Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[tfk]

Still waiting for your rubble compacting/rubbish one-way crushing theory. Simple diagrams with lines, triangles, circles, etc, may be useful.

.
Well, I have an interesting coincidence to report.

I'm still waiting for you to answer about 150 of my questions over the last 6 months.

With your comments (especially that last one), you've relegated yourself to the ranking, and treatment, of "5th rate, incompetent, 'who the hell hired this bozo' engineer" that accumulate in companies that have too-strict, 'sorry, can't fire him', policies.

Incompetent engineers in these companies get shuttled off to inconsequential projects where their incompetence won't hurt the company. They get invited to no meetings. All the project managers fight like crazy to keep them off of their projects.

Congrats. You've earned it.

Tom

PS. That coffee pot is acting up again. Could you get right on it & check it out, please?

 

[TruthersLie]

Is he gone?
snip
Hopefully, I've made my point.

Tom

Tom. YOu have to those of us who are paying attention and are not trying to push their idiotic agenda (Note to Bill S: what is your agenda these days bill? no planer? holographic planes? death rays from outer space? You seem to run through all of them.)

Thanks Tom.

 

[A W Smith]

an independent core standing over 15 times taller than its depth

Yes and I'm going to have to put up that picture of the well-braced core when you do.

you will? an independent core? standing by itself 87 feet by 133 feet over a quarter mile high with no perimeter columns or encircling floors? You have such a photo? because we all missed it.

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm going to have to do some math again, aren't I?

to explain to bill that the inner core needed to be supported by the outer walls?

Why bother? I mena I appreciate it, and it is helping educate us all on the engineering... but bill is a lost cause.

now the core is like a tree....yuppers..
and water can't cut steel, wind pressure can't shoot straw through an oak door, flesh can't break stone....

Hey BILL..

what about those steel plates from the video I showed you? Was it too long? What happened to them at 600 mph into aluminum? huh?

 

[bill smith]

you will? an independent core? standing by itself 87 feet by 133 feet over a quarter mile high with no perimeter columns or encircling floors? You have such a photo? because we all missed it.

Look at it this way. Take just one outer core column and picture the floors runnng to at at about 12 foot intervals for 110 floors up to a height of 1300 feet.Do you think that puts a fair amount of vertical stress on the column ?

It still stands though. Now remove all the floors. Will the column now collapse under it's own weight ? (I'm not talking about stability here, only the fact that the column is strong enough to remain standing)

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Tom, Newton, or anyone else here who's not a loon,

I'm sort of missing something: Columns as thin as these were relative to their lengths (I'm talking the entire ground-to-top assemblies of individual 30 foot columns... you all can tell me what the proper terminology for the individual vs. the entire bottom-to-top assemblies are) need lateral bracing. Otherwise, their own weight would buckle them over. So my question is this: If the floors weren't providing the lateral bracing, what was? What other structural element of the towers was supposed to brace those? My point being that I'm sort of at a loss to understand how the floors didn't provide lateral bracing, and what's supposed to do it in place of the floors.

 

[tfk]

er, you got my vote. Thanks, even I can understand that.

I got confused there for a second when Heiwa suggested the floors were just "hung" between the core and peripheral columns.

What would happen in a strong wind, if the core and peripheral columns were not secured to each other via the floor framing and the floors where kind of dangled between the inner core and the outer columns? (apart from the building flopping around a lot). Wouldn't the outside potentially move more than the inner core, or try to? I guess it would depend on how securly they were attached?

The floors are "hung" from the peripheral & core columns. In other words, those columns provide VERTICAL support for the floor assemblies.

But when the buildings are assembled, the columns are drawn up tight, laterally, against the cross trusses. This makes the whole structure rigid. After they have been bolted & welded (brackets) tight, then the concrete was poured, interdigitating with the knuckles in the cross trusses, locking & stiffening the concrete/truss assembly even more.

The result of all of this is that the floor assemblies provide enormous amount of LATERAL support for the columns. This support was absolutely crucial to keep the core columns properly aligned.

If the internal & external columns were not drawn tight to the cross trusses, the whole building would have been floppy, rippling waves would have appeared in the outer walls in winds, windows would have popped out or fractured, and nobody would have trusted that the building to remain standing. It may not have. Remember the importance of geometry.

Fatigue would have enormously reduced its life span. The building would also have oscillated in a twisting motion tremendously.

You're right that the stiffness is not a "binary" state. It's a continuum from less stiff to more stiff. Pulling the columns tight tremendously increases the stiffness. A very desirable thing for these towers.

Tom

 

[tfk]

Nothing really would happen. As the four perimeter walls are bolted together and thus self-supporting and one side is subject to wind load, they will deflect and maybe twist. The core - subject to no wind will just stay where it is.
Now - hang up the floors between perimeter/core and the structure will be more sturdid.

.
So, you think that the core columns were not a large contributor to resisting wind loads because ... they were inside a building and therefore protected from the wind..???

And not because beams close to the neutral axis of a building contribute very little to the resistance to bending loads...??

Remarkable.

tk

 

[tfk]

Tom. YOu have to those of us who are paying attention and are not trying to push their idiotic agenda (Note to Bill S: what is your agenda these days bill? no planer? holographic planes? death rays from outer space? You seem to run through all of them.)

Thanks Tom.

.
My pleasure.

Thanks for your note. Sometime, you're not sure if this just goes out to a vacuum...

Tom

 

[bill smith]

.
So, you think that the core columns were not a large contributor to resisting wind loads because ... they were inside a building and therefore protected from the wind..???

And not because beams close to the neutral axis of a building contribute very little to the resistance to bending loads...??

Remarkable.

tk

Think of the tree and the perimeter structure T.

 

[FineWine]

Yes and I'm going to have to put up that picture of the well-braced core when you do.

Still trying to debate real engineers? What did Mackey get wrong in his lecture on the physics of 9/11? Don't be shy.

 

[newton3376]

.
My pleasure.

Thanks for your note. Sometime, you're not sure if this just goes out to a vacuum...

Tom

It's really not Tom.....I am reading your (and others) posts and they are very educational.

 

[newton3376]

Think of the tree and the perimeter structure T.

I'm going to repeat something I told you already Bill 'cause it isn't sinking in...



You don't have the experience or education in any of the relevant areas of mathematics, physics, or engineering to even properly analyze various arguments....so how would you know who is right when a bunch of engineers are talking?

If the vast majority of engineers and scientists disagree with the truther claims with only a small number agreeing (and many, if not most, of those with no expertise in the relevant fields).......

If the truthers have produced almost no peer reviewed articles (and the only one I know of is very questionable) and there are over 200 peer reviewed articles that do not support the truther side......

Then it would seem the correct approach would be to listen to the vast majority of experts and be skeptical of the claims of truthers until they (the truthers) can provide such overwhelming evidence or arguments that they overturn the scientific consensus.

This is how science works.

Majority views have been challenged before and when there is good, solid evidence to overturn that viewpoint then eventually it does get overturned. Sometimes it takes time and effort....sometimes there are politics, money, or other non science related issues that can hinder it....but eventually the scientific and engineering communities accept the evidence and change their position.

But until that happens the best position for laymen who lack the education, training, and experience to independently evaluate the specific science and engineering topics, is to accept the view of the majority of experts.

This is what my approach is when it comes to topics that are outside my specific and narrow area of expertise. Now, I do have enough knowledge and training to read a science and engineering paper and recognize obvious errors in the math or physics, but for the details I have to rely on the experts.

This is how most engineers and scientists that I work with and/or are friends with operate. Non engineers and non scientists should do likewise.

 

[A W Smith]

Look at it this way. Take just one outer core column and picture the floors runnng to at at about 12 foot intervals for 110 floors up to a height of 1300 feet.Do you think that puts a fair amount of vertical stress on the column ?

It still stands though. Now remove all the floors. Will the column now collapse under it's own weight ? (I'm not talking about stability here, only the fact that the column is strong enough to remain standing)

The floors act as bracing for that individual outer column. Without the floors your exterior column example cannot stand. It will buckle at the bolted connections and fall. Furthermore this statement below disqualifies itself.

(I'm not talking about stability here, only the fact that the column is strong enough to remain standing)

It will not remain standing because it has lost stability. simple as that.

 

[FineWine]

Look at it this way. Take just one outer core column and picture the floors runnng to at at about 12 foot intervals for 110 floors up to a height of 1300 feet.Do you think that puts a fair amount of vertical stress on the column ?

It still stands though. Now remove all the floors. Will the column now collapse under it's own weight ? (I'm not talking about stability here, only the fact that the column is strong enough to remain standing)

It is amazing that these matters can be explained to you repeatedly and nothing sinks in.

 

[bill smith]

I'm going to repeat something I told you already Bill 'cause it isn't sinking in...



You don't have the experience or education in any of the relevant areas of mathematics, physics, or engineering to even properly analyze various arguments....so how would you know who is right when a bunch of engineers are talking?

If the vast majority of engineers and scientists disagree with the truther claims with only a small number agreeing (and many, if not most, of those with no expertise in the relevant fields).......

If the truthers have produced almost no peer reviewed articles (and the only one I know of is very questionable) and there are over 200 peer reviewed articles that do not support the truther side......

Then it would seem the correct approach would be to listen to the vast majority of experts and be skeptical of the claims of truthers until they (the truthers) can provide such overwhelming evidence or arguments that they overturn the scientific consensus.

This is how science works.

Majority views have been challenged before and when there is good, solid evidence to overturn that viewpoint then eventually it does get overturned. Sometimes it takes time and effort....sometimes there are politics, money, or other non science related issues that can hinder it....but eventually the scientific and engineering communities accept the evidence and change their position.

But until that happens the best position for laymen who lack the education, training, and experience to independently evaluate the specific science and engineering topics, is to accept the view of the majority of experts.

This is what my approach is when it comes to topics that are outside my specific and narrow area of expertise. Now, I do have enough knowledge and training to read a science and engineering paper and recognize obvious errors in the math or physics, but for the details I have to rely on the experts.

This is how most engineers and scientists that I work with and/or are friends with operate. Non engineers and non scientists should do likewise.

In my day to day life I trust experts while looking critically at whatever they are doing for me. I never ever trust blindly.

On the subject of 9/11 I trust absolutely nobody and so-called experts least of all. It's not complicated to work out why though I don't intend to have a long discussion about it.

 

[bill smith]

The floors act as bracing for that individual outer column. Without the floors your exterior column example cannot stand. It will buckle at the bolted connections and fall. Furthermore this statement below disqualifies itself.

It will not remain standing because it has lost stability. simple as that.

So it is irrefutably established that the core columns will not collapse solely under their own weight..

 

[beachnut]

So it is irrefutably established that the core columns will not collapse solely under their own weight..

The core cannot stand alone it has no lateral support with out the shell which is connected by way of each floor. Stop practicing engineering without a degree and with zero research.

It is irrefutably established by your posts you are not able to understand physics, engineering and 911.

 

[FineWine]

In my day to day life I trust experts while looking critically at whatever they are doing for me. I never ever trust blindly.

On the subject of 9/11 I trust absolutely nobady and so-called experts least of all. It's not complicated to work out why though I don't intend to have a long discussion about it.

Although you have established a reputation as an egregious liar, you have accidentally revealed a truth here. You cannot allow yourself to be educated by genuine authorities because learning something about physics and engineering would require you to abandon your nonsensical fantasies. Your emotional commitment to agenda-driven error is all-consuming. Your hatred of America has caused you to make an utter fool of yourself. As someone who loves this country, I am delighted that an enemy of freedom and reason has been crushed and humiliated by the truth his delusions force him to reject.

 

[FineWine]

So it is irrefutably established that the core columns will not collapse solely under their own weight..

You just don't understand a word...