• 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.

Adventures with AE911truth

He's not that far off, just a factor of 2. The core columns had a strength of about 3 times just the dead load of the building above.
 
Newtons Bit said:
He's not that far off, just a factor of 2. The core columns had a strength of about 3 times just the dead load of the building above.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the core columns were damaged, and then exposed to fire.

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988). High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.
The thermal properties of steel at elevated temperatures are found to be dependent on temperature and are less influenced by the stress level and heating rate. This simplified the consideration of the thermal properties of steel in design methods.
Click to expand...

As an 'engineer' Doug and his gang should know about this.


They should also know that at 650 degrees C hot rolled carbon steel has less than half its normal tensile strength, and that its martensitic properties degrade.

The south tower was hit second but collapsed first, why was that Dougie?

Could it be that the load on the damaged section was greater ?

How could flammable explosive charges survive the intense fires present between floors 82 & 93 of WTC 2, and floors 95 - 103 of WTC 1 ?

How could the detonator for a 'mini nuke' survive those fires unscathed ?

Come on Doug these questions should be easy for you.
 
By 6 and 20 times the gravitational load, I mean 6 and 20 times the gravitational load. If there is a live load then it is typically much less than 6 and 20 times respectively the gravitational or "dead" load. Live load occurs from wind, earth quakes, etc - its vibrations. Wind wasn't heavy that day.

I get those figures from Jim Hoffman and from an engineering report referenced in David Ray Griffins book from ASCE.

I don't believe that any of you have read the full NIST report.
 
Doug Plumb; said:
I don't believe that any of you have read the full NIST report.
Click to expand...

Oh your gonna hear about this statement. I think you might be surprised. (I haven't, I'm only about half way through,1, 1-2,1-2A,1-3,1-3A,1-3C,1-5G,1-6,1-6D, maybe only 1/4?)
 
Doug Plumb said:
By 6 and 20 times the gravitational load, I mean 6 and 20 times the gravitational load. If there is a live load then it is typically much less than 6 and 20 times respectively the gravitational or "dead" load. Live load occurs from wind, earth quakes, etc - its vibrations. Wind wasn't heavy that day.

I get those figures from Jim Hoffman and from an engineering report referenced in David Ray Griffins book from ASCE.

I don't believe that any of you have read the full NIST report.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've read ASCE7 which defines what those loads are.
ASCE7-02 Section 4.1 said:
Live loads are those loads produced by the use and occupancy of the building or other structure and do not include construction or environmental loads such as wind load, snow load, rain load, earthquake load, flood load, or dead load
Click to expand...

You may think you're hot stuff in EE, you may even be the best EE in the world. But you still don't even know basic definitions of loading for structural. The perimeter columns are moment frames, their design is not controlled by vertical loads, but rather bending moments.

If YOU had read the NIST report, you would have learned that the core columns had a demand to capacity ratio (DCR) of less than 1.0 in some areas in modern allowable stress design (ASD) and a dead + live load combination. The current "Factor of Safety" for ASD with a DCR of 1.0 is 1.65. The deadload near impact was about 50 psf and the design live load was 100 psf. Due to the area, the live load was reduced to 50psf for column design, hence, live load is approximately equal to dead load. You can do the arithmetic and figure out that the structure could actually handle THREE times the dead load.

Stop making things up.
 
Last edited:
Doug

I'm an architect who works on the design and construction of tall buildings on a daily basis. Others here have had sight of my registration details and can confirm this to be true.

Now I want to look at this quote of yours:

I have read bits of it and specifically looked at the damaged floors and the associated support column damage. Its not difficult to see the the building should have remained standing from the damage. The core is built to a factor of being able to support 6 times their normal weight, the outside was built to 20 times its normal gravity load. Its not hard to figure out that the building should have remained standing.
Click to expand...

Setting to one side your misunderstanding regarding actual safety factors - and I would advise you that this term is not particularly applicable to complex structures such as WTC - I would say that, from a professional perspective, I do not consider the collapse to have been at all unexpected and would like to pursue this with you further. In particular I'd like to look at the technical issues surrounding fire performance, design loads, and failure initiation.

On this basis I'd be very much obliged if you could perhaps expand upon your views in a more comprehensive manner.

In the interim, and at the risk of appearing picky, I think that you should also know that "gravitational" load is not a term used by those of us who are actually in the construction industry, and that dead load is the accepted term.
 
Architect; said:
In the interim, and at the risk of appearing picky, I think that you should also know that "gravitational" load is not a term used by those of us who are actually in the construction industry, and that dead load is the accepted term.
Click to expand...

