Wow that is some thick steel. I'd say!
Now i wonder how each of those massive collumns snapped within fractions of a section on their own...
Hmmmmm.
Split Thread Building Materials strength (split from: Bogus maintenance/ security men (for papasm)
- Thread starter papasmurf
- Start date
Wow that is some thick steel. I'd say!
Now i wonder how each of those massive collumns snapped within fractions of a section on their own...
Hmmmmm.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
A rather heavy chunck of building was dropped on them.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Many of the core columns also snapped at the welds just from their own weight (ok, what the learned here call elastic strain) once it started to topple.
With two events of over 100 TONS of TNT kinetic energy on 9/11, the towers falling, it would snap like a 1000 pound bomb hit it, 200 1000 pound bombs. Or 100 2000 pound bombs, in the shape of building parts, with the energy of 100 tons of TNT in each tower! TONS.
Did you skip physics?
Think about buildings falling and releasing 100 TONS of TNT energy. That is massive. I have been shot at with a 600 pound bomb, and it broke my big window from a half miles away. Fire works just don't do it anymore. But 200, 1000 pound bombs going off in a few acres of area, in the form of a falling building, from 1300 feet up. I doubt you understand this, Jones has no idea, so he says it broke the laws of physics, so we know he is out to lunch on 9/11.
So have you asked your professors to look into this? Have you gone to a physics professor and recruited him for 9/11 truth? Come on take action, why waste time here with people who understand physics and 9/11. Find someone and try to recruit for the big take over. Ron Paul is dumb enough to believe this stuff too. (albeit he was soft on 9/11 dolts, he is looking for a few more votes, he has the neoNAZI guys, and some racist guys, and 9/11 truthers; why do dumb guys flock to Ron Paul?)
Have you asked your professors yet? What did they say?
How much thermite is your team moving up the towers? Get some help from your classmates. How do they stick the termite power on the steel column to make it cut sideways?
Who sets it off and how is it fused? How do you get the planes to hit were there is no thermite set, so you don't mess it all up? Who flew the planes, the terrorist could not hit within 40 feet of a target, that is a big error on a job like this!
How much did the thermite teams get paid; where are they now? How can they kill Americans? How many were there again? Were they as dumb as 9/11 truthers?
Thermite leaves a mess; how was it cleaned up so nobody found the termite?
Last edited:
Can you understand that the building held up that top section for 30+ years. It is designed to hold up the weight above it.
The building had a MASSIVE reserve capacity. On the order of 2000%.
There is no way that enough columns failed simultaneously on their own to allow the top section to gain enough KE to reach this reserve capacity. It just didn't happen that way. I'm sorry. I really want to believe your side of the story too, but i can't.
Again i bring up the point. If only a fraction of the columns need to be severed at the top of the building in order for a perfectly symmetrical, straight down collapse of a sky scraper, why don't demolition companies bring down buildings this way and save time and money?
You see, it would not have fallen that way.
Now imagine that some demolition guys went up and severed 15% or whatever columns on the 80th floor and weakened the others to say, 30-40% strength using heat.
Would you have expected to see the building collapse in such a way? disintegrating in mid air at near free-fall speed? No conservation of momentum, no slowing down due to resistance?
What you people had to do to accept the official story is distort your perception of reality. You had to make exceptions and false justifications for what you saw.
I viewed it the same way as you people for years, until it suddenly clicked. Buildings were not designed to fall. This building was made to take multiple plane impact and suffer catastrophic damage to its collumns, hence its massive reserve capacity. There is simply no explanation for this collapse.
Please read the Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan articles for yourself and see the failures of the NIST explanations.
Snapped from their own weight....
This really is laughable.
I was told to come to this forum because i heard you people had the answers.
What a huge disappointment this is.
Absolutely no understanding of the strength of building materials.
AZCat
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,672
How are you calculating this figure? Have you read Chapter 5 of NCSTAR 1-2A, where the NIST calculated DCRs for the various structural members of the towers?
Disintegrating in mid air. Lie!
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Conservation of momentum was correct. The towers fell exactly with conservation of momentum, I ran the numbers, got 12.08 seconds much slower than the FREE-FALL crap you are pushing like the other lies Jones made up for you who lack knowledge. TAKE PHYSICS NOW.
papasmurf, here is a prepaid cell phone.
No multiple plane impacts. Robertson designed it for a 707 flying 180 mph, low of fuel in the fog, with an impact of 187 pounds of TNT. 11 hit at 1300 pounds of TNT KE, and 175 hit at 2093 pounds of TNT. That is 7 to 11 times more than the design! You be wrong again. What is 7 to 11 times in engineering world?
Jones and Ryan are have false ideas on 9/11, you have been fooled. All their work is worthless, except to show the work that only people lack knowledge, judgment and logic would believe.
So you have no idea who much thermite, you are a free falling conservation of momentum truther. lol
The impacts on 9/11 were 7 times and 11 times bigger.
The kinetic energy at impact!
Design - 187 pounds of TNT
Flt 11 - 1300 pounds of TNT
Flt175 - 2093 pounds of TNT
It looks like 2093 pounds of TNT impact. 4,380,000,000 joules.
Your ideas on 9/11 are the opposite of all that engineering is.
Last edited:
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Because the whole point of a controlled demolition is that you demolish the buildings you're demolishing without trashing the entire neighborhood.
The collapse of the Twin Towers caused a lot of damage. This is because the collapse was not, in fact, controlled, and because they did not in fact fall "straight down".
Here, for example, we see debris from the North Tower clearing the north face of WTC7.
Last edited:
Actually, I'm afraid you're the one who lacks a sufficient understanding here. I strongly suggest you do a little more research into the design of WTC before you pursue this line of argument any further.
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
OK, maybe we are finally getting somewhere.
Do you understand that the design of the structure is in fact more important than the strength of the materials use to build it?
Once that design itself is compromised though airplane impacts and failed floor trusses, all bets are off.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
This is one of the classic truther "misinterpretations". The reserve capacity for superimposed live loadings was on the order of 2000%; in other words, furniture, people, and other building contents. This doesn't include the structural weight of the building. The actual demand-to-capacity ratio has been hotly debated here, but IIRC NIST gave reserves of 100% for the perimeter and rather less for the core. The claim of 2000% redundancy is absurd at face value; why pay to make a building 20 times stronger than it needs to be?
According to your 2000% canard, this would still leave a safety factor in excess of five times.
"Disintegrating in mid air at near free-fall speed" is one of those sentences that likes to look like it means something, but on closer inspection turns out not to. The collapse times of the towers have been modelled in great detail, including the effects of conservation of momentum, slowing due to structural resistance of the support columns, and of course downward acceleration due to gravity. The result falls well within the uncertainty in the observed collapse times. The claim that the collapses violated the law of conservation of momentum is a simple, blatant, unsupported, outright lie published by Steven Jones.
Dave
As far as I recall, the 2000% number actually came from the superimposed live loads on the perimeter columns only - in other words, primarily wind and seismic loads.
But yeah, a structural engineer who designed something 20x stronger than it needed to be would be fired fairly quickly, since he'd be using a whole heck of a lot more steel and other structure than should be required, costing the owner of a building the size of a WTC tower millions and millions of dollars in initial construction cost, as well as lowering the amount of useful tenable space that can be used to make that money back over the life of the building.
A standard rule of thumb *for architects* when you are designing a building is to plan for structural members that can take 1.5x the total loads (live and dead) you're planning on, but I know that structural engineers use an array of various "safety factors" which vary depending on a number of different criteria and are usually a lot more case-specific for the connections and failure modes for which they are designing.
Worse than that, actually. It also includes the wind load. The 2000% meme is a quote mine from the 1964 Engineering News Record article:
Engineering News Record said:
I cover this in my whitepaper on pg. 12-13. It only applies to the perimeter columns, and it's not valid on a windy day. The statistic is meaningless for all intents and purposes. NIST's calculation of the DCR is the standard to beat, and is wholly consistent with their collapse theory.
Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
This is where the 'I just want the truth' rhetoric is exposed.
Anyone could verify if this 2000% figure is realistic.
For example. Assume the top section of WTC2 weighs 65,000 tons. According to Greening, the total cross section of column steel at this level is 10.15m^2.
In order to support 20x this load (1,300,000 tons), the average steel yield would have to be 182ksi!
A light foray into the NIST report will reveal that 90% of the core columns were 36 and 42 ksi, and that perimeter columns varied from 36 to 100ksi.
How could someone who highlights his engineering credentials fail to perform a check as simple as this if he really cared about the truth?
If the top part of WTC1 (33 000 tons) free fell 3.7 meters (no resistance, no friction, no contact with anything before landing on the top floor of the structure below, not seen on any videos, though), the potential energy released is 1.2 GJ corresponding to the energy content of 41 kgs of diesel oil or much less TNT (<500 grams?) and it could not do much harm. Break some floors at most. It has been discussed in multiple threads at JREF Forum and nobody has found any error in it. I have described it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .
It is a common mistake to believe that the upper block was 'rather heavy' when it in fact was most air! Also the lower structure was also mostly air. But the steel construction was pretty strong (the columns just occupy 0.13% of the total floor area) and would not be damaged by anything dropping on it. On the contrary - anything dropping on it would be destroyed.
Having done proper calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm, it is shown that the static stresses in the intact primary structure (the columns) of the WTC1/2 were <0.32 of yield stress, i.e. the FoS was 3. This is normal and good practice.
When local failures occur up top and if something is dropping down, it will hardly contact the primary structure, because it occupies such a small area of the total floor area or just 0.13% of it. If anything is dropping down, it will fall outside (50% of the walls would drop outside) and the rest would only contact the floors up top that will fail and get entangled into one another and - not very surprising (happens all the time) - friction between floors rubbing against one another will absorb or waste the free kinetic energy.
One little (but serious) error of NIST is that they forget FRICTION in their very short conclusion of damage analysis why the WTCs failed. NIST simply suggests that there were too little strain energy in the structure below (no calculations) that could absorb the potential/kinetic energy applied from above (no calculations). Complete nonsense. Yes, 2000% nonsense.
Friction would absorb much more energy than strain energy, say 2000%, as papasmurf suggests.
I have evidently informed NIST about their small mistake and ... they are silent.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Okay, seriously, wtf? Are you a comedian like Andy Kaufman trying to people the most elaborate prank of all time? How could anyone possibly believe this crap you're spewing.
You keep saying that 50% of the walls drop outside of the building. You've been shown multiple times that this is false. The collapse initiation started by one wall falling and the building rotating about the opposite parallel wall.
Like so:
The columns by definition fall INSIDE the building.
I don't even think I'm going to dignify the friction comments with a response. That's like saying the moon is made of cheese and we could end world hunger if we could just get it back to Earth. It's freaking crazy.
On the left side they fall outside in your figure.