• 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.

WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
The three WTC buildings had been built and therefore prepared for and protected from your gravity for decades.
Click to expand...

And then a couple of airliners hijacked by fanatical terrorists came along and blew all of those preparations and protections away. Although I am highly amused at the notion of being "prepared for and protected from" gravity.
 
Why do truthers always want to know peoples real names?

Why can't they just debate the issues......or at least try?
 
Same reason as they fantasize about hanging / jailing those who defend the "OCT" - at heart they are a bunch of authoritarian thugs.
 
thedopefishlives said:
And then a couple of airliners hijacked by fanatical terrorists came along and blew all of those preparations and protections away. Although I am highly amused at the notion of being "prepared for and protected from" gravity.
Click to expand...

A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact.

The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity.
 
Clayton Moore said:
A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact.

The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity.
Click to expand...

It's been 11 years and all you've got is your own personal incredulity and lack of knowledge of high-school physics. 0/10, try harder next time.
 
thedopefishlives said:
It's been 11 years and all you've got is your own personal incredulity and lack of knowledge of high-school physics. 0/10, try harder next time.
Click to expand...

You could probably drop the the upper 1/3 from 50 feet and you wouldn't get a like result.

I have the knowledge that I'm right and that I have the courage and integrity to say so.
 
Clayton Moore said:
You could probably drop the the upper 1/3 from 50 feet and you wouldn't get a like result.

I have the knowledge that I'm right and that I have the courage and integrity to say so.
Click to expand...

You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. Member ergo thinks that a "moon sized field of rubble" might not crush the WTC. So at least your delusions are not unique.
 
carlitos said:
You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. So at least your delusions are not unique.
Click to expand...

And current member ergo believes you could drop a moon-sized field of rubble on the tower and it wouldn't collapse. We get all kinds here, don't we?

ETA: Damn, beaten to it.
 
Clayton Moore said:
A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower,
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is astounding.

The Twin Towers weighed 500,000 tons a piece.

To you, "comparatively light" means the USS Missouri and the USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin and the USS New Jersey.

What happened on 9/11 is exactly what we would expect to see if you drop four gawddamn battleships on an office building.
 
LSSBB said:
Let's not forget, the distribution of the manufacturing variabilties of length, width, height, skew torsion, material distribution of all physical members, the impact of wind, the actual degree of spalling of all concrete surfaces impacting the steel members, the presence of internal fracturing and voids in all physical members, variabilities in as-built quality of all welds, threaded and non - threaded fasteners, the effects of wind on the sail area of the building causing tilt and tortion, vibrational analysis from other cataclysmic events . . .
Click to expand...

Those actually wouldn't be necessary for a typical floor beam. AISC LRFD already accounts for manufacturing tolerances and normal wear/tear, spalling won't be an issue in the compression region of concrete floors, wind forces only apply to perimeter beams or beams that are part of the MWFRS.

The items I listed off are what's actually necessary to perform a basic calculation independent of the rest of the building design/condition.
 
Clayton Moore said:
A comparatively light 1/3 of a tower, even lighter after fires, crushes a much stronger 1/3 and then crushes the bottom 1/3 which is even stronger. At what point does the gravity driven 1/3 destroy itself? Each contact would have to deplete hit and hitter equally. The hitter would lose force upon each contact.

The gravity nonsense of the lightest 1/3 of a building pushing through the rest of the building and pulverizing much of the entire building in less than 20 seconds is pure insanity.
Click to expand...

Your post is pure nonsense, actually. Based on ignorance and an unwillingness to learn.

I have the knowledge that I'm right
Click to expand...

Wrong. You have a belief that you're right. But in reality you're wrong.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing; please do not confuse the two.
 
carlitos said:
You're not alone. Ex-member Heiwa believed you could drop the upper block from a couple of miles and it still wouldn't collapse the building. Member ergo thinks that a "moon sized field of rubble" might not crush the WTC. So at least your delusions are not unique.
Click to expand...

I love to be reminded of these twoofer epic fails. Always brings a smile to my face. :D
 
Newtons Bit said:
Those actually wouldn't be necessary for a typical floor beam. AISC LRFD already accounts for manufacturing tolerances and normal wear/tear, spalling won't be an issue in the compression region of concrete floors, wind forces only apply to perimeter beams or beams that are part of the MWFRS.

The items I listed off are what's actually necessary to perform a basic calculation independent of the rest of the building design/condition.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I will defer to the expert on this. That was off the top of my head coming from a more materials centered background.
 
C7 said:
Why don't y'all cut the crap and figure out how much a 53' 4" W24x55 floor beam would sag between 600oC and 700oC in 1 degree increments? Use all those degrees you say you have.

Put up or all your bla-bla about Tony's calcs is just a cover for the fact that not one of you guys knows how.
Click to expand...
Newtons Bit said:
Please specify the in-service live load, the dead load, any point loads acting on the beam, the connection types at both ends of the beam and the material of the beam. If the floor is composite, please specify the angle of the flutes in relation to the flange, the thickness of the decking, the spacing of the flutes, the depth of the flutes, the height of concrete over the top of flute, the width of the flutes, the type of shear studs, the size of shear stud, the expected height of the head of the shear studs above the flutes and the compressive strength of the concrete.
Click to expand...
Tony was able to find all the necessary info and do a spreadsheet on sagging vs expansion. Don't demand that I spoon feed you.

It is axiomatic that the floor beams will sag at temperatures over 600oC. Do a spreadsheet showing how much if you know how. Gerrycan did one without my help.
 
Christopher7 said:
Tony was able to find all the necessary info and do a spreadsheet on sagging vs expansion....
Click to expand...
Yes - there were several. All mathematically correct AFAICS within the boundary assumptions adopted by the authors.
Christopher7 said:
...It is axiomatic that the floor beams will sag at temperatures over 600oC. .
Click to expand...
True.

Whilst the real issue remains....;)
 
Christopher7 said:
Tony was able to find all the necessary info and do a spreadsheet on sagging vs expansion. Don't demand that I spoon feed you.

It is axiomatic that the floor beams will sag at temperatures over 600oC. Do a spreadsheet showing how much if you know how. Gerrycan did one without my help.
Click to expand...

Well hell Im convinced!

We have one ME who is well known on this forum for his basic, fundamental engineering, math, and physics errors....

And then we have "gerrycan" with no expertise whatsoever being able to do a spreadsheet without the help from a carpenter..........

Um yeah........IF THAT ISN'T PROOF I don't know what is ;)

Maybe you, tony, and gerrycan should alert the engineering world to these major developments and get SOMETHING PUBLISHED.

PUBLISH.........either put up or shut up already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom