Common Sense

[Skibum]

Nope, I requested the posts to be moved because I wanted to get them attention on their own. Not that you will read this, since I'm on your ignorant list. But FYI for the other members here.

Now he can.

 

[28th Kingdom]

28th kingdom- you moron. the structural engineers understand perfectly why the towers fell. you dont understand...because you dont want to. you need bush to be responcible for 9-11...because u hate bush. and no amount of evidence will ever convince u that it was not an inside job. why? because you dont really care about evidence. its all political for you.

Please, don't project your biases onto me. I'm non-partisan... and by that I mean... I think 99% of all politicians (democrats and republicans) are evil.

I will admit... I use to think Bill Clinton was a good guy... WRONG! This guy is a demon like the rest of them.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Is this just a game to you? What kind of statement is that? The buildings fell at the speed they fell... thus it's scientifically possible for them to fall that fast right? I mean... are you kidding though... I really don't know anymore. Yes, the buildings fell at the speed they fell... and since we have laws that determine how fast things can fall... we can use that to prove why the towers couldn't have fallen as fast as they did without a synthetic catalyst.

how fast did they fall? give me an average speed, acceleration, and/or time elapsed (BTW those are all numbers, so "free fall" or "near free fall" doesnt cut it)

when you give me one of those i will calculate how much GPE was released and available to destroy the structure below the collapsing section

 

[Mancman]

the upper mass of floors would have (if the core columns all failed) toppled over and fallen off of the building.

Calculations please.

 

[Kage]

The speed at which the building fell was not freefall, or even terminal velocity. Pieces of the building fell at terminal velocity, given that they had been ejected from the building. The rest of the building didn't fall at freefall, or near freefall, as you can tell by watching the parts that are falling at freefall. Maintaining this near-freefall nonesense is dishonest. How can you say that you are applying common sense when you aren't even observing the event in question?

 

[Pardalis]

Please, don't project your biases onto me. I'm non-partisan... and by that I mean... I think 99% of all politicians (democrats and republicans) are evil.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Not true... the floors were simply exploding from the top down in a downward sequential pattern... really just a simple illusion.

I see. "Simple". Simple explosions, simple illusion. Then you are required to now tell us EXACTLY what explosives were used to perpetrate the event. Remember - it's simple, Doctor 28IQ.

In just 8 words, you managed a fine contradiction. Efficient, I'll concede that:

Nothing was collapsing... the upper mass was falling

Then you finish off with:

...and the lower floors were being blown up in a linear fashion top to bottom.

How many of the lower floors? Every one, top to bottom? Or just those below the impact zones? We need a hard number per tower, Doctor, because after all, you said this was simple.

Per floor, indicate the amount of material, in pounds, required to explode each floor on command. Oh yes - WHAT was the material? Simple question, we demand answers.

Did humans initiate the sequential collapse of each floor by explosives, or a computer? Who operated the computer? From where? And I will strip you of the remaining 28 points in your IQ if you say Building 7...

 

[28th Kingdom]

Calculations please.

Okay... first, let's clarify... if the impact floors were removed, the remaining lower floors could have supported the weight of the upper floors, right? It was the energy released from the fall of the upper mass hitting the lower floors that caused all of the lower floors to fail, right? It wasn't the weight of the upper floors, right?

If the upper mass and impact floors were removed... than the lower structure would be perfectly stable and intact, right? It wouldn't be under any weird strains or loads, right? It would still have all the floors, trusses, core columns, outer columns in great condition, and without any unnatural loads, right?

Just imagine... when they were building the towers.... and when they got up to the floors that were right below the impact points...they stopped building...leaving the top open and without a roof. Would this structure be vulnerable to any lateral loads?

 

[CHF]

the upper mass of floors would have (if the core columns all failed) toppled over and fallen off of the building.

And what would have pushed the mass over so that it would have fallen off the building?

 

[babazaroni]

Just imagine... when they were building the towers.... and when they got up to the floors that were right below the impact points...they stopped building...leaving the top open and without a roof. Would this structure be vulnerable to any lateral loads?

Without the hat truss, it would be vulnerable.

 

[Architect]

1. You forget that the hat trusses were responsible for distributing load. Magically remove them, as you suggest, then there will be problems.

2. You don't understand the difference between live, dead, and dynamic loads - do you?

 

[28th Kingdom]

The speed at which the building fell was not freefall, or even terminal velocity. Pieces of the building fell at terminal velocity, given that they had been ejected from the building. The rest of the building didn't fall at freefall, or near freefall, as you can tell by watching the parts that are falling at freefall. Maintaining this near-freefall nonesense is dishonest. How can you say that you are applying common sense when you aren't even observing the event in question?

If you know they didn't fall at near free fall speeds... than you must know how fast they fell... so how long did it take? If you know the time wasn't near free fall speeds... than you must know how fast they fell... so what are the times you have?

 

[Mancman]

I was watching a History Channel special last night about the collapses... and they even claim the towers fell in 10 seconds... so how long do you all think it took for the towers to fall? And, if you give exact numbers... please tell me how you calculated them? I mean.. video footage has to be involved, right? If so... please link to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

Collapse begins at 2/3 seconds in. After 13 seconds, huge sections of debris have not yet hit the ground, and the building is still taller than 3 World Financial Center on the right hand side, which is some 750 feet high.

 

[CHF]

Okay... first, let's clarify... if the impact floors were removed, the remaining lower floors could have supported the weight of the upper floors, right? It was the energy released from the fall of the upper mass hitting the lower floors that caused all of the lower floors to fail, right? It wasn't the weight of the upper floors, right?

If the upper mass and impact floors were removed... than the lower structure would be perfectly stable and intact, right? It wouldn't be under any weird strains or loads, right? It would still have all the floors, trusses, core columns, out columns in great condition, and without any unnatural loads, right?

Just imagine... when they were building the towers.... and when they got up to the floors that were right below the impact points...they stopped building...leaving the top open and without a roof. Would this structure be vulnerable to any lateral loads?

You were asked for your calculations, not another load of questions.

The structure failed at the jet impact floors and tens of thousands of tons fell down which the structure could not support.

It ain't rocket science.

 

[Arus808]

If you know they didn't fall at near free fall speeds... than you must know how fast they fell... so how long did it take? If you know the time wasn't near free fall speeds... than you must know how fast they fell... so what are the times you have?

just because its made by or shown on the "history channel" doesn't mean its factual. Its just another channel on TV.

The only respectable channel is PBS, but even then some of hteir programs are factually incorrect.

 

[Skibum]

Okay... first, let's clarify... if the impact floors were removed, the remaining lower floors could have supported the weight of the upper floors, right?

Perhaps if there were an enormous crane available, that gently placed the upper section exactly in place so the the columns lined up.

It was the energy released from the fall of the upper mass hitting the lower floors that caused all of the lower floors to fail, right? It wasn't the weight of the upper floors, right?

Weight would be a factor in determining the energy.

If the upper mass and impact floors were removed... than the lower structure would be perfectly stable and intact, right? It wouldn't be under any weird strains or loads, right? It would still have all the floors, trusses, core columns, out columns in great condition, and without any unnatural loads, right?

It would be lacking the hat trusses at the upper floors which I believe provided some lateral stabilization.

Just imagine... when they were building the towers.... and when they got up to the floors that were right below the impact points...they stopped building...leaving the top open and without a roof. Would this structure be vulnerable to any lateral loads?

It would according to your description be lacking the roof and hat trusses so IMO would be more vulnerable. How much more, I don't know.

ETA. damn I type way to slow.

 

[Pardalis]

If the upper mass and impact floors were removed... than the lower structure would be perfectly stable and intact, right?

But they weren't "removed", they were crushed by the weight of the top section falling onto them.

It would still have all the floors, trusses, core columns, out columns in great condition, and without any unnatural loads, right?

I would call the falling top section an unnatural load they weren't designed to withstand.

 

[CHF]

2. You don't understand the difference between live, dead, and dynamic loads - do you?

No, he apparently doesn't. Twoofers think that if a structure can hold up 140,000 tons when its stable then it should therefor hold that weight up when its falling.

This is why twoofers tend not to be structural engineers.

 

[Architect]

No, he apparently doesn't. Twoofers think that if a structure can hold up 140,000 tons when its stable then it should therefor hold that weight up when its falling.

This is why twoofers tend not to be structural engineers.

You've seen the "brick on the head" analogy, I take it?

NonBeliever didn't understand it.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

just because its made by or shown on the "history channel" doesn't mean its factual. Its just another channel on TV.

The only respectable channel is PBS, but even then some of hteir programs are factually incorrect.

hes just blindly injesting whats being fed to him, but since its not from the government its ok