JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
They only rule from the shadows. We're not supposed to know about them.
Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?
- Thread starter Non Believer
- Start date
And they have eyes everywhere!
Nice riposte.
You'd better watch it though, you might offend your starchy overlords.
I believe they're led by Prince Edward.......
I knew it!
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
Yes, I believe he has it covered.
He keeps the potato masters moist and tasty.
It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.
Well, wading through this thread was nowhere nearly as difficult as the Christophera and Loose Change ones, so I guess I got off easily this time.
I've lost track but someone keeps repeating (correctly) that NB hasn't provided any evidence for his theory.
My problem is that I haven't even seen the theory yet.
Except that Bush said something about seeing the first plane hit the tower and we all know he either didn't (because he couldn't have) or that he has Superman-style sight ability so he could see it from a Florida classroom while reading to schoolchildren.
I've lost track but someone keeps repeating (correctly) that NB hasn't provided any evidence for his theory.
My problem is that I haven't even seen the theory yet.
Except that Bush said something about seeing the first plane hit the tower and we all know he either didn't (because he couldn't have) or that he has Superman-style sight ability so he could see it from a Florida classroom while reading to schoolchildren.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
NB has the "Dilbert" secretary philosophy:
"Teach me to be an engineer. I don't care if it takes all day--and don't tell anyone else about this scam..."
Non Believer
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2006
- Messages
- 257
Lets be clear on whether an undamaged lower portion of a building retains its tendency to support the structure above. I have admitted that this tendency is not absolute, but niether is it the feather pillow force that you all would portray it as. Lets use the ladder example. If you were to have a sudden collapse, or cut, accross the ladder, the upper collapsing portion would not drive the lower into the ground. The ladder would not have lost an appreciable ability to support the weight that it held before. If it would please explain why? So in my opinion your equation needs to show only the acceleration caused by the collapse. Instead you claim that the lower section would now face a force of 500kg. I guess I would accept that as long as we also stated that the towers were being exposed to a constant 495 kg blasts while it stood all those years. If you want to suddenly convert all of the weight bearing ability of a building into explosive force then lets be consistent.
Aggle- So you riddle about the cars is supposed to serve as an analogy for the collapse of the towers. How so?
Aggle- So you riddle about the cars is supposed to serve as an analogy for the collapse of the towers. How so?
CurtC
Illuminator
Is he the one in a can, or is that Albert?I believe they're led by Prince Edward.......
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
The ladder wouldn't have the same capability if it were scaled up to the size of the twin towers. Similarly, a scaled-down model of the twin towers would have a relative "strength" significantly greater than the original towers.
What the hell...?
Funny thing is Osama bin Laden has a degree in engineering. He is laughing at you dumb guys as he continues to support without question his own goals. As you wallow in your ignorant bliss Osama bin Laden is still working towards his goals. As you fail to understand physics or math or how the WTC fell because you are too lazy to learn how to understand 10,000 pages put together by real experts. Why are you so dumb and Osama bin Laden is so much smarter then you and laughing at how dumb you CT guys are?
Funny Osama bin Laden did not think the towers would fall. And if the fire proofing had not been destroyed by the massive impact (which you can not understand or calculate) of terrorist hijacked aircraft they may not of failed. Gee they survived the impact of a 2000 pounds of TNT impact in the form of an aircraft; which you do not understand anyway! Do you?
The second plane almost made it through the building because it was going so fast! SPEEED!
You are Osama bin Laden's favorite person. A dumb CTer who joins the terrorist in attacking the west; you are Osama bin Laden's friend in his war against the west. Good job dumb guys in the not sot truthful truth movement.
Even Osama bin Laden got a degreee; why have you failed to get you degree and understand 9/11???
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,178
Last edited:
Let's not forget that a building is not a ladder. If a building could maintain its integrity, except at the location which was cut or otherwise destroyed, it is possible that the intact structure might just be able to absorb the impact but only if it would retain its own structural integrity. Confusing... 
hmmm.
Put it this way, the building structure (and I mean only the load-bearing part) is designed to pass the load of the building down to the foundations. Slice out a floor of the building (for instance) and whether the building stands will depend on how well the underlying structure is able to redistribute the loads and stresses without having a critical amount of failures due to exceeding the strength of various structural elements. Each failure causes more redistribution of loads which causes more stress on the remaining structural elements which can lead to more failures, etc., until the remaining structure can't support the loads and gives way (possibly catastrophically).
Taking the WTC towers. The primary support was vested in the core columns and a significant amount in the perimeter columns. The whole point of that design was to allow for the maximum amount of open space per floor (on the order of 40,000 sf). The floor was constructed from light-weight concrete to provide the actual floor and supported by trusses that supported the concrete and also served to provide for load transfer between the core and perimeter columns.
Enter 9/11 and the general structural failure that causes the upper portion of either building to fall onto the lower portion. A major mass falls onto a floor that (likely) was designed for a given dead load (weight of the truss, concrete, and the permanent stuff ) and live load (people and just about everything else). The floor, not designed to support that major mass, gives way and quickly. If the end connectors fail, the floor drops. If the end connectors hold, they pull the perimeter columns in and/or the core columns outward. In either case, there is no opportunity for the load imposed by the descending upper portion to be held and distributed to the true load-bearing structures (the perimeter and core columns). The structure is disrupted and along with that disruption goes the ability of the structure to hold up the building.
Even if the structure of the WTC towers could or should have been strong enough, the fact that there was no place that could take the impact of the falling building and survive long enough to distribute the load to the columns led to the complete collapse.
Thinking about the ladder analogy. Assume the ladder is carrying a load that at least reasonably stresses it. Cut it, then rotate the upper portion 90 degrees or some angle such that the ladder's beams are not aligned and now you depend on the rungs to transfer the load of the upper part to the lower part. If the rung can handle it, the load gets distributed to the beams and continues down to the feet/ground. The ladder, however precariously, stands. If the rung can't, then it breaks allowing the upper portion to fall on the next rung, etc. or some reasonable facsimile. In any case, you have ongoing structural failure, until and unless the rungs, in contact, manages to hold, otherwise the ladder "collapses".
I'll go back to lurking now.
hmmm.Put it this way, the building structure (and I mean only the load-bearing part) is designed to pass the load of the building down to the foundations. Slice out a floor of the building (for instance) and whether the building stands will depend on how well the underlying structure is able to redistribute the loads and stresses without having a critical amount of failures due to exceeding the strength of various structural elements. Each failure causes more redistribution of loads which causes more stress on the remaining structural elements which can lead to more failures, etc., until the remaining structure can't support the loads and gives way (possibly catastrophically).
Taking the WTC towers. The primary support was vested in the core columns and a significant amount in the perimeter columns. The whole point of that design was to allow for the maximum amount of open space per floor (on the order of 40,000 sf). The floor was constructed from light-weight concrete to provide the actual floor and supported by trusses that supported the concrete and also served to provide for load transfer between the core and perimeter columns.
Enter 9/11 and the general structural failure that causes the upper portion of either building to fall onto the lower portion. A major mass falls onto a floor that (likely) was designed for a given dead load (weight of the truss, concrete, and the permanent stuff ) and live load (people and just about everything else). The floor, not designed to support that major mass, gives way and quickly. If the end connectors fail, the floor drops. If the end connectors hold, they pull the perimeter columns in and/or the core columns outward. In either case, there is no opportunity for the load imposed by the descending upper portion to be held and distributed to the true load-bearing structures (the perimeter and core columns). The structure is disrupted and along with that disruption goes the ability of the structure to hold up the building.
Even if the structure of the WTC towers could or should have been strong enough, the fact that there was no place that could take the impact of the falling building and survive long enough to distribute the load to the columns led to the complete collapse.
Thinking about the ladder analogy. Assume the ladder is carrying a load that at least reasonably stresses it. Cut it, then rotate the upper portion 90 degrees or some angle such that the ladder's beams are not aligned and now you depend on the rungs to transfer the load of the upper part to the lower part. If the rung can handle it, the load gets distributed to the beams and continues down to the feet/ground. The ladder, however precariously, stands. If the rung can't, then it breaks allowing the upper portion to fall on the next rung, etc. or some reasonable facsimile. In any case, you have ongoing structural failure, until and unless the rungs, in contact, manages to hold, otherwise the ladder "collapses".
I'll go back to lurking now.