Can 15 floors crush one floor?

[Travis]

Did it really need to be said that the upper 15 floors are now in motion?

*Sigh* Fine, if the upper 15 floors start descending will they be able to crush one floor beneath them?

Truthers?

 

[uke2se]

Did it really need to be said that the upper 15 floors are now in motion?

*Sigh* Fine, if the upper 15 floors start descending will they be able to crush one floor beneath them?

Truthers?

So the only twoofer reply yet was complaining about the question? Color me surprised.

 

[MG1962]

Not even close. The concrete floors were load bearing. Simple evidence is the fact that the floor slabs were composite with the supporting beams. Second simple evidence is the reinforcing used in the concrete (show in many photographs during construction. The metal decking for the most part is used simply to form the concrete during the construction process. The concrete slabs......being composite also were load bearing in the horizontal plane, providing lateral support to both the interior and exterior columns.

The only loads the concrete floors did not carry were the gravity loads from floors above.

The NIST seem to disagree with you

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

 

[NoahFence]

I won't accuse you of using a straw man, but I will accuse you of asking the wrong question.

If you ask, "do you think a 15 floor block of building can crush one floor underneath it"? The obvious response is that that floor did just fine with 15 floors above it until 9/11. In fact, all the lower floors did just fine with many more floors above it.

I think what you're really trying to ask is if one floor can resist the 15 floors rapidly descending upon it as a single unit.

And YOUR answer is?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Did it really need to be said that the upper 15 floors are now in motion?

*Sigh* Fine, if the upper 15 floors start descending will they be able to crush one floor beneath them?

Truthers?

Not to be nitpicky (sorry, man ), but I think the mistake he made is more fundamental. The floor below was not supporting the load that the upper 15 stories were imposing on the lower structure. The columns were; the floors kept the columns upright.

But when the upper floors came down, the bulk of that rubble fell onto the floors themselves. Which is a lot of what we've been arguing with truthers about: What did the descending rubble hit? Mostly the floors themselves.

That statement is just a misrepresentation all around.

 

[jaydeehess]

No. The floors, themselves, never held any of the weight of the floors above them. The supporting columns did just fine, obviously, but once that weight was transferred to the floor assemblies during the collapse, the floors were unable to take the load previously held up by the columns.

For some unknown and unfathomable reason this simple engineering concept completely escapes those in the 911 'truth' movement.

Including our only non-debunker so far to have responded here.

 

[Bell]

So the only twoofer reply yet was complaining about the question? Color me surprised.

When you know you are beat, revert to semantics.

 

[thedopefishlives]

For some unknown and unfathomable reason this simple engineering concept completely escapes those in the 911 'truth' movement.

Including our only non-debunker so far to have responded here.

I've mentioned before, the Twoofers seem to think of the Towers as a single monolithic block, rather than an intricate web of connected steel assemblies. If you think of it as a solid block, or as a series of layers of solid floors, then it does seem illogical that the collapse would proceed to break through each floor in turn. However, the floors were not vertically supporting, only horizontally bracing, and this simple misunderstanding has led to countless appeals to personal incredulity and even flat-out inventing BS physics.

 

[jaydeehess]

Did it really need to be said that the upper 15 floors are now in motion?

*Sigh* Fine, if the upper 15 floors start descending will they be able to crush one floor beneath them?

Truthers?

Another physics concept that escapes those other people, is that of dynamic forces as opposed to simple statics.

Its fairly obvious that a single floor span is not designed to support, and transfer to the columns, all of the mass, in static load, of both itself and 15 other floors AND the columns on which those other 15 floors are attched, LET ALONE take the dynamic load of those 15 floors.

UNLESS as the collapse progressed, the amount of mass that fell to the outside of the structure could represent enough load loss that a subsequent FLOOR span could survive, the collapse had to continue.

Once stripped of floors the columns could not stand on their own(Euler), yet another unfathomable concept for those people.

 

[Travis]

I'm wondering now how long it will be before there is an answer.

 

[thedopefishlives]

I'm wondering now how long it will be before there is an answer.

We could probably get a betting pool going.

My money's on "never", at least, not a straight answer. There will doubtless be a number of dodges and consummately constructed strawmen.

