Acceleration of the falling top blocks.

[ergo]

Kindergarten level even.

Yes. It's intuitive.

 

[ergo]

Wait a minute...the CORE fell straight?

See, the thing about lying, then lying to cover up the previous lie, its that eventually they become way too obvious. And that comment was pretty damn obvious.

I think you need to go back and work on this, Noah.

 

[NoahFence]

I think you need to go back and work on this, Noah.

Not quite.

 

[ergo]

Some truss pics for DGM. Because he seems a little confused about the bridging trusses.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bridging_truss.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Changed hotlink (breach of Rule 5) to regular link.

 

[leftysergeant]

Some truss pics for DGM. Because he seems a little confused about the bridging trusses.

So? They were still vulnerable where they connected to the perimeter columns.

 

[phunk]

How long (in your mind) does the upper block remain intact once "collapse" begins?

Why does it matter? Do you think the upper block breaking into smaller pieces will somehow stop the collapse?

If you take the mass of the upper block and smash it into smaller pieces, and pile them up on top of the lower block, how much of that mass will be resting on the columns and how much will end up between the columns where there's nothing designed to hold it up?

 

[phunk]

As for phunk, I have no idea what collapse mode he thinks he's explaining. Something he's no doubt made up in his little phunky head.

Call it a collapse model if you want, but it's a trivial fact that the columns are the only part of the building that can hold the weight of the building above, and if the weight comes off the columns, there's nothing else to hold it up.

 

[Animal]

Call it a collapse model if you want, but it's a trivial fact that the columns are the only part of the building that can hold the weight of the building above, and if the weight comes off the columns, there's nothing else to hold it up.

troofers seem to believe that the upper block of the tower will always fall perfectly in alignment with the columns below, an absolutely ridiculous concept given the photos that show the block tilt.

 

[NoahFence]

Some truss pics for DGM. Because he seems a little confused about the bridging trusses.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac91/jaswinder_bucket/WTC/633_insulated_trusses.jpg

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac91/jaswinder_bucket/WTC/trussassembly.png

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bridging_truss.jpg

I'm curious... if steel can't fail in an unfought fire for 7 hours, why does the top image show steel with fireproofing on it?

Waste of money they could have used to buy their occupants better computer monitors I would think.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Well, I'm sorry, but I've already stated that no structural engineer currently endorses a floor failure model for the WTC. If you know otherwise, please correct me.

Okay, if they don't, what kind of model DO they endorse? You don't seriously think structural engineers actually believe the columns fell smack on top of each other in perfect alignment, do you?

 

[DGM]

Still not answering the question.

The floor system, which exists in both upper and lower building assemblies, is not tasked with arresting the collapse. The column structure, which exists in both upper and lower building assemblies, is.

No, the "cabling" I'm referring to is not the sway dampers, DGM.

(I can't imagine what you mean by "tasked").

Wrong. The floor system braces the columns.Without the floors the columns would collapse under their own weight.

Still can't show how the bridging effects that picture that you seem to think is deception.

So what "cabling" are you talking about?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Wrong. The floor system braces the columns.Without the floors the columns would collapse under their own weight.

And, in actual point of fact, did collapse under their own weight in the event, as isn't that what happened when the core fell? It wasn't connected to anything anymore, and it was incapable of supporting itself.

 

[DGM]

And, in actual point of fact, did collapse under their own weight in the event, as isn't that what happened when the core fell? It wasn't connected to anything anymore, and it was incapable of supporting itself.

Very true. A point ergo will never except is, the towers were incapable of standing without the floors.

 

[phunk]

Okay, if they don't, what kind of model DO they endorse? You don't seriously think structural engineers actually believe the columns fell smack on top of each other in perfect alignment, do you?

It's nonsense. The floor failure model of collapse initiation was found to be incorrect, and he's trying to equate that with any model involving the floors failing after the collapse began.

 

[thedopefishlives]

It's nonsense. The floor failure model of collapse initiation was found to be incorrect, and he's trying to equate that with any model involving the floors failing after the collapse began.

I have to admit, he actually had me hoodwinked with that one. I thought we were speaking strictly post-collapse initiation. It never occurred to me that he was trying to twist my words into a pre-initiation collapse model.

 

[ergo]

(I can't imagine what you mean by "tasked").

You also didn't understand the transverse trusses.

Wrong. The floor system braces the columns.Without the floors the columns would collapse under their own weight.

That's absurd and you know it. The floors provided lateral stability, but the core carried the building gravity loads and was largely self supporting. The perimeter columns, as we can see even at Ground Zero, maintained their integrity in large sections just with the spandrel plates.

 

[ergo]

It's nonsense. The floor failure model of collapse initiation was found to be incorrect, and he's trying to equate that with any model involving the floors failing after the collapse began.

So whose model are you using for collapse progression?

 

[DGM]

You also didn't understand the transverse trusses.

Now they're transverse trusses. Make up you're mind.

That's absurd and you know it. The floors provided lateral stability, but the core carried the building gravity loads and was largely self supporting. The perimeter columns, as we can see even at Ground Zero, maintained their integrity in large sections just with the spandrel plates.

Believe what you want to believe, you're still wrong.



What about that "cabling" of yours?

 

[DGM]

That's absurd and you know it. The floors provided lateral stability, but the core carried the building gravity loads and was largely self supporting. The perimeter columns, as we can see even at Ground Zero, maintained their integrity in large sections just with the spandrel plates.

The funniest part of this post. Most** everything he said is true*. He just doesn't connect it as a system that allowed the building to stand.



* except the absurd part.

** He would really need to define " largely self supporting".

 

[ergo]

Now they're transverse trusses. Make up you're mind.

Are transverse trusses not bridging trusses, Mr. 25 Years in Construction?

Believe what you want to believe, you're still wrong.

Wrong about what?