• 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.

Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Newtons Bit said:
What braces the core columns, Bill?
Click to expand...

Judging from what I have seen of the still standing core of WTC2 lateral beams between the core columns at regular intervals provide plenty of bracing. This would make the core self supporting as Tony Szamboti showed a week or two ago.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Judging from what I have seen of the still standing cire of WTC2 lateral beams between the core columns at regular intervals provide plenty of bracing. This would make the core self suppoting as Tony Szamboti showed a week or two ago.
Click to expand...

Uhh. No. The beams that interconnect the core do not provide bracing as they are no longer connected to a lateral force resisting system. Secondly, the beams that interconnect the core columns cannot brace the core columns even if they were connected to a LFRS as they lack rigidity to lateral forces. These beams would either need to be in the form of a horizontal truss (which they weren't) or be connected to a diaphragm (which the collapse front destroyed).

I debunked Mr. Szamboti. He was using a made up structure (read, didn't actually exist) and didn't even use the appropriate equations for said made up structure.

And you didn't answer my VERY simple question. How pathetic.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Uhh. No. The beams that interconnect the core do not provide bracing as they are no longer connected to a lateral force resisting system. Secondly, the beams that interconnect the core columns cannot brace the core columns even if they were connected to a LFRS as they lack rigidity to lateral forces. These beams would either need to be in the form of a horizontal truss (which they weren't) or be connected to a diaphragm (which the collapse front destroyed).

I debunked Mr. Szamboti. He was using a made up structure (read, didn't actually exist) and didn't even use the appropriate equations for said made up structure.

And you didn't answer my VERY simple question. How pathetic.
Click to expand...

Shall I put up the video of WTC2 with around 5800-900 feet of the core clearly still standing nd we can work off that ?
 
bill smith said:
But it stood up through the whole 500,000 ton building crashing down through and around it. Are you one of those who thinks it was dead but just didn't know it yet ?
Click to expand...

Not wanting to pre-empt Newton's Bit here, but I strongly suspect it was the sudden absence of a structure that used to be there (but no longer was, because of the collapse) that created the lack of bracing. And subsequent collapse of much of the core. Through lack of bracing.
So, yes, it was dead but took a while to respond. Being really big and all.
D'oh.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
But it stood up through the whole 500,000 ton building crashing down through and around it. Are you one of those who thinks it was dead but just didn't know it yet ?
Click to expand...

No, PARTS of it stood up through the building collapsing. As the collapsing wave progresses ever more downwards, the length in which these core columns are cantilevered from the existing structure increases. With the size of these columns, they could cantilever quite far. Once the bottom most floors were destroyed there was absolutely nothing left to provide stability. Steel structures that lose stability wobble and then fall down.
 
Newtons Bit said:
No, PARTS of it stood up through the building collapsing. As the collapsing wave progresses ever more downwards, the length in which these core columns are cantilevered from the existing structure increases. With the size of these columns, they could cantilever quite far. Once the bottom most floors were destroyed there was absolutely nothing left to provide stability. Steel structures that lose stability wobble and then fall down.
Click to expand...

Looked okay to me,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778
 
Heiwa said:
Post #624 ?
Click to expand...
.
You wouldn't be producing another one of your fictions now, would you, Anders??

You know, there are handy little buttons at the bottom fo these posts. The one that says "Quote" is particularly useful in cases like this.

It allows you to bring over here exactly what I said.

Instead you post this cryptic little note. JUST AS IF you had a point to make.

Funny that...

Why don't you go back to post #624 & copy & paste the place where I mention,
An "IKEA bookcase that disassembles itself"...?

While you're at it, why don't you copy & paste the quote where I say:
An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys the ground..."

And, while you're there, how about my quote referring to:
An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys ... everything"

I can't wait, Anders.

Or will you just abandon this & go on your indifferent, insouciant, but far less than honest, way...?

Tom
 
MIKILLINI said:
:dl: Looked? Wow, Just Wow!! Looked?

Is this how you proceed with investigation Bill?? You have no idea of what dynamics are going on, how to calculate physics or determine the reaction of materials to stress.

But hey, it looked okay to you, so who needs details to make a case?

Imagine that.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The fact that this is a doctored video also doesn't matter to him.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The fact that this is a doctored video also doesn't matter to him.
Click to expand...

Bill is a poster child of disingenuous: Unwilling to admit being wrong, unwilling to accept facts, unwilling to expand his knowledge, and remaining closed-minded while pretending to have superior intellect.

Plus using a doctored video to make a point! That certainly makes him a consistent fraud.

This virtually sums up the collective truth movement. ;)
 
Last edited:
Time to clear out the ignore list again, welcome back off ignore Bill.

bill smith said:
Looked okay to me,
Click to expand...
:dl:
Bill, don't you feel slightly ashamed or even embarrassed that you have just have just had your ass handed to you on a public forum? Doesn't it bother you in the slightest that you tried to take on somebody who really does know what he is talking about, you have tried to indulge in a conversation completely above your head and been made to look really silly ?

There is no massive conspiracy, there was no explosives secretly planted. It is all make believe. You are buying into silly foolish conspiracy theories, does this not bother you?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
.
You wouldn't be producing another one of your fictions now, would you, Anders??

You know, there are handy little buttons at the bottom fo these posts. The one that says "Quote" is particularly useful in cases like this.

It allows you to bring over here exactly what I said.

Instead you post this cryptic little note. JUST AS IF you had a point to make.

Funny that...

Why don't you go back to post #624 & copy & paste the place where I mention,
An "IKEA bookcase that disassembles itself"...?

While you're at it, why don't you copy & paste the quote where I say:
An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys the ground..."

And, while you're there, how about my quote referring to:
An "IKEA book case ... becomes solid rubble that destroys ... everything"

I can't wait, Anders.

Or will you just abandon this & go on your indifferent, insouciant, but far less than honest, way...?

Tom
Click to expand...


I am eagerly awaiting your evidence that broken elements, produced by a force F1 at an impact, compact themselves to solid rubble in contact with something and that this compacted rubble in turn impacts and/or applies a force F2 on something, again, poor something, that is bigger than the initial force F1.
A simple energy balance would help, you know, energy is applied, energy breaks loose elements, energy is used to compact the elements, etc, etc.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
It's pretty self-evident: Longer unbraced length = smaller critical buckling stress.
Click to expand...

Well, from videos we see big sections of wall perimeter columns say 12 m tall, just bolted together at their ends top/btm (the bracing) with the bolts having been sheared off, flying away laterally. No bending of these columns as far as I am concerned.

So how can the bolts - the bracing - shear off, if the column itself is not affected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom