Ausie Engineers say Austrailian Buildings vulnerable to collapse

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So who are we talking about all of the members of the American Society of Civil Engineers? The faculty at BYU, MIT, Cal Tech, Stanford, Harvard, etc. Are they all dense fools or are they colaborators.

Actually, without the structural and architectual drawings....it is impossible that any of these engineers can be colaborators or deniers. If this is going to be solved in any way, shape or form, we need the construction drawings made public. Without them, it is anyones guess (not really guess but you know what I mean). I have e-mailed the structural engineering firm that designed the towers for any info they could give me. Guess what, I haven't heard a single word back from them. The fact that no one can get ahold of the drawings is fishy in my book. If they have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding like frightened turtles?

Anyway, on topic....anyone (with the knowledge of the program of course)can make a computer program simulate the destruction of a building. I would like to know what type of loads they simulated to bring the structures into total global collapse....for one thing. Maybe I missed it.

Originally posted by Conspicuouz
1. 2 buildings built to it's specs but scaled down so it wont be as a tremendous financial burden as the original. plane with the exact scale (scaled down proportional to the buildings) with the proportional fule etc... you get the idea?

recreate the events of that day and accordingly and wait for the results sans humans

2. or simply create a simulation in which we test out all possible explanations of how the bulding collapsed and see which one emulates the collapse of both towers. i believe only the pancake theory has been simulated (correct me if im wrong).

I have a question about model simulations....how would that work?

I mean the force of gravity is mass X acceleration. Acceleration being gravity. In a scaled down model...the mass would be totally different and therefore NOT be an accurate discription of the events. The only way to simulate a model is to make the model exactly the same and simulate the exact same events....totally impossible.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
It wasn't until the Roman colliseum that any sort of height was acheived without a pyramid.

And that's not ancient? What about Greece? Structures that are still standing. They don't build things like that anymore. The ancients might not have known the science behind what they were doing, but they sure as hell DID know what they were doing. And yes, ancient principles.....just because we use steel and concrete instead of marble and other stones does not negate the fact that the ancients knew what engineering principles to use. It doesn't matter what materials are used...the principles are the same. Look at the arch (vernicular structure)....the ancients knew that an arch can hold a lot of force....so they used it and guess what...we still use it to this day. The only new engineering principles (civil) that we have been studying is geotechnical (soils) engineering....you know what started this field of civil engineering? The leaning tower of Pisa.....as far as engineering priciples go, this is a fairly recent discovery.

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by Conspicuouz
1. 2 buildings built to it's specs but scaled down so it wont be as a tremendous financial burden as the original. plane with the exact scale (scaled down proportional to the buildings) with the proportional fule etc... you get the idea?

recreate the events of that day and accordingly and wait for the results sans humans

2. or simply create a simulation in which we test out all possible explanations of how the bulding collapsed and see which one emulates the collapse of both towers. i believe only the pancake theory has been simulated (correct me if im wrong).

I have a question about model simulations....how would that work?

I mean the force of gravity is mass X acceleration. Acceleration being gravity. In a scaled down model...the mass would be totally different and therefore NOT be an accurate discription of the events. The only way to simulate a model is to make the model exactly the same and simulate the exact same events....totally impossible.

well then lets go with the whole kit and caboodle.
only reason i suggested that was for the obvious financial strain it will take to build these 2 buildings to exact scale just to be destroyed.

Originally posted by Conspicuouz

well then lets go with the whole kit and caboodle.
only reason i suggested that was for the obvious financial strain it will take to build these 2 buildings to exact scale just to be destroyed.

Right...it would be way too expensive to even attempt. I think that is why only computer models can do the job.

Does anyone know what computer program they are using...or did they create their own?

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Does anyone know what computer program they are using...or did they create their own?

If you mean NIST, I think they used SAP2000.

MacMerdin, you should post your findings on the Progressive Collapse Challenge thread, when/if you get them. The whole purpose of that thread was to try to get someone to create some sort of model or computer simulation to undergo progressive collapse. Not necessarily the WTC, per se, but any building of similar height to width ratio. Maybe you can finally put the issue to rest.

I was actually reading through that thread...didn't read the whole thing as of yet though. I have SAP2000..student version. I'm still trying to learn it though. My problem is that I can't get any real info on the design of WTC towers. But, now you said it doesn't have to be the towers so I think I might start messing with it more.

Yeah, the specifications are in that thread for it being similar enough to the WTC to count. Pretty much the same height to width, amount of material is ejected, etc. Nothing unfair, of course. Maybe even throw the same levels of redundancy, via the NIST report, to really do the WTC justice.

Originally posted by MacMerdin

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
It wasn't until the Roman colliseum that any sort of height was acheived without a pyramid.

And that's not ancient? What about Greece? Structures that are still standing.

Height, boy, height, pay attention. And the Colliseum is 2,000 years younger than the pyramids. Nothing on the Acropolis approaches the Colliseum for height.

They don't build things like that anymore.

No, because it is inefficient in time, capital, labour and space.

The ancients might not have known the science behind what they were doing, but they sure as hell DID know what they were doing.

Not always, Snefferu was making it up as he went along, go check out the "Bent Pyramid" in Egypt.

And yes, ancient principles.....just because we use steel and concrete instead of marble and other stones does not negate the fact that the ancients knew what engineering principles to use.

Yes, they used the engineering principles their materials allowed them. They knew that height = width. (Which, yes, yes, means they understood load distribution).

It doesn't matter what materials are used

Oh yes it does. Steel means that height =/= width. modern materials means that strength =/= mass...Modern materials negated the contraints placed on the ancients. Modern materials also mean that certain "truths" are no longer that.

...the principles are the same. Look at the arch (vernicular structure)....the ancients knew that an arch can hold a lot of force....so they used it and guess what...we still use it to this day.

Yes, some of us also use the dome. But we no longer use the pyramid because we have superceded it. My point is that the ancients could not do what we do, they didn't have the technology. With a little water, some cement dust and a few steel rods, I can build a post-and-lintel door that will hold far more force than the biggest arch in Greece, Rome, Babylon or Crete for that matter. The principals of "central cores" are completely foreign to the ancients. There is a major difference between architecture and engineering. And there is an even bigger gulf between architectural principals, which are aesthetic/ergonomic and Newtonian physics, which are empirical science.

The only new engineering principles (civil) that we have been studying is geotechnical (soils) engineering....you know what started this field of civil engineering? The leaning tower of Pisa.....as far as engineering priciples go, this is a fairly recent discovery.

That I'll take your word for that one.

But on a pedantic note, when was it discovered that scyscrapers have inherent sway built into them? I remember as a kid watching the pendulum in the stairwell at the Melbourne Museum. That's not a problem the ancients were faced with, it's not a problem the castle builders of Europe were faced with, it's a 20th century problem.

edit:fix quotes

[edit on 7-12-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 7-12-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

too bad some people can't distinguish between principles and applications of principles.

such a sad state edumacation is in, todays.

My point is that the ancients could not do what we do, they didn't have the technology.

Maybe irrelevant, but there's a lot they did that we still can't do. Ever heard of the Roman monuments around Jerusalem?

The little blackish speck on the pic below is a man sitting on an unused column:



In the background you can see still-standing monuments created from such monster, single blocks of stone.

The monuments in the area made use of columns of stone that size, which are too large to be lifted by modern cranes (1,100 - tons - of solid stone), and on banks. Not even on flat land. The Romans weren't the first to build temples in that region, nor were they the last. But the Muslims and others that would later come to build there couldn't even get the Roman monuments out of the way, and so they still stand today. Totally massive. We don't have the tech to do that even today, just from the size of the blocks and the fact that they were placed upon hillsides.

I find more disturbing the fact that structural engineering and demolition technology are now almost occult in the US. I've tried personally investigating things by contacting companies and organizations, and the one response I got from contacting so many demolition companies was that they couldn't tell me what they can or can't do to buildings without further info on who I am and why I want the info. National security, you see.

And now, of course, MacMerdin's problem with getting the blueprints to the WTC towers. National security, too, I guess. That's really no surprise, though. They've been holding those things tight ever since 9/11, and probably before. Can't let anybody have information. They might think too much with it, eh? Or at least.. some will.

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

And guess what? The Murrah building was still standing after half the building was blown away. Because the bombs that were still in the building failed to explode. And they had to call in a demolition crew to destroy the building. Ironic, eh?

tsk tsk...Let's not compare apples to oranges. The Murrah Bldg suffered an external explosion near the front of the building and no internal, high-temperature, extended-burn, fueled fire. Guess what - it collapsed where it was damaged. Go figure.

Absolutely not the same situation as what happened in the WTC towers.

Val, you're an engineer, right? So maybe you can help.

Two quick questions:

In your expert opinion, what exactly caused the momentum behind this tilt to disappear?:



Staying within the bounds of science, I mean. Not that you would pull something out of your butt, but you'd be surprised with other, totally irrelevant responses to the problem. I've also contacted a WTC researcher who could not help me. Is it that much of a mystery? Any insight would help, thanks.

And, secondly, why didn't the collapse of either tower slow as the caps crushed the buildings from top to bottom? Especially in the North Tower, where the caps were so small compared to rest of the building, and considering the caps were destroyed before too long into the collapse, and the support columns were thicker towards the base, one would expect a diminishment of momentum as either collapse progressed. But, no luck. Steady all the way down. Any insight?

Again, thanks.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Yes, some of us also use the dome. But we no longer use the pyramid because we have superceded it. My point is that the ancients could not do what we do, they didn't have the technology. With a little water, some cement dust and a few steel rods, I can build a post-and-lintel door that will hold far more force than the biggest arch in Greece, Rome, Babylon or Crete for that matter. The principals of "central cores" are completely foreign to the ancients. There is a major difference between architecture and engineering. And there is an even bigger gulf between architectural principals, which are aesthetic/ergonomic and Newtonian physics, which are empirical science.

Oh, we've superceded the pyramids have we? Can we make a pyramid today that even comes close to what they made? NO!!!!!!!!!! Just because we have made steel and they didn't have it, doesn't mean that they didn't know what priciples to use. Come-on....we (as in Structural Engineers) learn in school the SAME priciples that the ancients used.....hmmm...wonder why? Enough said...I'm not going to debate you on this....until you go to an accredited college of civil engineering that is.

Just to add to that, MacMerdin, isn't there shafts going through the Pyramids at Giza that align with stars, which could be viewed from a chamber somewhere inside (although I think the positioning is of course now)? The entire structures are amazing, I'm not entirely sure what tools they had at their disposal to build them, but I am sure we would be incredibly hard pressed to make anything like them today, if we could at all.

Here is a Pyramind they built for a Cinema and "Nightclub" in my city...



Obviously todays humans are capable of doing much better if they wanted to, but it would still be dwarfed by the insanity of those gigantic, ancient, triangles.











[edit on 103131p://171210 by MERC]

Actually, today....in engineering terms..yes we could theoretically build the pyramids. Construction wise...NO we can't. The precision of the blocks (not even air can pass through them) is so intricate that I can't even explain in words. My expertise is in waterproofing of building envelopes. Trust me......buildings leak......the pyrimids don't even let air in let alone water. Our buildings today are NOTHING like what used to be built. Yes, it has to do with economics but if we actually tried....we couldn't do it. Maybe with lazer precision we could but they didn't have that.....going off thread and needs to be in a pyrimid thread....but, I'm getting tired of people trying to look like they know about engineering principles when they obviously don't.

Originally posted by bsbray11

My point is that the ancients could not do what we do, they didn't have the technology.

Maybe irrelevant, but there's a lot they did that we still can't do. Ever heard of the Roman monuments around Jerusalem?

The little blackish speck on the pic below is a man sitting on an unused column:



In the background you can see still-standing monuments created from such monster, single blocks of stone.

This one has already been demonstrated. I can't remember the program, so I'll have to do this the long way. They were using Egyptian spires.

First, you determine where you want your column, like the one in DC, to stand. You put down the base. On the Egyptian base stones there is a groove behind the column, we'll get to that.

Second, you build stone walls, these will retain the sand ramp you are going to put up.

Third, the ramp.

Fourth, you haul your column up your ramp to the top. You tie an axle across it. This axle is your pivot-point (better use a strong tree!). The axle rests on your stone walls.

Now, the fun bit. You release your sand, much will flow out. Te rest you must shovel. The bottom of your column swings, ever so slowly, down as the sand flows out, until, ta-da, it rests on your base plate. You need good maths and measurements to get that one correct.

Remember our groove?

Well the bottom-most side of the column now rests in the groove, all we have to do is hook up a handy group of slaves to the column and haul it the last little bit of the way up-right.

Now you have to clean up the evidence of your "magic", ie the sand and the stone walls.

Done.

And gravity did it for you.

HowlrunnerIV,

What evidence is there to support that hypothesis? I've noticed that a lot of scholars like to speculate how structures like the Great Pyramid, and now I suppose the Temple of Jupiter were built, but I'm most always disappointed with the evidence. You do realize that's an 1,100 ton block of stone? Strong tree, indeed. You'd need quite a few slaves to haul that baby too, I would imagine. Just look at the image. Do you think that monument could be rebuilt today with the same methods? Or even with our modern tech?

But I suppose the ultimate point is that structural engineering has been around for ages, and a very good quality of it. I would guess that's because structurally engineering is based upon the most basic physics. And though I'm sure there's plenty to learn in the profession of structural engineering, when basics physics are neglected by some analysis that's supposed to be based on structural engineering, something's up. This is because structural engineering is based upon physics. Not the other way around. Thought I should point that out.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
but, I'm getting tired of people trying to look like they know about engineering principles when they obviously don't.

I may not be an engineer and I may be talking myself into a hole with what appear to be simple mistakes (such as pricipals versus aplication), I may even be appearing ignorant to you. I may even be slowly turning in circles the longer this goes on.

But one of the things I am is an accredited English teacher and language is my thing. If someone meant the principals of Newtonian physics, they should have said the principles of Newtonian physics.

edit:sp

[edit on 8-12-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Actually, today....in engineering terms..yes we could theoretically build the pyramids. Construction wise...NO we can't. The precision of the blocks (not even air can pass through them) is so intricate that I can't even explain in words.

Yes, it has to do with economics but if we actually tried....we couldn't do it. Maybe with lazer precision we could but they didn't have that.....going off thread and needs to be in a pyrimid thread

there's also the mitchell-hedges crystal skull as an example of ancient engineering far surpassing current technological capabilities. hewlett packard examined the skull, and found a prizm seemingly GROWN into the quartz. the prism bends light from below into the eyes, which are precise concave lenses. it would have to be hand polished for twenty four hours a day for 200(?300?) yrs. to achieve the smoothness of the skull, which has absolutely no tool marks on it.

to build the pyramids, perhaps they used a quantum probabilty cloud that materialized according to pure thought(thoth/hermes-hence, 'hermetically sealed').

Originally posted by MacMerdin
....but, I'm getting tired of people trying to look like they know about engineering principles when they obviously don't.

i admittedly only know basic physics and science, but at least i actually understand what i know, HAHA!
i hope you hang around. i wish you were here two yrs. ago. you could have helped 'deny' a great deal of 'ignorance', lol, around this place.

actually, now that i think of it. what an ambiguous saying that is. 'deny' means to 'not allow', or to 'rebuke an accusation'', and 'ignorance' is 'to not have knowledge of', so, people around here are proud of their ability to NOT ADMIT THEY ARE IGNORANT, LOL!!! all 'deniers of ignorance' are logically, either omnicient or lying.

and, so, the distant rumble of australian buildings falling upward due to the australian engineering principals, which are based on unique australian physics(flush a toilet if you don't believe me. it goes THE WRONG WAY!) can only be highly predictable in our orwellian, 'physically challenged' future.