Can 15 floors crush one floor?

[ozeco41]

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

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?
....

Why does troll bashing have to overrule sensible comment??

Pretending that the OP question was understandable and acceptable because we cannot afford to let a troll get it right...???

The OP question was ambiguous or worse. Get over it.

Sheesh.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why does troll bashing have to overrule sensible comment??

Pretending that the OP question was understandable and acceptable because we cannot afford to let a troll get it right...???

The OP question was ambiguous or worse. Get over it.

Sheesh.

Uh, if you think my post was troll bashing, I'd ask you to re-read it. I provided a solution and an answer.

Sheesh

 

[Redwood]

My two cents worth on making the question most succinct: When the upper section falls onto the topmost floor assembly, what is the probability that the connections between the floor assembly and the perimeter and core columns will fail?

My opinion as a scientifically trained non-engineer is that P=0.999999999999999........, which we all know = 1.

 

[DGM]

Why does troll bashing have to overrule sensible comment??

Pretending that the OP question was understandable and acceptable because we cannot afford to let a troll get it right...???

The OP question was ambiguous or worse. Get over it.

Sheesh.

I have to wonder what sensible comment could possible be left?

Yes, this thread is "troll bait" (because that's all that's left).

In my opinion. This sub-forum is done (unless the "truthers" actually find something)*.


*= problem. Every time they do think they find something it's our responsibility to prove it's not important.

 

[Travis]

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this was so ambiguous as to be incomprehensible.

 

[DGM]

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this was so ambiguous as to be incomprehensible.

It's not. The problem is, you are trying to force "truthers" to make a stand that is clearly against their training (as if there are any left on this site).

What's the point? You know they won't answer this truthfully.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this was so ambiguous as to be incomprehensible.

It is in the word "crush". What part of the structure do you suggest was "crushed"? It has been an ambiguous issue for years and confusing to both sides of the polarised debate.

Those who adopt an explanation based on Bazant think the columns were included in "crushing" in the sense that they were heavily over compressed so they buckled and failed. That did not happen. So the reality is that the columns were not included in crushing.

The reality was that the open office space floors were where the outer parts of the falling top tower landed and the falling weight sheared off the floors from the perimeter and core columns. Plus the core top bit which landed on the lower tower core landed with cross beams on cross beams and sheared those off. In both cases leaving the columns mostly unbuckled and not "crushed".

So you have three options. Are you clear what you intended?
1) Leave the ambiguity for the truthers to address; OR
2) You meant it in "Bazantian style" with the false assumption that columns were "crushed" to buckling failure; OR
3) You simply meant what happened in the real collapse and your question could be clearer if stated as "was the falling weight enough to shear off the floor below...?"

And leaving it to truthers to decide what you meant is risky - but that could be part of the fun. So add the fourth option:

4) You deliberately leave it ambiguous in the hope that it will confuse truthers.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm sorry but I fail to see how this was so ambiguous as to be incomprehensible.

The main problem as I see it is that we are dealing with a group of people who will often take every word in its direct literal meaning.

Thus when FEMA said that the towers fell in "ten" seconds many assumed this was a scientific 10.000 seconds when in fact it was an approximation made clear by the fact that FEMA spelled the word rather than write "10.000".

The idea however that I got from Bazant was as illustrated here by others, that the falling mass overloaded the floor pans and/or their connections to the columns thus depriving the columns of lateral support which after a few levels causes the columns themselves to be unstable and buckle(amidst continuous violent buffeting from still more falling mass).

Of course even that is a slightly idealized model since it would be the broken ends of the upper section columns, in that first impact, which contact the floor pans within the core area, which could easily fail truss seats right then before the bulk of the upper mass even impinges upon the floor pan. Then there is the fact that the initial collapse began at levels that had suffered impact damage. The reason of course for idealized modelling in this case is that it is impossible to know beyond a certain point, exactly what failed first and what hit what first.

Suffice it to say that 15 storeys of mass was moving downwards and definately would be able to fail the floor connections of the next floor down

 

[Travis]

I just got sick and tired of truthers saying 15 floors can't crush or in anyway cause the destruction of the floors underneath because there are so many more than 15.

So I want to know that if there was a 17 story building and the connections all fail between the 2nd and 3rd floor do Truthers think the upper 15 floors would hit the roof of the 1st floor and then stop or would that floor be destroyed?

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm tired of this point being avoided in too many other threads. So this one is all about this.

Truthers or those with Truth Movement sympathies do you think a 15 floor block of building can crush one floor underneath it?

Please don't accuse me of a strawman attack in your answers.

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.

This is just pedantry aimed at avoiding giving an answer.

Where does the "official story" claim that the lower floors spontaneously disintegrated without any weight being applied on them?

We've all seen the videos of the outer columns buckling from the weight of the top floors, initiating collapse.

 

[jaydeehess]

I just got sick and tired of truthers saying 15 floors can't crush or in anyway cause the destruction of the floors underneath because there are so many more than 15.

So I want to know that if there was a 17 story building and the connections all fail between the 2nd and 3rd floor do Truthers think the upper 15 floors would hit the roof of the 1st floor and then stop or would that floor be destroyed?

Thats a good way to put Travis.

... and if that 1st floor ceiling could not survive then were it an 18 storey buildning and its the ceiling of the 2nd floor which gives way from the impact of the top 15 is there a reason to expect the ceiling of the 1st floor to survive?

continue for 92 more levels

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks for digging that up. I hunted down my most recent calculations, and ended up using (based on Urich) the more conservative estimate of 2.1 million kilograms per floor.

This is equivalent to the potential energy of each twin tower being on the order of 114 tons of TNT.

Cheers, Dave

The potential energy of each twin tower was also the energy equivalent of 14.25 tons of chocolate chip cookies.

Chocolate chip cookies have 8 times the energy density of TNT, as you should know Dave, since I told you this last year after you used this same argument in your debate with Richard Gage and Niels Harrit.

The difference between explosives like TNT and other more energy dense but less powerful items is that the high explosive releases all of it's energy in a millionth or two of a second, so it is much more powerful. It is really power and the ability to do a certain amount of work in a specified period of time which should be the measurement here.

 

[DGM]

The difference between explosives like TNT and other more energy dense items is that the high explosive releases all of it's energy in a millionth or two of a second so it is much more powerful.

The "thermite" (whatever flavor) Achilles heal.

Nothing you can do to it will change the fact, Thermite (nano included) is not an explosive.

 

[R.Mackey]

The potential energy of each twin tower was also the energy equivalent of 14.25 tons of chocolate chip cookies.

Chocolate chip cookies have 8 times the energy density of TNT, as you should know Dave, since I told you this last year after you used this same argument in your debate with Richard Gage and Niels Harrit.

Glad to see this argument has progressed beyond the pre-school level...



While the above is in jest, it is only slightly so -- if we are to fuss about correct units, neither energy nor power is the choice. The correct choice is momentum. You'll also note the OP said nothing about energy, and Dave Thomas's post was more about weight than energy. Tony is deliberately confusing the argument.

And yes, it really is a simple question with a simple answer. That answer is "yes."

 

[The Big Dog]

The potential energy of each twin tower was also the energy equivalent of 14.25 tons of chocolate chip cookies.

Chocolate chip cookies have 8 times the energy density of TNT, as you should know Dave, since I told you this last year after you used this same argument in your debate with Richard Gage and Niels Harrit.

The difference between explosives like TNT and other more energy dense but less powerful items is that the high explosive releases all of it's energy in a millionth or two of a second, so it is much more powerful. It is really power and the ability to do a certain amount of work in a specified period of time which should be the measurement here.

It also makes a sound like this: BANG!

Tony, your argument is worth its *********** weight in chocolate chip cookies.

 

[NutCracker]

Tony, some friendly advice. Leave this 9/11 nonsense. It is BS and you should know it.

Take a step back and have a critical look at your own arguments. Having a good list of logical fallacies handy will make the work easier.

 

[1337m4n]

mmmmm...chocolate chip cookies....gghaaauughghghgllaauuhghghgh

Wait, what were we talking about?

 

[Justin39640]

mmmmm...chocolate chip cookies....gghaaauughghghgllaauuhghghgh

Wait, what were we talking about?

Callous disrespect apparently. Way to show your soft side Tony.

 

[Orphia Nay]

2 out of 2 truthers dodge the OP question.

 

[Robrob]

The "thermite" (whatever flavor) Achilles heal.

Nothing you can do to it will change the fact, Thermite (nano included) is not an explosive.

But, but, but it ends in -ite and has "nano" in it!