• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

stateofgrace said:
Now 28th since you believe the core did not survive but was actually snapped at each floor level, please offer up your proof.
Click to expand...

What about how all the core columns were broke up into short sections? Maybe that is some evidence that the cores were breaking at many different points. I don't know...just seems like common sense to me. Core column scraps at ground zero were in 40 foot sections...tells me they broke every 40 feet...I don't know just seems like common sense to me.

Minadin said:
The floor systems provided lateral support for the core and the exterior columns. The core took the brunt of the vertical dead loads for the floors, while the exterior took most of the wind loads as well as the vertical loads. If you have any one of those systems fail, the other 2 cannot function anymore, and the structure will collapse.
Click to expand...

Excellent point...the core took the vertical load, so when the perimeter columns supposedly broke...it left the cores vulnerable to lateral loads...not vertical loads, which is what the upper falling mass is...it's a vertical load, of course, I know you're gonna say that somehow...it was pushing laterally on the core columns...even though that's not physically possible...but trying to make a possibility out of an impossibility sometimes requires the use of what I like to call...

Bonus Material:

The core of the WTC 2 consisted of 47 steel columns...and even had it's own floor systems separate from the floor space that went from the cores to the perimeter. These 47 core columns were heavily cross-braced and connected at each floor by I-beams and girders. So, were not talking about a row of perimeter columns that can buckle when pulled laterally...we're talking about a super box-like core, that is woven together with an extremely intense web of support.

I think it's obvious to say, that this core couldn't have buckled, especially in the span of one second. Likewise, I can't conceivably see how a load bearing down (not lateral) could have caused any other failure of this core. Keep in mind...these towers are collapsing rather quickly, so that would have to mean that this intense super core of columns, girders, I-beams, is somehow bowing or buckling and breaking at each floor almost instantly and without any resistance.

I don't know...something just doesn't add up for me.
 
What about how all the core columns were broke up into short sections? Maybe that is some evidence that the cores were breaking at many different points. I don't know...just seems like common sense to me. Core columns scraps at ground zero are in 40 foot sections...tells me they broke every 40 feet...I don't know just seems like common sense to me.
Click to expand...
so you think each of the floors were 40 feet high?

maybe the core broke at those lengths because those are the lengths of girders used to construct the core (really theres no way of knowing they broke during the collapse or upon hitting the ground after the collapse)

Excellent point...the core took the vertical load, so when the perimeter columns supposedly broke...it left the cores vulnerable to lateral loads...not vertical loads, which is what the upper falling mass is...it's a vertical load, of course, I know you're gonna say that somehow..it was pushing laterally on the core columns...even though that's not physically possible...but trying to make an possibility out of an impossibility sometimes requires the use of what I like to call...
Click to expand...
so if theres no way to apply a lateral force why bother with the perimeter columns to brace against lateral forces?

without the perimeter columns wind shear alone would be enough to cause a failure of the core

I think it's obvious to say, that this core couldn't have buckled, especially in the span of one second. Likewise, I can't conceivably see how a load bearing down (not lateral) could have caused any other failure of this core.
Click to expand...
so if the core was designed to bear 50% of the gravity load, and upon the failure of the perimeter columsn its now bearing 100% of the gravity load (double what it was designed for) factor in the 10 severed columns, why so you feel that it could not possible buckle?
 
28th Kingdom said:
What about how all the core columns were broke up into short sections? Maybe that is some evidence that the cores were breaking at many different points. I don't know...just seems like common sense to me. Core column scraps at ground zero were in 40 foot sections...tells me they broke every 40 feet...I don't know just seems like common sense to me.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that the core columns were made up of a single hunk of steel 1300+ feet long?

No 28th, the columns were made up of many shorter pieces bolted or welded together. The joints are the weak link, and this is where the breaks occur.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
so if theres no way to apply a lateral force why bother with the perimeter columns to brace against lateral forces?

without the perimeter columns wind shear alone would be enough to cause a failure of the core
Click to expand...

Because, there is lateral force in nature like winds...plus, you have to have something to hold up the other side of the floors. :) The difference, is that the upper falling mass was only exhibiting a vertical load, because it was falling down to the ground and not shooting/pulling in from a side.

This is the part that intrigues me...how could a vertical force possibly buckle or break that super box-like core of steel which was heavily cross-braced together...in mere seconds...all the way to the ground? Just because the floors or the outer perimeter fail, doesn't mean the core will just start to crumble down. Yes, the core may be left vulnerable to certain loads, but that doesn't mean it's gonna go and commit suicide in 10 seconds just because his other two buddies died. Copyright © 2006

All rights reserved on that last line. No reprinting without permission.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Because, there is lateral force in nature like winds...plus, you have to have something to hold up the other side of the floors. :) The difference, is that the upper falling mass was only exhibiting a vertical load, because it was falling down to the ground and not shooting/pulling in from a side.

This is the part that intrigues me...how could a vertical force possibly buckle or break that super box-like core of steel which was heavily cross-braced together...in mere seconds...all the way to the ground? Just because the floors or the outer perimeter fail, doesn't mean the core will just start to crumble down. Yes, the core may be left vulnerable to certain loads, but that doesn't mean it's gonna go and commit suicide in 10 seconds just because his other two buddies died. Copyright © 2006

All rights reserved on that last line. No reprinting without permission.
Click to expand...
i couldnt help but notice you avoided part of my post

the ignored portion is reproduced in its entirety here:

so if the core was designed to bear 50% of the gravity load, and upon the failure of the perimeter columsn its now bearing 100% of the gravity load (double what it was designed for) factor in the 10 severed columns, why so you feel that it could not possible buckle?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i couldnt help but notice you avoided part of my post
Click to expand...
28IQ ignores all posts that have to do with real math and real science because he doesn't undertand them. I know you knew that, but I just wanted to say it. :).

28IQ - You can prove me wrong by actually using real math and real science, but I won't be holding my real breath.
 
28th Kingdom said:
What about how all the core columns were broke up into short sections? Maybe that is some evidence that the cores were breaking at many different points. I don't know...just seems like common sense to me. Core column scraps at ground zero were in 40 foot sections...tells me they broke every 40 feet...I don't know just seems like common sense to me.



Excellent point...the core took the vertical load, so when the perimeter columns supposedly broke...it left the cores vulnerable to lateral loads...not vertical loads, which is what the upper falling mass is...it's a vertical load, of course, I know you're gonna say that somehow...it was pushing laterally on the core columns...even though that's not physically possible...but trying to make a possibility out of an impossibility sometimes requires the use of what I like to call...

Bonus Material:

The core of the WTC 2 consisted of 47 steel columns...and even had it's own floor systems separate from the floor space that went from the cores to the perimeter. These 47 core columns were heavily cross-braced and connected at each floor by I-beams and girders. So, were not talking about a row of perimeter columns that can buckle when pulled laterally...we're talking about a super box-like core, that is woven together with an extremely intense web of support.

I think it's obvious to say, that this core couldn't have buckled, especially in the span of one second. Likewise, I can't conceivably see how a load bearing down (not lateral) could have caused any other failure of this core. Keep in mind...these towers are collapsing rather quickly, so that would have to mean that this intense super core of columns, girders, I-beams, is somehow bowing or buckling and breaking at each floor almost instantly and without any resistance.

I don't know...something just doesn't add up for me.
Click to expand...

Ok let’s try and add it up for you.

It has been explained to you over and over again, even to the point where somebody like me actually understand the make up of these Towers so let’s run through it.

We don’t dispute planes hit them, agreed?
We don’t dispute they had fires in them agreed?

Now lets move on to the point were it is difficult for you. The Towers were made up of three sections.

1. The central support core.
2. The floor spaces
3.The external superstructure.

Ok so far?

When the massive weight over the plane crash site starts to move, it goes down agreed?

This massive weight will fall wherever it can, the core is super strong so the weight starts to fall somewhere else, i.e. the floor spaces. It is a massive weight and the floor spaces cannot possibly bear this weight. So they collapse.

Ok so far?

The reason the towers fell so fast is because the floor spaces braced the super strong core to the super strong external supports. The floors spaces were in effect suspended between the two super strong supporting structures, they braced them together. Without this bracing the external superstructure would peel away, as it did.

Ok so far?

So you have a massive and violent destruction of the floor spaces plus the super strong external supports have also gone. This leaves the core. Which as just been subject to a very violent destruction of the floors which braced it to the now none existent superstructure.

The core will break apart during this violent destruction of the floors that braced it up. Some of it will stand, but ultimately it wills give in to its worst enemy.Gravity.

Now is this simple enough for you?
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
Now is this simple enough for you?
Click to expand...
i think this part of 28ths tactic, he plays dumb until we oversimplify everything, then he criticizes the lack of complexity in our explanations, we give him a more complex explanation and he plays dumb again
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i couldnt help but notice you avoided part of my post

the ignored portion is reproduced in its entirety here:

so if the core was designed to bear 50% of the gravity load, and upon the failure of the perimeter columsn its now bearing 100% of the gravity load (double what it was designed for) factor in the 10 severed columns, why so you feel that it could not possible buckle?
Click to expand...

Where would it have room to buckle? You have four impact floors (upper mass floors still have full outer columns and floors/trusses - 70+ floors below impact all still have floors/trusses and outer columns...so that means there is only about 40+ feet for this entire cross-braced core to buckle.

Remember the 37 non-severed core columns...are still one welded piece from top to bottom - all 1300 feet. Just because the outer perimeter breaks on four floors...doesn't mean those core columns are detached from the upper floors. So you see...no falling mass ever occurred on those core columns, because they were always attached to the upper floors.

So, the outer columns break...the vertical load switches fully on core columns....and in the span of a second...that super box core of 37 non-severed columns...with no falling mass...somehow buckles in the 50 feet of non-secure floors...and breaks (all 37 columns at once) I mean, this just sounds silly...I can't even believe I'm writing it...somebody please come up with something better...

Thanks.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Excellent point...the core took the vertical load, so when the perimeter columns supposedly broke...it left the cores vulnerable to lateral loads...not vertical loads, which is what the upper falling mass is...it's a vertical load, of course, I know you're gonna say that somehow...it was pushing laterally on the core columns...even though that's not physically possible...but trying to make a possibility out of an impossibility sometimes requires the use of what I like to call...

Bonus Material:

The core of the WTC 2 consisted of 47 steel columns...and even had it's own floor systems separate from the floor space that went from the cores to the perimeter. These 47 core columns were heavily cross-braced and connected at each floor by I-beams and girders. So, were not talking about a row of perimeter columns that can buckle when pulled laterally...we're talking about a super box-like core, that is woven together with an extremely intense web of support.

I think it's obvious to say, that this core couldn't have buckled, especially in the span of one second. Likewise, I can't conceivably see how a load bearing down (not lateral) could have caused any other failure of this core. Keep in mind...these towers are collapsing rather quickly, so that would have to mean that this intense super core of columns, girders, I-beams, is somehow bowing or buckling and breaking at each floor almost instantly and without any resistance.

I don't know...something just doesn't add up for me.
Click to expand...

If steel can be buckled except by lateral stress, why did they go to the expense of using 47 columns? Why not just use 1?

Can you think of causes of lateral stress on the core other than wind? Maybe floors sagging?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Where would it have room to buckle? You have four impact floors (upper mass floors still have full outer columns and floors/trusses - 70+ floors below impact all still have floors/trusses and outer columns...so that means there is only about 40+ feet for this entire cross-braced core to buckle.

Remember the 37 non-severed core columns...are still one welded piece from top to bottom - all 1300 feet. Just because the outer perimeter breaks on four floors...doesn't mean those core columns are detached from the upper floors. So you see...no falling mass ever occurred on those core columns, because they were always attached to the upper floors.

So, the outer columns break...the vertical load switches fully on core columns....and in the span of a second...that super box core of 37 non-severed columns...with no falling mass...somehow buckles in the 50 feet of non-secure floors...and breaks (all 37 columns at once) I mean, this just sounds silly...I can't even believe I'm writing it...somebody please come up with something better...

Thanks.
Click to expand...
so your standpoint is the core columns could support an infinite amount of weight and never break? is that correct?

(although given your asteroid example i think we all know the answer to that one)
 
My point is...the 37 non-severed core columns started to break without any falling mass...so they had to of buckled at the impact floors...and it had to of taken place in the span of one second...and it had to of occurred without any lateral loads...because even the trusses pulling away from the outer perimeter (on the impact floors) would turn into vertical loads, as they swung downwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Buckled_column.png

And, there wasn't any direct force bearing down on them like in this picture, was there? The 37 non-severed core columns went to the top of the structure so nothing was above them pushing down on them.
 
My point is...the 37 non-severed core columns started to break without any falling mass
Click to expand...
why does a mass have to be fallign to exert force?

And, there wasn't any direct force bearing down on them like in this picture, was there? The 37 non-severed core columns went to the top of the structure so nothing was above them pushing down on them.
Click to expand...
are you really that dumb? do you really think that if the weight isnt at the tip top it doesnt affect the column?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom