Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing

ergo said:
Oh, so he knew there were explosions, just not explosives. I see.

* cough * More "debunker" wriggling. * cough*

What kind of eyewitness account would you expect to hear if explosives were used? What they saw? What they heard? What kind of impact from it they experienced?
Click to expand...

What kind of eyewitness account would you expect to hear if explosions not caused by explosives were used? What they saw? What they heard? What kind of impact from it they experienced?
 
ergo said:
I don't. Just that there were numerous accounts. Both from inside and outside, by the way. Others on the outside felt a "rumble" in the ground preceding the collapse initiation.

But I'll add, what else would crumple up a 300-pound steel and concrete fire door? Not fire, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Where did these supposed explosive explosions take place?
 
AaronMHatch said:
What kind of eyewitness account would you expect to hear if explosions not caused by explosives were used? What they saw? What they heard? What kind of impact from it they experienced?
Click to expand...

Sure. Which is why I'm saying that we can't really tell at this point, especially if information is being suppressed. Right? Why is it that it's up to citizens and "truther" sites to record and maintain this information? Why isn't it in the NIST report? Or the 9/11 Commission Report?
 
ergo said:
Um, in the basement. Did you not glean that from any of the 50 or so previous posts in this thread?
Click to expand...

So, according to you, something was exploded in the basement and then some 90 floors up the WTC started to collapse?
 
Bell said:
So, according to you, something was exploded in the basement and then some 90 floors up the WTC started to collapse?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the sequence of the explosions to the start of collapse.
 
Bell said:
The person who's picture you link to believes the WTC cores where all concrete. Do you?
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused. There seems to be very little information about the interior box columns on the Web. I found some information about them, such as:

"What I learned and remembered from that 1990 documentary, the perimeter walls took 50% of the gravity load, the interior box columns took 30% and the concrete core took 20%. The core was mostly there to keep the building from twisting. Steel structures of this size have inherent problems of flex, the engineer, Yamasaki, chose a steel reinforced concrete core in a rectangular tube configuration to deal with this and add a minimum of weight and a maximum of torsion resistance."

From: http://www.physforum.com/Basic-Physics_3108-7700.html
 
Anders Lindman said:
Now I'm confused. There seems to be very little information about the interior box columns on the Web. I found some information about them, such as:

"What I learned and remembered from that 1990 documentary, the perimeter walls took 50% of the gravity load, the interior box columns took 30% and the concrete core took 20%. The core was mostly there to keep the building from twisting. Steel structures of this size have inherent problems of flex, the engineer, Yamasaki, chose a steel reinforced concrete core in a rectangular tube configuration to deal with this and add a minimum of weight and a maximum of torsion resistance."

From: http://www.physforum.com/Basic-Physics_3108-7700.html
Click to expand...

That source is wrong. The building was steel framed.

Incidentally, a bit of a giveaway is "steel reinforced concrete". What the hell else would we reinforce structural concrete with? Reeds?
 
Architect said:
That source is wrong. The building was steel framed.

Incidentally, a bit of a giveaway is "steel reinforced concrete". What the hell else would we reinforce structural concrete with? Reeds?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia says that the interior box columns were a part of the finished design:

"The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors with shear connections to the concrete slab for composite action.[7] The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short-span area.[7] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were therefore on 6.8 feet (2.1 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to interior box columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers, which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
 
Anders Lindman said:
Wikipedia says that the interior box columns were a part of the finished design:

"The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors with shear connections to the concrete slab for composite action.[7] The trusses had a span of 60 feet (18 m) in the long-span areas and 35 feet (11 m) in the short-span area.[7] The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns, and were therefore on 6.8 feet (2.1 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to interior box columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers, which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
Click to expand...

You know that a box column is steel, yes?

Nowthat you agree that the building is indeed steel framed, how about getting around to responding to the post re: safety factors?
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
You know that a box column is steel, yes?
Click to expand...

