What is Crushing This Tower?

reply to post by ANOK



Nice selective quoting as usual ANOK this is not 2 cars colliding or 2 pool balls bouncing off each other for the North Tower you have 15 floors falling what do they land on ANOK the floor immediately below, what holds that in place its connection THAT is what takes the force of the impact ANOK or do you want to deny that?

Also are you trying to claim that the 15 floors could not generate enough force to break these connections almost instantly.

You seem to claim physics is your subject so please show everyone how to calculate the imapct force generated by the 15 floors falling!! CAN YOU!

the subsequent unusually large jet fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel.

Wow, NIST must have a bunch of mentally incapacitated vegetables working for them. What exactly is unusually large jet fuel? Unusually large compared to what? A building that has not been struck by an airliner, like WTC 7? Yeah, how about the lack of "unsually large" jet fuel at WTC 7, which also caused a collapse?

And these people are considered experts in their respective field?

Originally posted by ANOK

you've been here long enough to know that.

I've been here long enough to know that your previous signature line - where youi basically admit that you are here to do nothing but troll - is very accurate.

Please explain to me in your own words, using the laws of motion, no numbers or calcs needed as it is obvious 15 floors dropping on 95 can not cause a complete crushing of the building

As has been explained to you many times, but you continue to ignore, the mass of the upper 15 stories - columns, floors, HVAC eq, etc - fell onto only one floor. Nothing impacted the 20th floor at initiation. Or the 25th, 30th, etc.

95 floors has far more mass than 15 floors. You don't need math to tell you that. Math is only required when the details are not obvious.

Well then I guess you need to go read up some and find yourself some maths, for while the physics involved is obvious to the sane and rational, it has escaped you.

But regardless no one can do any maths because we don't have enough information, anyone who thinks they can is clueless.

Or perhaps better informed on bounding scenarios then the typical truther.

Your link makes a lot of assumptions in order to work, for example it claims...
Which we know for at least one tower is not true, and there is no evidence for the other.

Lie. There is visual evidence of both towers having ext columns disconnected.

How can an aluminum plane go though one set of steel columns, and still have the energy to go though even larger core columns?

That would depend on how much momentum energy the palne had at impact, and how much was used to fracture the ext column bolts, floors, etc...

Most of the planes Ke would be lost on impact.

Bare assertion with zero evidence to show this. ANOK is making a quantitative assertion with zero nymbers. The only rebuttal to this is to laugh and point fingers at the idiot that makes such an unsubstantiated claim.

But even IF several were severed, there were 47 columns, you could lose several and the weight would just redistribute to the other columns.

But would the weight be distributed evenly amongst the remaining? NIST determined that they would not.

How can SAGGING trusses put a pulling force on the perimeter columns?

You better ask Quintere about that. He set up a scale model re-enactment of the trusses, and found that they sagged and pulled in the columns. This was a real life test, using real materials, not a computer simulation

When steel heats up it expands..

Yes. Like in 7 WTC.

It will try to expand, which means it will be trying to push the columns outwards,

Yes. Just like when in 7 WTC, the floor beam pushed the girder off its seat.

it can't do that so it SAGS instead.

Actually, in Quintere's lab test, the ext column did in fact get pushed out slightly.

So if the expanding steel can not push outwards

But it can.

it also can not pull inwards

so it can.

It SAGS because that is the only direction the expansion can go.

It SAGS when it gets too hot to support its own weight.

It will continue to sag or stop, it can not put a force on the columns enough to cause them to snap

Not by themselves. But weight transferred onto those ext columns, and they got hot too, causing them to bend. Then the weak point - the bolted connections - snapped, similar to how the bolted connections snapped from the plane impacts.

Where would all that energy come from? The trusses had far less mass than any of the columns they were attached to. It's nonsense hollywood physics.

What energy?

The trusses had enough tensile strength, when combined with increased loads on the heated ext columns to cause them to bend over time. Then the bolted connections snapped.

Originally posted by ANOK

It takes work to break connections, crush floors etc. Breaking connections would reduce the Ke of the falling mass.

Correct.

Floors stacking up would cause resistance

Utterly wrong. The only thing that would cause stacking of floors in the first place is if they fell. Floors in motion would mean that there is an increase in ke or momentum, NOT an increase in resistance.`

.

You have 95 floors still intact and connected to columns, you have 15 floors falling of the same construction. The core columns were more massive towards the bottom, that is an increase of mass to collapse through.

It is undeniable that much of the core columns were "left behind" by the collapse front, so this increasing mass had zero effect.

There were no floors left in the footprints, which means they were ejected during the collapse, which means every time a floor was impacted mass was lost, ke was lost.

This is pure fantasy. No truther has ever been able to point to stills of videos and identify or quantify the amount of flooring steel exiting the building's "footprint" during the collapse. Therefore it is an unsubstantiated claim and your a bare assertion that ke must have been lost during the collapse.

For your hypothesis to work Ke would have to have increased to overcome increasing resistance.

Ke DID in fact increase during the collapse, for the claim that mass was lost during the collapse is unfounded and a bare assertion.

ANd there was zero increasing resistance, since it is a well known fact that the:
1- the core columns were "left behind" during the collapse, and so didn't add to the mass that needed to be accelerated by the descending collapse debris.
2-floor connections will ultimately determine the resistance to the falling mass since stuff falls on floors.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

the subsequent unusually large jet fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel.

Wow, NIST must have a bunch of mentally incapacitated vegetables working for them

Says the turnip....

.

What exactly is unusually large jet fuel? Unusually large compared to what? A building that has not been struck by an airliner, like WTC 7? Yeah, how about the lack of "unsually large" jet fuel at WTC 7, which also caused a collapse?

And these people are considered experts in their respective field?

Reading comprehension 101-

1-unusually large
2-jet fuel ignited
3-multi floor

Are all used to describe the fires.

Originally posted by Observer99
Again, other elements like this may hold some interest, but there is no smoking gun. Building 7 CD-collapse is a smoking gun, liquid metal seen shooting out of the corners of the towers is a smoking gun. Together those easily destroy the official story. I prefer to just keep harping on those because there is simply no answer to them. Once you include a single point where there is doubt, you give them an opening to say "aha! there is doubt!" and then they just disbelieve everything. Just stick to the irrefutable evidence.

Trouble is, some of the evidence you call "irrefutable" IS refutable. The molten metal was not steel melted by thermite/thermate but merely lead from the many lead batteries kept by Fuji Bank as a power backup for its computers. FEMA has confirmed that they were housed on the very floor from which the molten metal leaked through gaps in the wall caused by the impact of Flight 175 (or whatever plane it was). So the leaking molten metal is NOT a smoking gun and it is not true that "there is no answer to them". They has been an answer to the question of the molten metal for years, but people like Steve Jones and his acolytes of course ignored it because it made redundant his explanation of it in terms of thermate. His discovery of small iron spheres in dust samples also has an equally mundane explanation that does not require steel being melted by thermate.

BTW, I believe 9/11 was an inside job. But not for reasons that can be refuted.

reply to post by micpsi

The molten metal was not steel melted by thermite/thermate but merely lead from the many lead batteries kept by Fuji Bank as a power backup for its computers.

Haha, I love this stuff. You literally can't make it up.

Let's see what molten lead looks like shall we?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by ANOK

 

Nice selective quoting as usual ANOK this is not 2 cars colliding or 2 pool balls bouncing off each other for the North Tower you have 15 floors falling what do they land on ANOK the floor immediately below, what holds that in place its connection THAT is what takes the force of the impact ANOK or do you want to deny that?

No, it is a block of floors falling on a block of floors. 18 floors falling on 92, not 18 falling on one. The laws of motion apply the same way whether it's two cars colliding or two or more floors colliding. The laws of motion apply to ALL types of collisions. No selective quoting needed other than to emphasise my points.

BTW I never quoted pool balls.

I never denied the connections don't take any of the impact. Even if all the connections failed the concrete floors still can not ignore the laws of motion and ignore resistance. Did you not understand my point about tooth pics? Do I need to keep repeating myself?

Also are you trying to claim that the 15 floors could not generate enough force to break these connections almost instantly.

Yes. How can you make the claim 15 floors did have enough energy? The building was designed to hold itself up, which means the connections had to be able to hold the floors, plus the live load. They would have a safety factor of at least x2 for each structural member.

Buildings commonly use a factor of safety of 2.0 for each structural member.

en.wikipedia.org...

Factor of safety for structural applications is the ratio of the allowable working unit stress, allowable stress or working stress. The term was originated for determining allowable stress. The ultimate strength of a given material divided by an arbitrary factor of safety, dependant on material and the use to which it is to be put, gives the allowable stress.

1. When the ultimate strength of the material is known within narrow limits, as for structural steel for which tests of samples have been made, when the load is entirely a steady one of a known value a factor of safety should be adopted is 3.

www.engineersedge.com...

Not enough energy in 18 floors to overcome the ability of 92 floors to hold themselves up. Here is your math, and I'll be very generous and allow 2 impacted floors to be crushed for every one impacting floor, so 92 - 36 = 56 floors still intact.

The outcome of the collapse is not consistent with the collapse method you describe. Even IF all the connections failed instantly you still have the floors themselves stacking up creating resistance, but of course that didn't happen because the floors were ejected during the collapse, which means mass and Ke was lost during the collapse, thus another energy had to have been involved. Floors can not both be ejected, and have the energy to crush floors of the same mass.

You seem to claim physics is your subject so please show everyone how to calculate the impact force generated by the 15 floors falling!! CAN YOU!

No I can't because there is not enough information available to do that. It is also not necessary. How many times do I have to repeat that before you get it? Math is not required to understand how the laws of motion work.
But if I had the correct information it could be done.

The problem you OSers make is ignoring the mass of the undamaged building, by claiming it is a block of floors falling on one floor. If you do the math using that incorrect assumption then you math will favour complete collapse. If I did the math, and include all the mass you ignore, you will just simply ignore my maths claiming I am wrong. You're not here to learn the truth, that is obvious.

When are you going to explain how the 47 core columns could telescope down through an increasing path of most resistance?



wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

reply to post by ANOK


The floor connections only yes ONLY support the trusses of the floor they are attached to and NO other so please show on a diagram or picture how say the connections of floor 85 help to support 86 please show how that is possible.

Let everyone see how that happen.

Regarding the impact force there's enough information do you not know the formula for it even I mean you claim physics is your thing so what is the formula.

Here ANOK

Section showing 2 floors please show how a load falling on the top floor is supported by the bottom floor!!!



Please remember the floor is the HORIZONTAL PART!!! the verticals are WALLS and what holds the floor up, its connections to the wall THATS ALL!!!

Now as any idiot can see due to the tube in tube design the floor can fall internally cant they!!!.

In the situation shown below, the lower floor because of the intermediate column would help to support the load from the floor above BUT again the weak point is the floor connections!!!



Now is that simple enough for even YOU to understand!!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Great to know that it is so simple, I am now a reformed truther, sign me up for the OS.

Just one thing before I do though, can I see the physical model that you are using to support these ideas, have you got references to the replicable experiment you are basing this on?

I sure wouldn't like to repeat myself by believing something completely unscientific that is only rationally (or should I say rationistically) supported. It would sure be funny if I did that.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Great to know that it is so simple, I am now a reformed truther, sign me up for the OS.

Just one thing before I do though, can I see the physical model that you are using to support these ideas, have you got references to the replicable experiment you are basing this on?

I sure wouldn't like to repeat myself by believing something completely unscientific that is only rationally (or should I say rationistically) supported. It would sure be funny if I did that.

edit on 16-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: rationistic

Just because the education you had and the fact you dont have ANY background in construction doesn't allow you mind to get around the numbers and forces generated by this event is no shame, maybe a few night classes or indeed a chat with a structural engineer about this would help to educate you and a few others on here!

Oh I am basing it on 30+ yrs in construction and the fact that most days I am on site testing the connections of flooring or rainscreen systems on multi-floor buildings do you do that ? or is it more likely you shuffle paper on a desk!

reply to post by wmd_2008

You seem to claim physics is your subject so please show everyone how to calculate the imapct force generated by the 15 floors falling!! CAN YOU!

The average force the falling 15 floors exerted on the undamaged lower structure equals about one-third of the self-weight of the 15 floors (ie before collapse the 15 floor block exerted an average downwards force three times larger than it did during collapse).

IMO this says a lot.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Here ANOK

Section showing 2 floors please show how a load falling on the top floor is supported by the bottom floor!!!

It isn't, and that isn't the point. The point is, the falling floor is supported the same way the impacted floor is supported, but in opposite directions. Think of the top section as the bottom section upside down. Now, the supports holding the first floor, to the rest of the falling block, are the same as the supports holding the top floor of the lower block. When the two blocks collide the forces on the two colliding floors is EQUAL, but you have MORE mass pushing up from the bottom block than what is pushing down from the top block, so it is more likely that the first floor of the top section will fail before the top floor of the bottom block. The top block would start to collapse before the bottom block would, and guess what wmd? IT DID...



So, if the top was failing, as in accordance with physics in that scenario described, how did it crush the more mass bellow it wmd? HUH? How did the 47 core columns telescope through an increasing mass? Why did the floors not stack up as the collapse slowed from increasing resistance, and loss of Ke to other energy? The only way the floors could not have stacked up creating resistance (as happens in pancake collapses, thus the stack of 'pancakes') is if they were ejected during the collapse, but then you have zero mass to do any crushing (when even 100% of the mass would not do the crushing). In fact how did the collapse initiate in the first place? Please don't mention the sagging trusses, or I'll have to school you on that also.

BTW notice something else about that gif? The antenna moves down with the top section, it was attached to the top of the core. Does that tell you something?

reply to post by ANOK


Its just as well you are not an architect or an engineer the floor sits on angle brackets that have 2 5/8" bolts through them at either end of the truss the mass below has NO relevance to that floor the weakest point is the connection.

So please explain how the mass below makes the the bolts stronger the bolts can only resist a load up to the point they either brake in shear or tension the floor they hold can only react with a load up to the maximum load they can take, the video I linked to SHOWS that a falling load generates a loading many times its static load.

So in your magic land of physics they could have held the floors in position with paper clips because what counts in your lala land is the mass and not the actual bolts!

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You seem to claim physics is your subject so please show everyone how to calculate the imapct force generated by the 15 floors falling!! CAN YOU!

The average force the falling 15 floors exerted on the undamaged lower structure equals about one-third of the self-weight of the 15 floors (ie before collapse the 15 floor block exerted an average downwards force three times larger than it did during collapse).

IMO this says a lot.

Right so if that is true would you stand 12 ft below me while I drop a 50lb weight for you to catch the floors dropped 12ft at start of collapse so according to you that 50lb weight would feel just over 16lb when you catch it.

I suggest you watch the video of the rice bag first and also the person who gave you a star i also hope for the worlds sake you don't have any kind of technical job but by making a comment like that obviously not.



I just had another thought do you live in the same place as the roadrunner and the coyote

Originally posted by ANOK
When the two blocks collide the forces on the two colliding floors is EQUAL, but you have MORE mass pushing up from the bottom block than what is pushing down from the top block, so it is more likely that the first floor of the top section will fail before the top floor of the bottom block. The top block would start to collapse before the bottom block would, and guess what wmd? IT DID...

It is just unbelievable how rubbish your understanding of physics is. How can a lower floor have any influence on the load capacity of a higher floor? What matters is the force on the connections. Explain why according to you the force on the lower connections is smaller than the force on the upper connections. (In reality, it is the exact opposite by the way).

reply to post by wmd_2008


Ooo an ignorant and inflammatory response. Time to school some newbs about physics (your 30+ years experience is very impressive, but grunt work in the construction industry can be carried out by anyone who can turn a spanner when told and does not imply any significant knowledge of physics and/or structural engineering).

Right so if that is true would you stand 12 ft below me while I drop a 50lb weight for you to catch the floors dropped 12ft at start of collapse so according to you that 50lb weight would feel just over 16lb when you catch it.

And what is the fundamental difference between the top section crushing the lower tower and a person catching a falling weight? Since you neglected this consideration when hastily forming a response and seemingly allocated all your cognitive function in attempting to produce a witty remark about the fantasy land I must live in, I will answer this question for you. The difference is that a person catching a falling mass decelerates the mass by applying a force larger than gravity to the mass in the upwards direction. The falling top section of the towers however, continued to accelerate through the undamaged lower structure at an average rate of approximately 2/3rds free fall. Therefore a better example would be a weight which is dropped for someone to catch and it continues to accelerate through their arms. In this case their arms would be applying a smaller upwards force than if they were holding the weight stationary. F=ma, ever heard of it?

i also hope for the worlds sake you don't have any kind of technical job but by making a comment like that obviously not.

Post-graduate structural engineering student here baby, two years work experience (not as impressive as your 30+ mind you ). I am glad for the world's sake though that testing the connections of flooring or rainscreen systems on multi-floor buildings is a task which could almost safely be performed by a properly trained monkey. And by the way, I enjoy shuffling the papers on my desk as I give my brain a rest from structural design.

I just had another thought do you live in the same place as the roadrunner and the coyote

Oh, the irony!

reply to post by wmd_2008

Its just as well you are not an architect or an engineer the floor sits on angle brackets that have 2 5/8" bolts through them at either end of the truss the mass below has NO relevance to that floor the weakest point is the connection.

The brackets are not isolated elements, but this isn't relevant either way. The fact that the floors were destroyed in and of itself means that they were giving resistance.

One thing: "Loosely held bag of rice" what is wrong with this phrase when describing the rubble?

Finally: No one has ever (to my knowledge) argued that the FIRST floor will not break. To think that that is what the equal and opposite force argument is about only serves to demonstrate that you don't understand the the argument.

Take a look at what happens to your bag of rice after the impact, did it just sit there and continue to exert the same dynamic load in the same direction? No it di'in't did it? What does that tell you?

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


Well maybe you should have looked at some of MY earlier posts mate!!!

My JOB IS TO ADVISE ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS on selection of STRUCTURAL fixings mate also the testing of them, sometimes to destruction!!! I show them and the grunts what to use and how to use and install them properly just to correct YOUR misinformed assumption of what I do!!!!!

Worked for a sturtural steelwork company YES a structural steelwork company in the design/drawing office when I first left school also did civil eng at college and now earn a VERY nice living doing what I do.

I suggest you look here to learn something about how YOU ACTUALLY work out dynamic loads!! and if you paid for your EDUCATION get a refund if you can!!!

www.nmsr.org...

This is what happens on site when people make assumptions like you do, fixing put in wrong position the grunts as you put it made an assumption and f****d big time 11 stories up and even with all that structure below it only got to 40% of its required load at just over 20kn the concrete failed.



The fixing is the lower one the other rod is a leg of the test unit see the crack going from both sides of the top of the fixing. Costly mistake for the installer in time and money!!!

I had to get a solution for them that could meet the required loads with the least amount of remedial work and costs to the installer.

I do know what I am talking about and I am on here to educate and inform!!!!