He's Canadian, we use the term. "Gravity load" actually differs from the "dead load" in the NBCC if I'm not mistaken. Something like "snow load" is part of calculating the "Gravity load". Now I'm not sure if "gravity load" is part of the "dead load" or not? I just know gravity load is big when you build a hockey or curling area. Well I set that one up pretty good, you can start with the jokes now... :)
 
Gravity loads are typically described as anything with a vertical only load. I.e. anything other than wind and earthquake (though earthquake has a vertical component).
 
The dead load would include the gravity load, inasmuch as it is the weight of the building itself. Just as a matter of interest, 3body, what other dead load would there be?;)
 
Architect said:
The dead load would include the gravity load, inasmuch as it is the weight of the building itself. Just as a matter of interest, 3body, what other dead load would there be?;)
Click to expand...

Ceilings, plumbing, ducting, flooring materials, sometimes partition walls depending on the applicable building code, electrical (lighting and big huge conduits). Any additive slab work for mechanical units, and maybe even the mechanical unit itself depending on how it is connected to the building.
 
8den said:
So the awesome power of this administration is such that

A) they can control the media into not investigating that these hijackers are alive.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know how it controls the media of other nations so that they don't talk either.
 
Doug Plumb said:
For the crushing of testicles and sexual torure of young children:

search "torture_yoo_being_asked_justify_crushing_childrens_testicls.htm"
Click to expand...

Okay, as a Neocon myself, I am SICK and TIRED of hearing this "crushing the testicles of children" accusation. Half of the Kerry campaign commercials in '04 were about that testicle crushing thing (complete with a cgi simulation that was banned by every network after just ONE airing). Guys, REPEATING A LIE DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

Yes, George W. Bush and members of his administration DO reserve the right to crush the testicles of young children (PLEASE FIND ME WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IT SAYS A PRESIDENT CANNOT DO THIS).

But let me ask you this:

Say we find out there is a suitcase nuke ready to detonate in downtown New York. And say that the only way to defuse that bomb was to crush the testicles of a young child. WOULD YOU LET A MILLION PEOPLE DIE JUST TO SAVE THE TESTICLES OF ONE SMALL CHILD?!?!?

Of course not. Now, what if I told you that this is the EXACT situation the Bush administration finds itself in today? Only instead of the suitcase nuke ready to explode in New York, you have the wrath of the owl god Morlock ready to "explode" in Bohemian Grove:

bohemiangrove.jpg


...which is know to be many times worse. DO YOU WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MORLOCK'S OWLY WRATH?

I'm sorry for the caps guys but I am SICK of hearing this old canard trotted out again and again by the liberal media.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Ceilings, plumbing, ducting, flooring materials, sometimes partition walls depending on the applicable building code, electrical (lighting and big huge conduits). Any additive slab work for mechanical units, and maybe even the mechanical unit itself depending on how it is connected to the building.
Click to expand...


Now you've got me well puzzled. At the risk of needlesly quoting BS6399, I've come across dead load (all building components), imposed load (occupants, furniture, fixture and fittings), and wind load.

Where's my copy of the Eurocodes definitions annexe? :confused:
 
Architect; said:
The dead load would include the gravity load, inasmuch as it is the weight of the building itself. Just as a matter of interest, 3body, what other dead load would there be?;)
Click to expand...

Well, Newton's got it. But I am really not sure about this whole thing thats why I was hoping Doug would come back and you guys would talk about this stuff. I have heard them speak of this as "superimposed dead load". Is this right? Or is this stuff the gravity load?. Isn't the dead load everything that basically doesn't move in the building? Lol, now I'm really confused, but this is all different for a warehouse or arena right? I mean the gravity load, is the dead load in an arena, for the most part, isn't it? Is the gravity load the superimposed dead load? or Plain dead load? Is this whole thing just a load? I hate gravity, it has caused most of my problems.
 
Architect: that may be a difference between Euro and ASCE definitions. Here, dead load is self-weight of the structure and permanent superimposed loads.
 
Newtons Bit; said:
Architect: that may be a difference between Euro and ASCE definitions. Here, dead load is self-weight of the structure and permanent superimposed loads.
Click to expand...

You guys are going fry me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure "wind load" "snow load" and "gravity load" are all part of the "dead load" here. The wind,snow and gravity load are all based in the probability of an event with a 95% likelihood of occurring? I'm not sure how this factors in.
 
Doug Plumb said:
Its obvious that 9/11 was an inside job. You can look at it any number of ways with mutually independent sets of facts and still conclude that it was an inside job.
Click to expand...

You say this as if it were a fact. The only people it's "obvious" too are people with a distrust of the government and an axe to grind.

The evidence tells a different story and people such as yourself insist on remaining willfully ignorant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom