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

tfk said:
.
Just out of curiosity, if you're going thru the trouble of creating an FEA model, why the heck are you making it 10 stories high?? With columns that are 1 story high?? If you were looking to answer the silly question regarding "were the cores self-supporting?" why the heck didn't you model it at the dimensions & height that they actually were??

You put in the effort to produce a model. Why did you produce such an unrepresentative one?

Tom
Click to expand...

It sounds like you don't think it would take too much time to build a complete representation of the central core.

The columns in the central core were only unsupported for one story. That is what the interconnecting beams at every floor are about besides carrying floor loads.
 
Last edited:
BadBoy said:
ya, I know. I wasnt wanting to bash Americans and I agree with you completely. I also think its not just because America is isolated geographically, I think its also because the country itself is so vast and diverse, I think it would be easy to forget that other places exist.

I was just trying to illustrate to Heiwa where my motivation was coming from because some posts on this thread appear to assume that people are truthers because they hate the USA (not sure how you can hate a whole country anyway, thats just stupido). My motivation for my point of view are the facts, not my love of the north American government. Basically Im trying to get him to see that his alternative is completely nuts. I guess though thats never gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Of course not Bad Boy. When you can show any example of 10% of a structure crushing down the other stronger and fully intact 90% of the same structure to the ground by gravity alone then we will listen to you. You can choose any example from the entire world history of construction on this planet. We can't be much more generous than that.
 
Last edited:
Oscar said:
Ignore Bill. He's an idiot. Either posing as one or the real article I wouldn't like to say. But with his posts on this board the word idiot is the only correct one.
Click to expand...

I think bill's problem is that he is so comprehensively ignorant that he's unable to visualise the possibility that there are areas of knowledge he's ignorant of. This is a classic example; he's so totally unaware of the distinction between compressive and buckling yield strengths that he can't even conceive of there being such a distinction. And then, because he doesn't trust anyone, he's completely resistant to any kind of education that might help him to progress. It's really rather sad, because he certainly doesn't lack imagination.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think bill's problem is that he is so comprehensively ignorant that he's unable to visualise the possibility that there are areas of knowledge he's ignorant of. This is a classic example; he's so totally unaware of the distinction between compressive and buckling yield strengths that he can't even conceive of there being such a distinction. And then, because he doesn't trust anyone, he's completely resistant to any kind of education that might help him to progress. It's really rather sad, because he certainly doesn't lack imagination.

Dave
Click to expand...

Rather than a childish attempt at sabotage Dave please feel free to clarify. I'm sure Heiwa and Tony will throw an eye over your work .
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
It sounds like you don't think it would take too much time to build a complete representation of the central core.

The columns in the central core were only unsupported for one story. That is what the interconnecting beams at every floor are about besides carrying floor loads.
Click to expand...

Found the documentary where the bad boys admitted it was a CD for safety reasons yet? You wouldnt want us to think you were a liar would you Tony?
 
Newtons Bit said:
The core columns were interconnected by pinned end beams. These do not form a lateral resisting system. Let's look at a basic engineering problem, structures 101 really:

There are two fixed based columns with a beam rigidly attached to the columns. A horizontal force is applied to the top of each column. The beam will develop large moments and act to connect the two columns. The horizontal force is resisted not only by bending in the columns, but also as overturning moment on the frame. One column now develops a tension force and another develops a compression force. For the laypeople: take a chair and push it from the top. The whole chair moves as a body and begins to tip over.

Now take the same problem and change the beam to pinned end connections. What is the force in the beam? ZERO. The horizontal force is completely resisted by bending through the columns and the only axial force in the columns is their own self-weight.

I already did the calculation showing that the core wasn't self-supporting. How? The core doesn't act together. Each column is completely laterally independent when the floor diaphragm and/or perimeter moment frames are removed. And a single column can't stand by itself, which is why the core fell over after the collapse.

This isn't a complicated subject. It's really rather basic engineering.



The shape you made up doesn't represent anything in reality and the equations you used don't apply to your made up shape if it did exist. You need to read up on compact vs. non-compact shapes.



This is completely irrelevant to the WTC.
Click to expand...

The beam to column connections in the central core were not pinned connections. They were large connections with multiple bolts and welds which provided significant resistance to rotation of the column at the connection.

You keep saying they were pinned because that is a conservative method for design. That doesn't make it a reality.

The columns in the core were considered compact shapes because they had an effective length factor of about 0.65 to 0.70 and were only unsupported for one story giving them a relatively low slenderness ratio. Those columns were not buckling until they got near yield, which would require 3 times the load they were carrying.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Of course not Bad Boy. When you can show any example of 10% of a structure crushing down the other stronger and fully intact 90% of the same structure to the ground by gravity alone then we will listen to you. You can choose any example from the entire world history of construction on this planet. We can't be much more generous than that.
Click to expand...

How about wtc1&2
 
funk de fino said:
Found the documentary where the bad boys admitted it was a CD for safety reasons yet? You wouldnt want us to think you were a liar would you Tony?
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask the History Channel funk?

If you want to call me a liar that would make one out of you. You have no idea and are merely surmising that it couldn't be true that Silverstein made comments about WTC 7's collapse in more than one place. Well he did and he said it was a controlled demolition for safety reasons. I was not suspicious at the time and not until I read Steven Jones' paper a couple of years later did I ask myself when there would have been a chance to set the charges in WTC 7. At that point I called the History Channel to try and get a copy of that show. They told me it wasn't available to the public.

I would expect Mark Roberts to chime in here any time now. He tries to antagonize me with this too as it seems it is all he can do. Neither of you seem like you have much to contribute to the engineering side of this debate.
 
Last edited:
BadBoy said:
How about wtc1&2
Click to expand...

You mean the two utterly unique collapses happening within an hour of each other followed seven hours later by a third and completely different type of absolutely unique collapse ? All three modes of destruction being firsts in world history ?

I think we know enough Bad Boy.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
You mean the two utterly unique collapses happening within an hour of each other followed seven hours later by a third and completely different type of absolutely unique collapse ? All three modes of destruction being firsts in world history ?

I think we know enough Bad Boy.
Click to expand...
er, unfortunately this doesnt prove, is not a proof, of anything.

One impossible step with anyone with a sane mind, one giant leap for Bill Smith.

What we all do now know, is that a building contructed like WTC1&2 can collapse if you fly a large passenger jet into it.
 
BadBoy said:
er, unfortunately this doesnt prove, is not a proof, of anything.

One impossible step with anyone with a sane mind, one giant leap for Bill Smith.

What we all do now know, is that a building contructed like WTC1&2 can collapse if you fly a large passenger jet into it.
Click to expand...

Are you still looking for answers Bad Boy or are you now comletely convinced by T. and the others ? Now it all makes sense ?
 
bill smith said:
Are you still looking for answers Bad Boy or are you now comletely convinced by T. and the others ? Now it all makes sense ?
Click to expand...
ya, right.

I KNOW the gov is listening to this conversation man, I KNOW you is all gona be illiminated because of what you know. I'm admitting nuthin, not here, not now.

Hang on, theres someone at the door.......

:rolleyes:
 
BadBoy said:
ya, right.

I KNOW the gov is listening to this conversation man, I KNOW you is all gona be illiminated because of what you know. I'm admitting nuthin, not here, not now.

Hang on, theres someone at the door.......

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think we know enough Bad Boy.
 
bill, don't worry, the reducation camps that we have planned for you twoofers won't be that bad. Perhaps I'll see you there; I'm going to be in charge of one. It'll happen right after the next false flag attack, which won't be too long from now.
 
dtugg said:
bill, don't worry, the reducation camps that we have planned for you twoofers won't be that bad. Perhaps I'll see you there; I'm going to be in charge of one. It'll happen right after the next false flag attack, which won't be too long from now.
Click to expand...
your scary ;)
 
dtugg said:
bill, don't worry, the reducation camps that we have planned for you twoofers won't be that bad. Perhaps I'll see you there; I'm going to be in charge of one. It'll happen right after the next false flag attack, which won't be too long from now.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you meant to say 're-education camps' or 'reduction camps '

Could that be a Freudian slip and should we be thinking along the lines of soap,candle and lampshade factories ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom