In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

Originally posted by hooper
Maybe, just maybe, it says that these BRILLIANT PEOPLE are, in fact, smarter than you and know that the information that you allege is absoultely vital to the production of a failure anlysis is really not at all required.

Yeah right.

And so how was the kinetic energy that did structural damage on impact separated from the kinetic energy that produced the building oscillation because the distribution of mass would affect the energy requirement and the mass of the floor assemblies would be part of that oscillation.

The distribution of mass has to be taken into consideration in the design of skyscrapers just because they have to deal with the wind. The WTC was designed to sway 3 feet at the top in a 150 mph wind.

But I have searched the NCSTAR1 report for distribution of weight and distribution of mass and there ain't much there though in a couple of places they admit that it has to be important.

The differential static and dynamic shears between successive levels were calculated and distributed using two different methods:

• The static wind load to be applied to each floor was determined from the shear diagram.

• The dynamic wind load to be applied to each floor was based on the distribution of mass over the tower height, the fundamental mode shape, and the dynamic component of the lateral wind-induced sway at the roof.

wtc.nist.gov... pdf page 110

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.

wtc.nist.gov... pdf page 74

So we are back to an inadequately resolved problem that should be easy for a nation that put men on the Moon 40 years ago.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

And so how was the kinetic energy that did structural damage on impact separated from the kinetic energy that produced the building oscillation because the distribution of mass would affect the energy requirement and the mass of the floor assemblies would be part of that oscillation.

Why would you need to "separate" the kinetic energy? That makes no sense. The kinetic energy was realized by both the building shaking and the support system being damaged.

Face it, this information that you allege has never been calculated and is essential for understanding the how and why of the buidling collapse is just nonsense. The towers collapsed because the plane crashes, explosions and subsequent fires were too much for the structure to handle. It really is pretty simple. I venture that most people that day, such as myself, knew the building just wasn't going to be able to take that kind of punishment.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Have you any comments to make about this, Ronan Point because according to what you claim this shoudn't happen or am I wrong when I say that


upload.wikimedia.org...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Have you any comments to make about this, Ronan Point because according to what you claim this shoudn't happen or am I wrong when I say that

upload.wikimedia.org...

Did the entire building collapse in less than double the time it would take for a bowling ball to fall from the top?

If not then it is an irrelevant comparison.

From what I learned corners on each level and many parts just folded down against the building and did not fall.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

And so how was the kinetic energy that did structural damage on impact separated from the kinetic energy that produced the building oscillation because the distribution of mass would affect the energy requirement and the mass of the floor assemblies would be part of that oscillation.

Why would you need to "separate" the kinetic energy? That makes no sense.

Now what kind of PHYSICS is that?

The airliner only had so much kinetic energy. A concrete floor slab weighed 600 tons and the NCSTAR1 report says the 70th level moved 12 inches horizontally. That was 130 feet below where the plane hit. Presumably it had to shift 130 feet above also.

Moving a 260 foot height of a building 200 by 200 feet wide must take a lot of energy.

So some of that kinetic energy had to move the building and some had to do structural damage. So how can the amount of energy that did structural damage be computed If the amount that moved thousands of tons in less than 3 seconds is not known? Of course it can't be computed if the distribution of mass is not known.

Brilliant physics work by the nation that put men on the Moon.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Have you any comments to make about this, Ronan Point because according to what you claim this shoudn't happen or am I wrong when I say that

upload.wikimedia.org...

Did the entire building collapse in less than double the time it would take for a bowling ball to fall from the top?

If not then it is an irrelevant comparison.

From what I learned corners on each level and many parts just folded down against the building and did not fall.

psik

It is relevant because something failed at the top of the structure and made other components fail all the way to the ground level WHICH is what YOU claimed could not happen!

Same happened at 9/11 only on a bigger scale!

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

So some of that kinetic energy had to move the building and some had to do structural damage. So how can the amount of energy that did structural damage be computed If the amount that moved thousands of tons in less than 3 seconds is not known? Of course it can't be computed if the distribution of mass is not known.

psik

Maybe cuz figuring out how much energy is needed to move the building is not the ONLY way to figure out how uch energy is left over to damage the, say core columns.

The exterior damage is known. There are known engineering methods that can determine how much energy it would take.

Then work backwards from there.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Maybe cuz figuring out how much energy is needed to move the building is not the ONLY way to figure out how uch energy is left over to damage the, say core columns.

The exterior damage is known. There are known engineering methods that can determine how much energy it would take.

Then work backwards from there.

Even if you know how much energy was required to do the visible damage you still would not know how much was left to do internal damage if you don't know how much was lost moving the building.

The NIST admitted the information was needed in 2003 but there is nothing to indicate they computed it.

And it isn't just the core columns. The fuselage of the plane was 17 feet wide and the floor slabs were 12 feet apart. So cracking up floor assemblies and the destruction of the plane would use up energy before the core columns were even reached.

Looks like you are trying to come up with excuses for their not doing what obviously should have been done. AUTHORITY must be defended even when they are IDIOTS.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Have you any comments to make about this, Ronan Point because according to what you claim this shoudn't happen or am I wrong when I say that

upload.wikimedia.org...

Did the entire building collapse in less than double the time it would take for a bowling ball to fall from the top?

If not then it is an irrelevant comparison.

From what I learned corners on each level and many parts just folded down against the building and did not fall.

psik

What No answer when posted above

It is relevant because something failed at the top of the structure and made other components fail all the way to the ground level WHICH is what YOU claimed could not happen!

Same happened at 9/11 only on a bigger scale!

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Have you not ever seen any of those tests that show how a tornado can send a 2x4 through a concrete wall or steel door due to the speed/velocity involved ?

So , why would you assume the airliner must have been destroyed before reaching the core columns ?

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Have you not ever seen any of those tests that show how a tornado can send a 2x4 through a concrete wall or steel door due to the speed/velocity involved ?

So , why would you assume the airliner must have been destroyed before reaching the core columns ?

True/False thinking is oversimplified garbage in dealing with physics.

What was the condition of what was left of the plane when it got to the core?

If it had very little structural integrity then maybe it could just bend some columns. But since the building moved some of the original kinetic energy had to be lost to that.

Watch the Purdue video.

But since the tower had to sway from the impact that video is wrong because the core columns don't move.

psik

[edit on 4-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Even if you know how much energy was required to do the visible damage you still would not know how much was left to do internal damage if you don't know how much was lost moving the building.

And how do you KNOW that determining how much the building weighed at each level is all that's needed?

How do you KNOW that determining how much flex in the connections would result from a single point impact, rather than homogenous wind loading, is the easiest and most accurate way to go?

How do you KNOW that this isn't too complex a problem to be solved with an acceptable error band?

You give zero reason for any skeptical person to believe that you have a valid line of questioning. A video of toothpicks and washers and toilet paper isn't exactly convincing to anybody but a truther.

But if that's your target audience - the illogical, uncritical, and uneducated - then go right ahead amd proclaim yourself the smartest person in the room.

The title of this thread is amusing: It is like saying:

" IN SUPPORT OF THE TWIN TOWERS COLLAPSING DUE TO LEPRECHAUNS " !!!

Both are equally silly, and equal amounts of evidence exist to believe them both.

Nuff said about this one.

Originally posted by okbmd

Click here to learn more about this warning.

but it does matter cant bury your head in the sand it still happening around you sandman

reply to post by richierich


Yes, you are partially correct, actually.

The title of the thread, as is the case with many discussion, is incompete.

"FIRE" was not the sole source of the failures, in the buildings. The "FIRE" was preceded by substantial physical and structural damage, inflicted by the big 'ole Boeing 767s that impacted, along with their resultant energies of force....AND the fuel contained in the tanks, onboard, which of course, contributed a great deal to the "FIRE" initiations....

Let's not forget, either, the effects of GRAVITY on a structure, once it has been compromised. 'Compromised', both by the aforementioned damage from the large mass (airplane) impact, and the subsequent fires ("FIRES") that burned merrily, without any sort of (nor ability to) put down, since they were not accessible from the floors below.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yea , okay , the title was/is incomplete .

Everyone knows the point I was trying to make , but you are correct in explaining other factors that preceded the fire .

Then again , you've been at this a lot longer than I have , so you already know that some of these guys are looking for anything to ridicule the facts presented to them .

Hopefully , no one will notice that I don't wear a tie and carry a pocket protector while I'm on this site .

My point was , that it is indeed possible that the twins fell due to the damage sustained and the resultant fires .

No explosives or majic weapons were needed to bring them down , once they had endured all of the above .

But , you know what I'm saying .

It's pathetic that the only way to discredit a thread is to ridicule the title .

And , I'm still waiting on evidence from those posters who claim evidence of CD and the old 'no other steel high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire ' chants .

Seems they chose to just go away and leave me hanging , when all I did was ask for proof of those claims .

reply to post by okbmd


Of course they do becuase they know its BS other steel framed buildings have collapsed just due to fire never mind being hit by a plane.

Notice the no reply to my post re Ronan Point!

[edit on 4-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And how do you KNOW that determining how much the building weighed at each level is all that's needed?

Who said that was ALL THAT'S NEEDED? I said the building went into damped oscillation. It is the spring action of the steel in the building that pulls all of that mass back to the center position and the inertia of the mass causes it to overshoot. But that is part of the design because the building must sway in the wind. So all of this was part of the analysis to design the building in the first place.

That is what DAMPED OSCILLATION is!

The NCSTAR1 report has a graph of the damped oscillation of the south tower for FOUR MINUTES after impact.

The stiffness of the steel must be taken into account also. But I see no point in bringing that up as long as we don't have distribution of mass.

But to analyze damped oscillation you must know the mass. Since this is a tall structure flexing side to side then the distribution of mass must be known for the analysis. But that distribution is also going to affect a supposed top down gravitational collapse because of the conservation of momentum. And the distribution of steel is also a factor in analyzing the ability of fire to supposedly weaken the steel.

So there are MULTIPLE REASONS for wanting the same information.

So why haven't THE EXPERTS been demanding it for years?

The similarities of wind and aircraft impacts on the towers were discussed years ago.

video.google.com...#

psik

[edit on 4-5-2010 by psikeyhackr]

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You said this was impossible SO can you explain why it happened I see you
seem to ignore this REQUEST!

upload.wikimedia.org...

Whats up you were SO confident about the toothpicks and washers so here
you have a component failure high up that causes a collapse to ground level
so were the toothpicks to strong

[edit on 4-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

Not to mention, that the entire steel structure would have acted as a giant thermal radiator, probably decreasing temperatures.
I wonder why people out there still believe the OS and is not taking some actions as why all debri was sold & shipped in such short notice, and meanwhile left to rust but not allowing experts to dig in them.
And just to point them out again, as a real shocker, those core colums clearly melted/cut at an angle, that ticks a nerve...

EDIT: typos

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Juanxlink]

[edit on 4-5-2010 by Juanxlink]