Of course. That's obvious in this picture:

WTC.overhead.rails-columns.gif



Architect said:
Nowthat you agree that the building is indeed steel framed, how about getting around to responding to the post re: safety factors?
Click to expand...

The fine details about the design factors are way over my head.
 
Anders, I cam across the unattributed (cough) quote. I thought you'd like it:

It could be that all or most skyscrapers are built by design to collapse into their own footprint for safety reasons in case of a severe earthquake to prevent them from falling sideways like dominoes. And that they don't tell the public that because it would alarm those who work, live and visit those buildings. But if so, then many architects must know about this. Or, probably only those architects who design skyscrapers, and only few special architects do that, and would have signed secrecy agreements.
Click to expand...
I just have to ask: do you think the author of this has ever, ever looked into the structural design of tall buildings in any detail? Really?
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Of course. That's obvious in this picture:
Click to expand...

Well in all fairness, Anders, it was you that quoted someone referring to concrete:

Anders Lindman said:
Now I'm confused. There seems to be very little information about the interior box columns on the Web. I found some information about them, such as:

"What I learned and remembered from that 1990 documentary, the perimeter walls took 50% of the gravity load, the interior box columns took 30% and the concrete core took 20%. The core was mostly there to keep the building from twisting. Steel structures of this size have inherent problems of flex, the engineer, Yamasaki, chose a steel reinforced concrete core in a rectangular tube configuration to deal with this and add a minimum of weight and a maximum of torsion resistance."

From: http://www.physforum.com/Basic-Physics_3108-7700.html
Click to expand...

If it's "obvious", then why use this quote suggesting it's concrete?


Anyway, back to safety margins:

The fine details about the design factors are way over my head.
Click to expand...

Now, now, now. You stated, categorically, that collapse was not possible because of very high safety factors. I've provided you with calculations that show your assumptions to be wrong. It's not just "fine detail", but rather central to your argument.

So, come on - are you admitting your varying safety factors of between 3 and 10 (!) were plucked out of the air?
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
Anders, I cam across the unattributed (cough) quote. I thought you'd like it:

would have signed secrecy agreements.

I just have to ask: do you think the author of this has ever, ever looked into the structural design of tall buildings in any detail? Really?
Click to expand...

Only architects who actually design skyscrapers to be built would be required to sign such secrecy agreement. That would be very few architects.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Only architects who actually design skyscrapers to be built would be required to sign such secrecy agreement. That would be very few architects.
Click to expand...

Well, I've got a wee problem for you Anders. Until about 3 years ago I designed them for a living.

But setting to one side my own personal experience - and before you ask, I've demonstrated my credentials to the mods already - can I ask what evidence you have for this fantastic (literally) claim about secrecy agreements re: structural collapse modes for tall buildings?
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Welded concrete? :confused:
Click to expand...

Anders, you're the one who posted a quote referring to a concrete core.


Originally Posted by Anders Lindman
Now I'm confused. There seems to be very little information about the interior box columns on the Web. I found some information about them, such as:

"What I learned and remembered from that 1990 documentary, the perimeter walls took 50% of the gravity load, the interior box columns took 30% and the concrete core took 20%. The core was mostly there to keep the building from twisting. Steel structures of this size have inherent problems of flex, the engineer, Yamasaki, chose a steel reinforced concrete core in a rectangular tube configuration to deal with this and add a minimum of weight and a maximum of torsion resistance."

From: http://www.physforum.com/Basic-Physics_3108-7700.html
Click to expand...

Now I'm cutting you a little slack here because English isn't your first language, but it's not mine either so don't expect it to last too long if you insist on playing silly devils.
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
You stated, categorically, that collapse was not possible because of very high safety factors. I've provided you with calculations that show your assumptions to be wrong. It's not just "fine detail", but rather central to your argument.

So, come on - are you admitting your varying safety factors of between 3 and 10 (!) were plucked out of the air?
Click to expand...

Come on, Anders, you seem reluctant to answer this one!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom