings were much closer to card houses than solid blocks.
Yeah, buildings these days... however, I have some bad news for you. Try for yourself: build a card house, a few stories high. Make it collapse from top to bottom. Check back here with results... don't worry, I'll be patient.

Without restrains, the columns are not hard to push over.
Because the columns weren't bolted and welded in a framework manner at all...

I can think of a very simple model. Just with rectangle blocks (as seen here) and (thick) paper (Letter/A4). Place 4 blocks in each corner of a paper, place a paper on top of it, place again 4 block in the corners and so on, build it 10 stories high like this. then drop 10 blocks on top of the top paper. I predict global progressive collapse. While if you had placed a plate on top your structure it would have hold it.

Note that this is only a (physical) model to show the concept not to model the WTC itself. But it seems you want to have a model that shows the concept. Please post your results on Youtube (I don't have blocks as I don't have kids).
I have no kids either, but two sets of Jenga just for experiments like these. Challenge accepted. However, before I start building, can you see for yourself what's wrong with your model? Hint: you're proving my point instead of refuting it.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by Akareyon... why haven't these buildings been evacuated and demolished?
ummm because they haven't been struck by airplanes?
That would be too late, wouldn't it? I mean, a bad fire can happen anytime. A floor could give way for other reasons than an airplane crash, deliberate or accidental. See, you don't really expect buildings to behave the way the wtc twin towers did either. Otherwise, you wouldn't wait for someone to fall of the balcony before you install a banister.


how bout some blueprints?
Absolutely right, how 'bout some blueprints... engineers and architects have been asking for these for over a decade now :-)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
]I have no kids either, but two sets of Jenga just for experiments like these. Challenge accepted. However, before I start building, can you see for yourself what's wrong with your model? Hint: you're proving my point instead of refuting it.


I don't think there is anything wrong with it, and does exactly what you asked for. The only thing I can think of is that you will move the goalposts, and add some additional conditions afterwards. But if you don't, I think you will end up with a "real-world example of something that progressively and globally collapses from top to bottom".



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Columns fell over? Really? Which columns would that be? The massive core columns that were continuous for the whole 110 stories? That were box columns of almost 4" thick steel that tapered up to about one half inch at the hat truss?

Have you ever actually watched the collapses, ever?

The core collapse is something that has also never been explained. The 47 core columns would not vertically collapse from floors dropping. If they needed the support of the floors they would have fell over, as you say, but they didn't did they?

It would have taken a massive force to cause the core columns to break apart and fall vertically. Far more force than lightweight floor systems could provide. It would not be logical to design a building were the floors could do that.

edit on 5/14/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

I'm at work right now, so no experimenting till 10pm GMT.

I can tell you from experience right now however that it is extremely hard to balance 5 Jenga blocks upright on top of each other -- and nearly impossible to do so with 10 Jenga blocks. But this is not what the outer frame of the WTC was like. It was quite stable on its own, subtropical storms and earthquakes absent.

Essentially, you're asking me to build something that collapses on its own, if not held upright by the "hands of god". If that is what you are saying the twin towers were build like, you're opening a rusty can of vile worms straight out of hell. Because that is not what architects do. Architects build things so they remain upright.

Depending on the stiffness of the paper I'll be using, the "floors" might add some stability to the structure, but still the tower will be prone to torsional forces around the vertical axis.

I can emulate different variables for the "stiffness" by moving the columns more or less towards the center, or by using different paper strengths. Yet, in the long run, this will only affect the number of floors that will collapse before the progression comes to a full halt (except if a stray Jenga block knocks down a column near the base, initiating a classic gravitational collapse by removing the frictional forces that make up the tensile strength (have seen that happen a lot, but we're talking WTC 1&2 here, not WTC 7)).

There's another parameter I can alter - I can just zig-zag fold each sheet of paper (like corrugated cardboard) and alternate the alignment of each "floor" orthogonally to simulate the truss structure of the floor slabs.

Because the very moment I'm building, I'm an architect, I want my buildings to remain upright until something bad happens (10 blocks dropping on top). Of course I'll do anything I can to add strength to it. I would be raving mad to allow anyone to dictate conditions under which my building would collapse the very moment I turn my back on it.

Were Minoru Yamasaki and Emery Roth & Sons madmen, building something so unstable it would collapse on its own? Or were they aware of the subtropical storms that would rock the buildings for three decades? If it's the first, what kept the towers upright then? If it's the second, what brought it down?

I understand you're trying to propose a model for a collapse from top to bottom.

Try for yourself, with different heights and papers. I predict for any structure stable enough to remain upright on its own that the collapse progression will stop after a few floors, depending on the stiffness of the structure. You'll be standing there and looking at a tower with its base intact, a small heap of "rubble" on top of its "crushing zone", and a lot of bricks laying evenly around your room.

Either that, or the whole tower will tilt sideways.





top topics
 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join