 

[Animal]

The NIST seem to disagree with you

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

No. It doesn't disagree with me. You just don't know what you are talking about.

Lets recall your original claim.

The concrete used was a light weigh mix because it was not designed to be load bearing but to cut noise transmission through the steel plates underneath

For starters, try researching what a composite floor does, had how it reacts.
Then you may want to look up the purpose of steel reinforcing bar in concrete.
Then you may want to find out the load bearing capacity of metal decking.


Then you might want to just quit while you are so far behind.

 

[Sabrina]

Meh.

I never bet on a sure thing.

 

[MG1962]

No. It doesn't disagree with me. You just don't know what you are talking about.

I will pass your concerns onto the James Hardie Australia R&D team, they were the people who helped me with the problem back in 2006 - Only had 16 degrees between them....obviously idiot all

 

[Animal]

I will pass your concerns onto the James Hardie Australia R&D team, they were the people who helped me with the problem back in 2006 - Only had 16 degrees between them....obviously idiot all

They are if they think that the concrete slabs were not load bearing at all and were only used for sound deadening.


And your appeal to authority is noted.

 

[RedIbis]

Not to be nitpicky (sorry, man ), but I think the mistake he made is more fundamental. The floor below was not supporting the load that the upper 15 stories were imposing on the lower structure. The columns were; the floors kept the columns upright.

But when the upper floors came down, the bulk of that rubble fell onto the floors themselves. Which is a lot of what we've been arguing with truthers about: What did the descending rubble hit? Mostly the floors themselves.

That statement is just a misrepresentation all around.

And yet Travis said, "do you think a 15 floor block of building can crush one floor underneath it?"

Do you think Travis meant the actual floor or the entirety of that bldg floor's mass?

I was just pointing out how imprecise that question is. It's one thing for so-called debunkers to ask leading questions, it's another to ask leading, imprecise questions.

 

[DGM]

And yet Travis said, "do you think a 15 floor block of building can crush one floor underneath it?"

Do you think Travis meant the actual floor or the entirety of that bldg floor's mass?

I was just pointing out how imprecise that question is. It's one thing for so-called debunkers to ask leading questions, it's another to ask leading, imprecise questions.

So now that you understand what he meant. Care to address the question?

 

[The Big Dog]

And yet Travis said, "do you think a 15 floor block of building can crush one floor underneath it?"

Do you think Travis meant the actual floor or the entirety of that bldg floor's mass?

I was just pointing out how imprecise that question is. It's one thing for so-called debunkers to ask leading questions, it's another to ask leading, imprecise questions.

That is the awesome part of it, Red, we are not in Court. So you can say something like this:

"travis, I'm not sure I follow your question, but if you are asking whether a 15 story descending segment of a building striking one floor in a steel framed building can cause the catastrophic failure of that floor, the answer is HELL’s YEAH BABY, and anyone saying differently is a maroon, HIGH FIVE!”

Or you can do what it is you are doing, because we all know that you are going to quibble about the question, and bitch and moan, and when you finally are backed into a corner, run off. Kinda like this, huh bro?

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V​

 

[Bell]

So now that you understand what he meant. Care to address the question?

You are kidding, right?

 

[ozeco41]

And yet Travis said, "do you think a 15 floor block of building can crush one floor underneath it?"

Do you think Travis meant the actual floor or the entirety of that bldg floor's mass?

I was just pointing out how imprecise that question is. It's one thing for so-called debunkers to ask leading questions, it's another to ask leading, imprecise questions.

I have to agree with RedIbis.

The imprecision focuses on the word "crush". In this context what does "crush" mean??? Does it mean just the floor OR does it mean the floor LEVEL complete with columns and beams? Using the word "crush" by implication reopens all the confusion which has existed for years. Does he want truthers to support the understanding that the columns were involved in the crushing? That would amount to asking truthers to prove what didn't happen -- he would be leading them into false argument. Surely not his intention?

I don't want to verbal Travis but a more accurate question could be:

"...do you think a 15 floor block of building could land on one floor underneath it and cause that floor to shear off from the columns?"

Provided that is what he meant. Otherwise I don't have a clue what he is referring to other than repeating a phrase which has caused confusion for years and one which most of us have learned to avoid.