timhau
NWO Litter Technician
He's well on his way to proving that everything is indestructable.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Prove to me that the collapses did not look right
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc collapse
He's well on his way to proving that everything is indestructable.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I am describing what happened with WTC1 and WTC2. You are discussing some phantom construct of your own. And you are assuming homogeneity. That was not WTC on 9/11.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Yes -- that is a central feature of what happened.
Clayton doesn't want to understand - his loss. I have now used up my "ration" of two posts in response to a troll who (whether intentionally or accidentally) asks a sensible question.
There are a number of keys to understanding the start of the "global collapse" stage for WTC1 and WTC2. (And it is astonishing how many people have not thought it through - placing reliance on academic analyses rather that working out what actually had to happen [/end rant]
)The first "big point" is that the "top block" was falling. That inevitable means that most of the columns had failed and their top bits were already bypassing their other halves in the lower bits. And those few columns that were still in contact were in process of failing and joining their mates on that first group. Must be so because the top block was falling.
Get the mind around that reality and we move on to "What follows?"
What follows is that at the outer perimeter of the top block the columns were either falling inside the lower perimeter OR outside the lower perimeter. So, if falling inside, it is "floor plus columns" landing on 'floor only" - and the columns far stronger carrying the full load of "x" levels above the point of contact. That's the point I made in the previous post and which Clayton has decided to not recognise because it rebuts his "equal damage" assumption.
At the core is a bit more complicated but essentially the top block core falls on the lower tower core cross beam on cross beam NOT column on column. (Remember the top block is falling so the columns are not in end for end abutment (minor exception left out here) ) And - your point - at the interface of core to Open Office Space some core columns will be falling inside some outside. And those falling in the OOS will present a massive overload which fails the floor joist to core connectors. All same as what is happening at the outer perimeter.
And vice versa at the outer perimeter. If the top block perimeter is falling outside then it is the lower section perimeter columns coming upwards (relatively) which shear off the floor in the top block from the underside.
All of that explanation applying to the first floor or two. After that it gets too complicated to describe.... even for me
Hey is this 2007 revisited -- it's years since I posted this sort of explanatory stuff!!
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Yes -- that is a central feature of what happened.
Clayton doesn't want to understand - his loss. I have now used up my "ration" of two posts in response to a troll who (whether intentionally or accidentally) asks a sensible question.
There are a number of keys to understanding the start of the "global collapse" stage for WTC1 and WTC2. (And it is astonishing how many people have not thought it through - placing reliance on academic analyses rather that working out what actually had to happen [/end rant]
The first "big point" is that the "top block" was falling. That inevitable means that most of the columns had failed and their top bits were already bypassing their other halves in the lower bits. And those few columns that were still in contact were in process of failing and joining their mates on that first group. Must be so because the top block was falling.
Get the mind around that reality and we move on to "What follows?"
What follows is that at the outer perimeter of the top block the columns were either falling inside the lower perimeter OR outside the lower perimeter. So, if falling inside, it is "floor plus columns" landing on 'floor only" - and the columns far stronger carrying the full load of "x" levels above the point of contact. That's the point I made in the previous post and which Clayton has decided to not recognise because it rebuts his "equal damage" assumption.
At the core is a bit more complicated but essentially the top block core falls on the lower tower core cross beam on cross beam NOT column on column. (Remember the top block is falling so the columns are not in end for end abutment (minor exception left out here) ) And - your point - at the interface of core to Open Office Space some core columns will be falling inside some outside. And those falling in the OOS will present a massive overload which fails the floor joist to core connectors. All same as what is happening at the outer perimeter.
And vice versa at the outer perimeter. If the top block perimeter is falling outside then it is the lower section perimeter columns coming upwards (relatively) which shear off the floor in the top block from the underside.
All of that explanation applying to the first floor or two. After that it gets too complicated to describe.... even for me
Hey is this 2007 revisited -- it's years since I posted this sort of explanatory stuff!!
Sorry, since the beginning of time a pancake scenario, no matter how farfetched, will always be simplistic and so must any explanation of one.
And, knowing that the cement debris was essentially dust, the pancaking resulted in the pulverizing of all the cement floors.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Does believing this help in your pursuit of "truth"? I bet you believe that "rubble" is a "special" kind of mass.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
No. There were still tons of concrete attached to rebar in the rubble pile. Look at the damned pictures some time.
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Cripes, we're going to end up back with Judy Wood and her dustifying energy beams soon.
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
But doing that will ruin most of his belief system and he'll have to move goalposts again
Yes, though the link is now dead. Here's another one on the subject which you will not read or understand.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
My scenario is that several floors fell and impacted the lower portion.
Do you understand how physics work? The falling bit was exerting roughly 30 times its own weight on the lower portion. Most of the force was on the lower portion.
Have someone drop a ballistic-gel model of your head on your head from ten feet up, and then assess the damage to the two. When you wake up.
So they'd just...hover?
This sentence is technically English, yet I have no idea what it's saying. My best guess is a misunderstanding of the fact that the bottom floor is backed up by the weight of the floors above it, just like my fist, in a punch, would have the weight of the rest of my body behind it.
Okay, now take that model of your head, break it in half, and then drop it on your head again.
Diffuse it to where? Either some of it spills out of the sides, or it hits the bottom section. Most of it is going to hit the bottom section.
But not sufficiently so, in this case, to make any difference to the outcome.
Let's try that head experiment with a 50lb loose bag of sand, dropped on your head, and someone emptying the bag onto your head. Tell us how it works out.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Could be that understanding how it actually happened is a lot easier than trying to imagine how it didn't happen.
Given that however I am in the minority camp of engineers.
Most prefer to rely on mathematical abstractions to explain the collapses. Nothing wrong with abstractions except they do not rely on the actual mechanisms of what really happened on the day. And you can still use the abstractions when the reality gets too complicated.
I am in the minority camp because I prefer to work as far as possible from the reality of actual mechanisms. That approach is capable of explaining the start of global collapse - see my recent posts. It is also more accessible to lay persons who cannot conceive what a mass of complex mathematics is trying to say.
But after the first couple of floors it gets far too complicated - you (we? I?) cannot work out what bit went where so the approach fails because it all gets to complicated - again just as I said in my previous post.
So, back to your point, few structural engineers get on the truther bandwagon because those who are interested in WTC collapse understand the engineering and don't fall for truther nonsense. Whether they work it out for themselves or are content to accept the opinions of accepted authorities. I'm one of those who had to work it out for themselves. Mid 2007 for the Twin Towers collapses.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Could be that understanding how it actually happened is a lot easier than trying to imagine how it didn't happen.
Given that however I am in the minority camp of engineers.
Most prefer to rely on mathematical abstractions to explain the collapses. Nothing wrong with abstractions except they do not rely on the actual mechanisms of what really happened on the day. And you can still use the abstractions when the reality gets too complicated.
I am in the minority camp because I prefer to work as far as possible from the reality of actual mechanisms. That approach is capable of explaining the start of global collapse - see my recent posts. It is also more accessible to lay persons who cannot conceive what a mass of complex mathematics is trying to say.
But after the first couple of floors it gets far too complicated - you (we? I?) cannot work out what bit went where so the approach fails because it all gets to complicated - again just as I said in my previous post.
So, back to your point, few structural engineers get on the truther bandwagon because those who are interested in WTC collapse understand the engineering and don't fall for truther nonsense. Whether they work it out for themselves or are content to accept the opinions of accepted authorities. I'm one of those who had to work it out for themselves. Mid 2007 for the Twin Towers collapses.
The debunkers say the three buildings collapsed/fell down. There's no complicated in 3 buildings falling DOWN.
There is just DOWN.
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
Thousands of pieces were contained within the buildings, Clayton; furniture, computers, papers, pipes, even bodies. Each of those is going to have some effect (however slight it may be in the entire equation) as to exactly HOW the buildings came down. It is impossible to model accurately because no one equation can accurately account for all of the different moving pieces contained within the building.
For FSM's sake, I have next to no experience in physics or mechanical engineering, and even I understand that.
NoahFence
Banned
The entire retarded truth movement is made up of nothing but overly complicated events. Stop contradicting yourself.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
Clayton's had a few years to read the forum... his "opinion" is decided. Wrong or otherwise he is sticking to his guns... and thinks he's qualified to say what he wants no questions asked. Does his inept opinion on engineering and building design really merit the attention we still give him?
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Yes, because a lie is being protected. And swarming in to perpetuate the lie is the order of the day.
ozeco41
Philosopher
No. He is either totally clueless or is pretending to be sillier than he really is.
With my personal ROE's (Rules of Engagement) I rarely respond to trolls, usually limiting myself to those rare occasions when they ask a sensible question.
It may have been an accident but he asked a sensible question (post 155) - so I gave a valid professional answer (post 157) which he ignored - witness the nonsense of post 159 where he reverted to form.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
I think that's why I've gotten bored with the subforum... same people, same answer style, same claims; all covered, rarely anything new. I can't justify responding to the same people when I already know what their answers are.