Building demolished from the top down.

aggle-rithm said:
Also, they didn't collapse in the same way. Predictably, the building with damage lower in the structure, which had more mass above the damaged area, collapsed much more quickly than the one with the same damage higher up. Exactly as one would expect given the differences in the crashes.
Click to expand...

I would have expected otherwise. Why do you think the one with more mass collapsed sooner than the one with less mass?
 
Java Man said:
I would have expected otherwise. Why do you think the one with more mass collapsed sooner than the one with less mass?
Click to expand...

Seriously? You can't understand how more mass (and therefore pressure, weight, etc.) would result in a faster structural failure, as opposed to less? Try this simple experiment:

Take 2 identical brand new balloons. Inflate 1 slightly and the other with about 4 to 5 good breaths. Then take both and inflate them at an equal rate and observe which explodes first.

A W Smith said:
is that a trick question? you cant possibly be this ignorant as to why.
Click to expand...

Apparently in Java's world the less mass a structure has the more support you need! I don't even want to think what a feather would have done to the towers!
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
I would have expected otherwise. Why do you think the one with more mass collapsed sooner than the one with less mass?
Click to expand...

Because 50 stories of skyscraper has more mass than 20 stories of skyscraper.

50 stories pushing down on a weakened section of the structure will result in faster "failure creep" than 20 stories.

As I said, you should talk to a structural engineer. He'll set you straight.
 
grandmastershek said:
Seriously? You can't understand how more mass (and therefore pressure, weight, etc.) would result in a faster structural failure, as opposed to less?
Click to expand...

Maybe he's taking into account the sturdier structure found on the lower floors. Anyway, it's irrelevant because the structure wasn't designed to handle a huge dynamic load while heavily damaged (and--for some reason this keeps sticking in my mind--ON FIRE).
 
aggle-rithm said:
Because 50 stories of skyscraper has more mass than 20 stories of skyscraper.

50 stories pushing down on a weakened section of the structure will result in faster "failure creep" than 20 stories.

As I said, you should talk to a structural engineer. He'll set you straight.
Click to expand...

a) The structure is progressively stronger as you go down or progressively weaker as you go up, whichever way you want to look at it. This compensates for the added weight.

b) There was more structural damage done to the outer wall of the north tower than the south tower (about 50% more, 36% vs 23% FEMA)

c) Thicker structural columns in the lower level are stronger and being thicker harder to heat up by the same fire source, there's no indication that there was considerably more fuel sources in those floors than any other

d) Last but not least the collapse initiated by the buckling of the floor structures and their pancake collapse which later brought down the inner and outer structures on them. The floor structures are the same all along the tower. So it should present no difference if the impact is higher or lower. The buckling of the floor structures struts has nothing to do with the mass on top of it(of floors that don't load directly on the floor planes).
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
a) The structure is progressively stronger as you go down or progressively weaker as you go up, whichever way you want to look at it. This compensates for the added weight.
Click to expand...

To a degree. But you have to remember that, first, this stronger structure was designed to support a static load, not a dynamic one of the same mass. Second, and most crucial, you cannot state "This compensates for the added weight" because you don't know the numbers.

I don't know them either, but since my interpretation matches what was observed, and yours does not, mine is more likely to be correct.
 
Java Man said:
It's not the not joining in part that's rude, it's the joining in and then totally disregarding my comment as if I'd written something entirely different and on top of that make references to historical positions held by truthers. Which is no way the position I'm showing in this conversation.
Click to expand...

I see you missed the joke, which is that you've been doing exactly the same thing all along. Still, derailing into meta-discussion is a great way to divert attention away from the question of whether you've phoned any insurance companies yet.

Dave
 
aggle-rithm said:
To a degree. But you have to remember that, first, this stronger structure was designed to support a static load, not a dynamic one of the same mass. Second, and most crucial, you cannot state "This compensates for the added weight" because you don't know the numbers.

I don't know them either, but since my interpretation matches what was observed, and yours does not, mine is more likely to be correct.
Click to expand...

Bogus you're just trying to do some spin to put your position on top. Clearly the structures are stronger in the bottom floors. How much? Well look up the floor plans. Dynamic load? That counts after collapse initiates. Prior to that there are still the other points: more structural integrity in the lower impact point, harder to heat up beams because they are thicker and well the issue pointed out in d), which you haven't addressed yet.

