Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

Originally posted by ANOK

How can it suddenly be too much weight for the tower to handle?

You don't seem to understand a building is designed to hold much more weight than itself, by at least x2 for each component. When components are joined together, with cross bracing etc., then that ability to carry weigh far over its own weight is increased substantially.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.

Test it yourself. Hold a 50lb weight above your head. Not too hard to support right? Now have someone drop that weight from 12 feet above you. There's the difference you keep ignoring.

You are just making assumptions based on a lack of experience with such matters.

As are you!

It's obvious that the top could not have causes the bottom to collapse, and was a separate event to the bottom collapse.

No, it appears obvious only to you and a few others who seem to misconstrue the laws of physics to suit your own wide-eyed belief system.

Why not answer the topic of the thread instead of pontificating about your view of physics.

What was the outside energy ANOK? Explain how it fits into your model of the separate collapses?
Please show us all how your outside energy could do what you don't believe the failure of the internal structures could not.

None of you truthers have been able to show how controlled demo (or anything else for that matter) collapsed those buildings from the top first. Then initiated a second progressive collapse of the bottom section from the top down. So how was it done? Why would they do it that way?

Quit dancing around the heart of the matter...

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by ANOK

How can it suddenly be too much weight for the tower to handle?

You don't seem to understand a building is designed to hold much more weight than itself, by at least x2 for each component. When components are joined together, with cross bracing etc., then that ability to carry weigh far over its own weight is increased substantially.

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.

Test it yourself. Hold a 50lb weight above your head. Not too hard to support right? Now have someone drop that weight from 12 feet above you. There's the difference you keep ignoring.

The difference has already been demonstrated.



Multiple LEVELS are crushed but they absorb energy in the process and ultimately arrest the falling mass. So why aren't we told the amount of steel and concrete on every level and the energy required to collapse it?

psik

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
And you still don't seem to understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.

And you don't understand that the loading makes no difference to the physics, none, zip.

All collisions experience dynamic loading, or an impulse force, there was nothing special about the WTC collapse that makes it work any differently to any other objects that collide with each other.

Please show me something that says 'dynamic loading' throws physics out of the window.

reply to post by ANOK

Originally posted by ANOK
And you don't understand that the loading makes no difference to the physics, none, zip.

When loads are applied suddenly and when the loads are applied as impact loads the resulting stresses induced in the machine elements are much higher than if the loads are applied gradually.

Link

Impact load is caused by vibration or impact or acceleration. Thus, impact load is equal to imposed load incremented by some percentage called impact factor or impact allowance depending upon the intensity of impact. Reference : R.C.Hibbeler Types Of Loads On Structure

Link

Impact Load: A load applied to a structure suddenly, such as a shock wave or vibrating load. It can cause a structure to collapse more readily than a slow, steady, evenly applied load.

Collapse of Burning Buildings: A Guide to Fireground Safety

....they impart a vertical impact to them by virtue of their rapid and sometimes abrupt movement. This is more or less equal in its effects on the structure to a suddenly applied vertical load, and consequently, causes greater stresses in supporting members than would be produced through a static application of the same load....

Structural Design in Steel

Engineering publications seem to indicate that impact loads create greater stresses in materials and structures than steadily applied loads. This is not controversial in the least. Please start looking things up before you contribute.

-Gene

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Thanks for posting that again, Psik. I'm sure you'll eventually shame the physics community into action, if you just keep posting that same video every day from now until Dec 21, 2012

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
And you still don't seem to understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.

And you don't understand that the loading makes no difference to the physics, none, zip.

Sure it does ANOK. The dynamic force of the upper section of the North Tower was over 30x the static load threshold. The 1st floor to receive this impact had no chance. And the one below that had an even less chance of surviving as the energy of the collapse increased.

All collisions experience dynamic loading, or an impulse force, there was nothing special about the WTC collapse that makes it work any differently to any other objects that collide with each other.

The towers collapsed vertically with the aid of gravity. They didn't collapse horizontally.

Please show me something that says 'dynamic loading' throws physics out of the window.

Dynamic loading is part of the physics of it!

Originally posted by ANOK

And you don't understand that the loading makes no difference to the physics, none, zip.

Silly truther. Silly...... Silly....... Silly...... Truther.

I don't know what else to say.

First you tell us about factors of safety, and then you tell us there is no need for one.

So you have once again entertained us with your silly tales of Truther Physcics. And.... Dr Fixer gets to add another number to his signature.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


psikey,psikey,psikey how many times do we have to explain YOUR model is not an accurate representation of what you claim it is.

YOU say it represents the columns can you show any columns crushed like your paper tubes can you explain the coulumns in these pictures.

Part of ext wall and core crushed like your model NO!





How about this one



Your model can't collapse like the towers can it, the wooden pole doesn't help does it, as pointed out before you don't have any lateral movement on your model so it's a BIG FAIL!

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

psikey,psikey,psikey how many times do we have to explain YOUR model is not an accurate representation of what you claim it is.

YOU say it represents the columns can you show any columns crushed like your paper tubes can you explain the coulumns in these pictures.

I don't know or care what you mean by REPRESENTS. The paper loops perform the SAME FUNCTION as columns in the WTC. They are what holds up the mass of the washers against gravity. In order for that mass to move downward the paper loops must sustain damage. That requires energy.

It is not my fault that you think in terms of analogy instead of in terms of how physics works.

My paper loops cannot punch holes through the washers the way columns in the WTC would be able to punch holes through concrete floors. But punching those holes would require energy also. Thereby slowing the falling mass.

What is the matter, no pictures of the core which the NIST says supported 53% of the weight?

Are you saying something blew perimeter columns away from the building and that is why they are not like my model?

ROFLMAO

You don't seem to get the point of my model. My point is that the building could not have collapsed. It would arrest. Therefore the perimeter columns that are not like the crushed loops of my model just emphasize my point.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


But what in your model is accounting for all the extra mass from the core columns and all the contents on each of those floors?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But what in your model is accounting for all the extra mass from the core columns and all the contents on each of those floors?

I have said many times that my model IS NOT A TUBE IN TUBE STRUCTURE. If it is possible to build one it would be extremely complex and expensive. You people can't tell us the strength of the connections of the trusses relative to the weight of the floors so until that information is correctly determined than trying to build a tube in tube model would be STUPID.

We also need accurate data on the distribution of steel and concrete down the towers.

That is why my model is only relevant because the paper loops are AS WEAK AS CAN BE MADE relative to the weight they must support. But they still arrest the falling mass. It is not my fault that the collapse believers can't build a model that will do what they say the WTC did. Can't build a model and don't want accurate data, sounds delusional to me.

In fact what is stopping any of you from duplicating my model. How do you know I don't have wooden rings behind the paper loops preventing their collapse???

It is curious that no one has ever accused me of cheating.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

That is why my model is only relevant because the paper loops are AS WEAK AS CAN BE MADE relative to the weight they must support.

Are you stating that the paper loops are now as weak as can be made? Before you said that they were as weak AS YOU CAN MAKE THEM. Now we're changing things up a bit. Since you have already admitted that there is no way to calculate the strenght of the materials you are using and yet you are making absolute statements about their structural capabilities. This is really confusing.

And to top it all off, you have also admitted that your model has nothing to do with the World Trade Center towers and their construction. And finally you keep begging for information that you've already stated you don't need to draw any definite conclusions like you did two weeks after 9/11.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But what in your model is accounting for all the extra mass from the core columns and all the contents on each of those floors?

I have said many times that my model IS NOT A TUBE IN TUBE STRUCTURE. If it is possible to build one it would be extremely complex and expensive. You people can't tell us the strength of the connections of the trusses relative to the weight of the floors so until that information is correctly determined than trying to build a tube in tube model would be STUPID.

But somehow your model defies the stupidity which you've just highlighted? Ain't that a kick in the head...

We also need accurate data on the distribution of steel and concrete down the towers.

You don't need accurate data on this. You can come up with solid estimates based on the wealth of info we have on the towers. Then come up with low end, mid-range, and high-end values to cover your basis...

That is why my model is only relevant because the paper loops are AS WEAK AS CAN BE MADE relative to the weight they must support. But they still arrest the falling mass. It is not my fault that the collapse believers can't build a model that will do what they say the WTC did. Can't build a model and don't want accurate data, sounds delusional to me.

What's delusional is this entire paragraph of yours.

In fact what is stopping any of you from duplicating my model. How do you know I don't have wooden rings behind the paper loops preventing their collapse???

It is curious that no one has ever accused me of cheating.

psik

You're model is flawed, so it doesn't matter whether you cheated or not.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You people can't tell us the strength of the connections of the trusses relative to the weight of the floors so until that information is correctly determined than trying to build a tube in tube model would be STUPID.

Another simpler way than building models, is to:

Check and see what component had the lowest cross section in the load path.

That would be the truss seat conections.

Next find out if the truss seats show signs of failure.

Yes they do.

Conclusion: Progressive collapse occurred due to failure of the truss seat connections.

reply to post by waypastvne

reply to post by waypastvne

 

If the truss seats failed, that implies the floors fell...wouldn't that mean the walls and core would be still standing?

Originally posted by septic

If the truss seats failed, that implies the floors fell...wouldn't that mean the walls and core would be still standing?

Lowest cross section in the exterior columns.... column ends and spandrel plate connections.

Failure points in exterior columns.... column ends and spandrel plate connections.

Lowest cross section in the core columns.... welded splices.

Failure points in the core columns... welded splices.

The buildings did destroy themselves in the path of least resistance. If you find something that didn't break at it's weakest point, let me know.

reply to post by waypastvne

The buildings did destroy themselves in the path of least resistance

Wouldn't the path of least resistance be the thin steel at the top?

Originally posted by septic
If the truss seats failed, that implies the floors fell...wouldn't that mean the walls and core would be still standing?

Ok. Use your brain for a moment here and do some visualizing.

You have mass from above falling on the mass below. The weight is very high, and it just accelerated through about 12 feet of air by gravity. It hits the trusses and shears their connections. Now, this was not uniform. Uniform means "the same across the board."

So, we've established that not every connection would have broken, especially not at the same time. Plus, once the rubble begins to build up inside, it will create a pressure pushing away the outer walls (not to mention all the air from inside the building getting expelled along with dust from sheet-rock and fireproofing).

For most of the building near the top, the core columns got mixed in with everything because they were bending and crashing all the way down. However, for lower parts of the building, the core columns remained standing for some time, showing evidence of their horizontal connections being sheared off. THE CORE DID REMAIN STANDING.

But, without lateral (horizontal) support, minor swaying caused the core to crumple and collapse straight down like a stack of cards.

reply to post by Varemia


Interesting story.

Ok. Use your brain for a moment

You lost me at Ok. Pity about the self-esteem issue.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

Interesting story.

Ok. Use your brain for a moment

You lost me at Ok. Pity about the self-esteem issue.

Just read it. I'm being as courteous as I can be, and all you're doing is acting like a three year-old. Grow up and act like the intelligent human you have the potential to be.