[Split]Physics of collision and collapse - split from: Offer to the Truth Movement: L

[McHrozni]

.
#3. We don't have the information on the distribution of steel and concrete to determine if it is even possible for the top 10% of the north tower to come straight down and crush and accelerate the rest to bring it all down in less than 18 seconds. It has only been SEVEN YEARS. And next month will be the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing. The nation that put men on the Moon is full of people that can't handle Newtonian physics. But then they haven't figured out that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for the last 40 years so what do you expect?

#3.1 We don't know why so many people keep ignoring the fact that if the top 10% of the building collapses and crushes a portion of the structure below it, that will increase the amount of mass falling. Obviously this will also increase the rate it builds up momentum as lower segments are crushed. We also don't know why so many people assume that in this scenario the strength of the entire structure is available to resist the crushing of a single floor that is hit by the falling mass.

My pet theory is that sniffing glue is somehow involved. But I'm not an expert in the field.

McHrozni

 

[T.A.M.]

.
#1. The laws of physics have not changed since the Empire State Building was completed in 1931.

#2. Skyscrapers must support their own weight and their contents so the designers must determine how to distribute the steel and concrete so that every level supports everything above and the entire structure can withstand the wind.

#3. We don't have the information on the distribution of steel and concrete to determine if it is even possible for the top 10% of the north tower to come straight down and crush and accelerate the rest to bring it all down in less than 18 seconds. It has only been SEVEN YEARS. And next month will be the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing. The nation that put men on the Moon is full of people that can't handle Newtonian physics. But then they haven't figured out that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for the last 40 years so what do you expect?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2281034&postcount=1209

psik

psik;

are you a spam bot. The only thing I EVER see you comment on, whine about, etc, is the damn distribution of steel and concrete...for the love of god get over it.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

#3.1 We don't know why so many people keep ignoring the fact that if the top 10% of the building collapses and crushes a portion of the structure below it, that will increase the amount of mass falling. Obviously this will also increase the rate it builds up momentum as lower segments are crushed. We also don't know why so many people assume that in this scenario the strength of the entire structure is available to resist the crushing of a single floor that is hit by the falling mass.

My pet theory is that sniffing glue is somehow involved. But I'm not an expert in the field.

McHrozni

For the most part, their paranoia prevents their brain from seeing it rationally. Plain and simple.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

.
#1. The laws of physics have not changed since the Empire State Building was completed in 1931.

The rules for fireproofing steel buildings changed for the worse in 1938. See the link below for lots of specifics.

#2. Skyscrapers must support their own weight and their contents so the designers must determine how to distribute the steel and concrete so that every level supports everything above and the entire structure can withstand the wind.

Vincent Dunn is a expert on fire in steel structures. The first link will take you to page 310 in a book in which he describes the 1938 changes and how the WTC design was unique and particularly unprepared for a large fire.

Building collapse - Vincent Dunn
http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]

http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn​

Three large pre-1938 buildings (90 West St., 140 West St. and the post office) were right next to the towers. They were hit heavily with debris and 90 and 140 had major fires but none of them collapsed. With millions of bucks in renovations they are back in business. If WTC7 was a pre-1938 building it would probably still be standing.

The second link is Dunn's list of publications which gives you an idea of the scope of his expertise.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

#3.1 We don't know why so many people keep ignoring the fact that if the top 10% of the building collapses and crushes a portion of the structure below it, that will increase the amount of mass falling. Obviously this will also increase the rate it builds up momentum as lower segments are crushed. We also don't know why so many people assume that in this scenario the strength of the entire structure is available to resist the crushing of a single floor that is hit by the falling mass.

My pet theory is that sniffing glue is somehow involved. But I'm not an expert in the field.

McHrozni

Welcome McHrozni.

There's also another aspect that the resident conspiracy addict you're responding to fails to appreciate, despite all the posts informing him and others: The construction of the towers. The steel columns supported weight in the vertical plane only. The floors supported no more weight than themselves, but primarily functioned to hold the columns upright; remove the floors, and the columns have no way to avoid moving side to side. Think of a very tall pole with cables holding it upright; remove those cables, and the very tall pole suddenly becomes susceptible to sway. While not exact, the situation is analogous with the Twin Towers: The sheer slenderness of the columns means that a huge majority of the descending weight failed to impact them; if you read Bill Smith or Heiwa's posts, they keep insisting that the fact the falling floors were no longer "solid" somehow mitigates the effect of the collapse; on the contrary, it ensures that debris impacting the load bearing columns have little to no effect on the mass impacting the floors. At any rate, that descending mass also removes the floors themselves - remember, they're not designed to support anything other than themselves and the incidental weight of office materials, etc., not the weight of over 11 upper stories minus the minute amount ejecting and minute amount striking the columns - and once that happens, the columns have no way to not sway side-to-side. That right there disrupts their ability to remain standing, nevermind support loads.

As Ryan Mackey - another poster in this forum - pointed out: Even if you somehow cleanly cut the section above the impact zones off, lifted it, shifted it over so that this upper section's columns would no longer match up with the lower sections, then very gently laid it on the floor pans themselves, you'd still get a runaway collapse. The severing of the first floor from the columns would ensure that. And that's something that nearly all conspiracy peddlers refuse to confront; only Heiwa even acknowledges it, and his excuses are handwaves.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The rules for fireproofing steel buildings changed for the worse in 1938.

.
The time it takes for steel to heat enough to weaken is affected by the quantity of steel and the rules of fireproofing don't have anything to do with that.

So why don't we know the quantity of steel on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS?

psik

 

[aggle-rithm]

.
The time it takes for steel to heat enough to weaken is affected by the quantity of steel and the rules of fireproofing don't have anything to do with that.

So why don't we know the quantity of steel on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS?

psik

Because you're the only one who cares, and you refuse to find out for yourself.

Quit whining and get a life.

 

[BigAl]

.
The time it takes for steel to heat enough to weaken is affected by the quantity of steel and the rules of fireproofing don't have anything to do with that.

And Dunn explains why the steel in WTC was easier to heat to failure compared to a pre-1938 building.

So why don't we know the quantity of steel on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS?

psik

You apparently don't know why fireproofing is used in steel buildings.

Please quote something from the page I linked to and explain why Dunn is wrong and you are right.

The rules for fireproofing steel buildings changed for the worse in 1938. See the link below for lots of specifics.

Vincent Dunn is a expert on fire in steel structures. The first link will take you to page 310 in a book in which he describes the 1938 changes and how the WTC design was unique and particularly unprepared for a large fire.

Building collapse - Vincent Dunn
http://snurl.com/j54ud [books_google_com]

http://unjobs.org/authors/vincent-dunn​

Three large pre-1938 buildings (90 West St., 140 West St. and the post office) were right next to the towers. They were hit heavily with debris and 90 and 140 had major fires but none of them collapsed. With millions of bucks in renovations they are back in business. If WTC7 was a pre-1938 building it would probably still be standing.

The second link is Dunn's list of publications which gives you an idea of the scope of his expertise.

 

[The Platypus]

.
The time it takes for steel to heat enough to weaken is affected by the quantity of steel and the rules of fireproofing don't have anything to do with that.

So why don't we know the quantity of steel on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS?

psik

Because evil leprechauns are using their leprechaun magic to plot against you.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Because evil leprechauns are using their leprechaun magic to plot against you.

Ah yes...that would be the Evil Leprechaun Division of the New World Order.

Those little guys do good work.

 

[tfk]

.
The time it takes for steel to heat enough to weaken is affected by the quantity of steel and the rules of fireproofing don't have anything to do with that.

The quantity of steel is about 6th on a list of about ten important factors.

The amount of fireproofing (one of the rules) is about 4th.

So why don't we know the quantity of steel on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS?
psik

You have been told about 5 times (that I know of) that Greg Urich has tallied exactly that number in his "WTC energetics" paper.

So, why don't you know?
Precisely?
Because you don't want to know.
You'd rather have something to bitch about.

tom

 

[FineWine]

.
#1. The laws of physics have not changed since the Empire State Building was completed in 1931.

#2. Skyscrapers must support their own weight and their contents so the designers must determine how to distribute the steel and concrete so that every level supports everything above and the entire structure can withstand the wind.

#3. We don't have the information on the distribution of steel and concrete to determine if it is even possible for the top 10% of the north tower to come straight down and crush and accelerate the rest to bring it all down in less than 18 seconds. It has only been SEVEN YEARS. And next month will be the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing. The nation that put men on the Moon is full of people that can't handle Newtonian physics. But then they haven't figured out that planned obsolescence has been going on in cars for the last 40 years so what do you expect?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2281034&postcount=1209

psik

It's amazing that the real engineers here exposed your pretensions on this nonsense and you couldn't learn a thing. The thousand consultants employed by NIST, the FEMA team, the researchers at Purdue and Berkeley, people like Gregory Urich and Frank Greening, all know vastly more than you do about physics and not one of them finds any significance in your obsession. You've received detailed explanations on this forum. You could phone NIST and FEMA. You could send e-mails to Urich and Greening. Instead, you keep ranting pointlessly.

 

[BigAl]

.
The time it takes for steel to heat enough to weaken is affected by the quantity of steel and the rules of fireproofing don't have anything to do with that.
psik

And the steel that failed first was little more than sheet steel; the truss assemblies that were the only support for the concrete floor slabs. The slabs not load-bearing or structural in the vertical axis.

 

[tsig]

.
The time it takes for steel to heat enough to weaken is affected by the quantity of steel and the rules of fireproofing don't have anything to do with that.

So why don't we know the quantity of steel on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS?

psik

Ok, why don't you know? Is someone preventing you from finding out?

Arguing from ignorance seems a strange stance.

 

[tuc0]

Ok, why don't you know? Is someone preventing you from finding out?

Arguing from ignorance seems a strange stance.

It's not on Youtube... how could he know?

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes it is kind of like whining about,

"Why has no one told me why the library is closed on Sundays. Seven years now, and no one has come forward and told me why the library is closed on Sundays."

TAM

 

[psikeyhackr]

Ok, why don't you know? Is someone preventing you from finding out?

Arguing from ignorance seems a strange stance.

.
Let's see:

The NCSTAR1 report says that one airliner that hit the WTC had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. That gives the impression that they scrutinized this event in considerable detail.

They also say the original design of the skyscrapers called for 14 types of exterior wall panels but that the manufacturer requested that 2 types be upgraded and was given permission so only 12 were used on the towers. That gives the impression that they did significant historical research and understood the design of the buildings..

So how is it that they produced a 10,000 page report that does not tell us the quantities and weights of of each of the 12 types of wall panels? There were more 2,500 of them on each building.

So we get lots of unimportant details but find nothing about what really matters.

Believing ignorant experts is an even stranger stance.

You are of course free to try to track down the information. If you understand the physics of skyscrapers and have been paying attention to the issue for any period of time why didn't you know to look for the information already?

psik

 

[T.A.M.]

.

Believing ignorant experts is an even stranger stance.


psik

So exactly who is an "ignorant" expert? The person who wrote the physics textbook or gave the lectures that taught you physics...was he an "ignorant" expert?

Please, enlighten me on those we should believe and those we should not when it comes to fields we have no natural, god granted background in?

Thanks

TAM

 

[BigAl]

.
Let's see:

The NCSTAR1 report says that one airliner that hit the WTC had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9. That gives the impression that they scrutinized this event in considerable detail.

They also say the original design of the skyscrapers called for 14 types of exterior wall panels but that the manufacturer requested that 2 types be upgraded and was given permission so only 12 were used on the towers. That gives the impression that they did significant historical research and understood the design of the buildings..

So how is it that they produced a 10,000 page report that does not tell us the quantities and weights of of each of the 12 types of wall panels? There were more 2,500 of them on each building.

So we get lots of unimportant details but find nothing about what really matters.

Believing ignorant experts is an even stranger stance.

You are of course free to try to track down the information. If you understand the physics of skyscrapers and have been paying attention to the issue for any period of time why didn't you know to look for the information already?

psik

Why did you bring up the Empire State Building in comparison if you are not interested in a dead-on statement from an eyewitness expert on how the 1931 building differed from the WTC for the purposes of fire effects on steel?

If you are not willing to pay attention and take the time to find the info, that's your problem. Don't bother us with it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

.
The time it takes for steel to heat enough to weaken is affected by the quantity of steel and the rules of fireproofing don't have anything to do with that.

Stundificated.