Unfortunately your interpretation does NOT match what was observed and reported by NIST.
 
Java Man said:
Last but not least the collapse initiated by the buckling of the floor structures and their pancake collapse which later brought down the inner and outer structures on them. The floor structures are the same all along the tower. So it should present no difference if the impact is higher or lower. The buckling of the floor structures struts has nothing to do with the mass on top of it(of floors that don't load directly on the floor planes).
Click to expand...

Actually, it has very much to do with it. The tube-in-tube design works like this:

1. There are interior columns that provide some support for the building.
2. There are exterior columns that provide additional support.
3. There are floor structures that tie the two together and allow them to work as a unit.

If any of these structures fail, then they all fail. Take out a floor, and the outer columns are required to take on far more than they are designed for. Add the fact that the columns are damaged, and you've got an even bigger problem.

Finally, add the additional complication of the floor sagging and actuallly pulling the outer columns inward, and you've got a collapse that can't be stopped.

You are correct that the interior columns got increasingly sturdy the further down you went...that's why this was the last part of the building to collapse, after the exterior columns and floors were gone.

Exactly what you would expect from a collapse that resulted from structural damage and fire.
 
Java Man said:
Bogus you're just trying to do some spin to put your position on top. Clearly the structures are stronger in the bottom floors. How much? Well look up the floor plans. Dynamic load? That counts after collapse initiates. Prior to that there are still the other points: more structural integrity in the lower impact point, harder to heat up beams because they are thicker and well the issue pointed out in d), which you haven't addressed yet.
Click to expand...

Read my previous post. The interior columns were the last part of the structure to fail.

Unfortunately your interpretation does NOT match what was observed and reported by NIST.
Click to expand...

My interpretation predicts that the building with damage further down in the structure would tend to collapse first.

What was observed? Was it in fact the first to collapse?
 
I think the most damaging case against the truthers is that, in order to swallow their own arguments, they MUST remain ignorant of the issues they are discussing.

I learned everything I know about the structural issues and collapse mechanism of the WTC towers by participating in this very forum and absorbing the knowledge of experts far smarter than I am. That SAME INFORMATION is available to truthers here...but they ignore it.

How strong could their position be if ignorance is a prerequisite?
 
aggle-rithm said:
If any of these structures fail, then they all fail. Take out a floor, and the outer columns are required to take on far more than they are designed for. Add the fact that the columns are damaged, and you've got an even bigger problem.
Click to expand...

But they are less damaged in the lower impact point than in the upper one. Which goes contrary to your assumption that that is the cause of the earlier collapse.

aggle-rithm said:
Finally, add the additional complication of the floor sagging and actuallly pulling the outer columns inward, and you've got a collapse that can't be stopped.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the floor sagging which would lead to the break away and the collapse is independent of the amount of floors on top of it. The floor sagging depends on the heat of the fire in the area and the weight of the floor which is the same in all the floors in the WTC. That is why you can't claim that one tower fell before the other because there were more stories on one than the other. Those added stories were loading on the outer columns and core that would not collapse until the floors sagged and buckled due to heat. Once again said floors are identical along the tower and there is no reason to believe one fire was particularly hotter than the other.
 
Java Man said:
I would have expected otherwise. Why do you think the one with more mass collapsed sooner than the one with less mass?
Click to expand...

This is called an argument from personal ignorance.

It has more mass on top of the weakened area, hence, the first to collapse.
 
Java Man said:
c) Thicker structural columns in the lower level are stronger and being thicker harder to heat up by the same fire source, there's no indication that there was considerably more fuel sources in those floors than any other
Click to expand...

Classic unevaluated equality fallacy, per Dave Rogers.
 
aggle-rithm said:
My interpretation predicts that the building with damage further down in the structure would tend to collapse first.

What was observed? Was it in fact the first to collapse?
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation, but it is in no way backed by facts that would support it as the cause for the earlier collapse.

Now you may come around and claim that the fact that it was the first to collapse is fact enough. But you can't use what you're trying to prove as a fact in the proof.

It is an ill methodology to say "oh I predict that the lower the damage the sooner it will collapse" and "oh see, it was hit lower and collapsed sooner".

It could have collapsed sooner for a variety of other reasons and it is particularly interesting to point out the cause of the pancake collapse detailed in the NIST report is independent of position. That is the floors are all the same at all levels and the fires would burn with the same intensity at all levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom