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

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by IrishWristwatch

True. There would initially be an outwardly directed force, and maybe there was a period where the columns were displaced outward a bit.

NIST reported that this occured in their fea analysis, so it's not unreasonable. ENIK did a similar fea, IIRC, over at Greg's forum and reported similar results?

Yes, I believe so.

Actually, I'm not sure that what you're seeing is the ext columns.

At first glance, it looks more like it is the cladding only snapping back. Have MT and/or femr looked at it and confirmed that those particular ext columns ended flush with the ends of the cladding? I would find it unusual it that were the case.

I would also expect permanent, plastic deformation of those column ends in any case, cuz they would have to be deflected what........ 7-10' by the time they snap?

You might be right about that. I looked again at it - or at least the view I could easily find - and there's no way I can prove from the view that those are columns snapping back. I believe it is, still, but you basically busted me! Good job. Your point about the plastic deformation is sound. I admit I was surprised the columns snapped back, but that's the way I took it because I have a hard time imagining A) the cladding separating in near unison and B) the cladding having a characteristic frequency at that length to snap back so quickly.

Have a look at these, remembering it's very slow motion:



(courtesy femr2 - though it's not like I asked him)

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by IrishWristwatch

 

I think the bottom-line is that ignorance or incredulity is not an argument to support a conspiracy theory. Even when nobody can explain every detail of what exactly happened, it is no reason to conclude it must have been controlled demolition. That is a major logical fallacy, which is similar to the one creationists use. You can't explain why creature y has feature x, therefore creationism is true. It is a false dichotomy.

Sure, it's a LOGICAL FALLACY that skyscrapers must hold themselves up therefore every level must be strong enough to support all of the weight above. Therefore the designers must determine how much steel to put on every level.

So EVERYONE should expect to be supplied with that information.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by IrishWristwatch

 

I think the bottom-line is that ignorance or incredulity is not an argument to support a conspiracy theory. Even when nobody can explain every detail of what exactly happened, it is no reason to conclude it must have been controlled demolition. That is a major logical fallacy, which is similar to the one creationists use. You can't explain why creature y has feature x, therefore creationism is true. It is a false dichotomy.

Sure, it's a LOGICAL FALLACY that skyscrapers must hold themselves up therefore every level must be strong enough to support all of the weight above. Therefore the designers must determine how much steel to put on every level.

So EVERYONE should expect to be supplied with that information.

psik

You seem to repeatedly forget that only the vertical columns within a skyscraper must be able to support the weight above. In the towers, the weight was distributed among the core columns and the exterior wall panels, held static and protected from lateral forces by the trusses and other horizontal beams. If the vertical columns fail at any point, the weight that column held will transfer, and if enough failures occur, a collapse will initiate. The horizontal supports are not vertical supports, so they will not hold up vertical weight nearly as well.

What is the miscommunication?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by IrishWristwatch

 

I think the bottom-line is that ignorance or incredulity is not an argument to support a conspiracy theory. Even when nobody can explain every detail of what exactly happened, it is no reason to conclude it must have been controlled demolition. That is a major logical fallacy, which is similar to the one creationists use. You can't explain why creature y has feature x, therefore creationism is true. It is a false dichotomy.

Sure, it's a LOGICAL FALLACY that skyscrapers must hold themselves up therefore every level must be strong enough to support all of the weight above. Therefore the designers must determine how much steel to put on every level.

So EVERYONE should expect to be supplied with that information.

psik

You seem to repeatedly forget that only the vertical columns within a skyscraper must be able to support the weight above. In the towers, the weight was distributed among the core columns and the exterior wall panels, held static and protected from lateral forces by the trusses and other horizontal beams. If the vertical columns fail at any point, the weight that column held will transfer, and if enough failures occur, a collapse will initiate. The horizontal supports are not vertical supports, so they will not hold up vertical weight nearly as well.

What is the miscommunication?

And you like to pretend the horizontal beams aren't there. But those horizontal beams keep those Vertical Columns from BENDING.

And then you seem to think the horizontal beams could miss each other when the upper core supposedly fell on the lower core.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ROFL

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And you like to pretend the horizontal beams aren't there. But those horizontal beams keep those Vertical Columns from BENDING.

And then you seem to think the horizontal beams could miss each other when the upper core supposedly fell on the lower core.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ROFL

psik

And the ones damaged by the plane, or the ones that were sagging? You're ridiculous, psik.

Edit: In that post, I was meaning you seemed to think they would land perfectly on each-other as if you were stacking lincoln logs.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And you like to pretend the horizontal beams aren't there. But those horizontal beams keep those Vertical Columns from BENDING.

And then you seem to think the horizontal beams could miss each other when the upper core supposedly fell on the lower core.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

ROFL

psik

And the ones damaged by the plane, or the ones that were sagging? You're ridiculous, psik.

Edit: In that post, I was meaning you seemed to think they would land perfectly on each-other as if you were stacking lincoln logs.

ROFL, you haven't the slightest bit of evidence for sagging horizontal beams in the core. That is just your imagination. And there were still 90 levels of intact horizontal beams farther down the north tower.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So where's your evidence to suggest that against logic, they landed square on top of one-another with no angled impacts at all? That is what your imagination is telling you.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So where's your evidence to suggest that against logic, they landed square on top of one-another with no angled impacts at all? That is what your imagination is telling you.

I never said anything landed square on top of anything else. I am not responsible for your stupid projections.

I said if the upper core came down on the lower core there was no way the horizontal beams connecting the core columns could miss each other. If you came up with some ridiculous visualization as a result of that then YOU ARE TO BLAME.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So where's your evidence to suggest that against logic, they landed square on top of one-another with no angled impacts at all? That is what your imagination is telling you.

I never said anything landed square on top of each other. I am not responsible for your stupid projections.

I said if the upper core came down on the lower core there was no way the horizontal beams connecting the core columns could miss each other. If you came up with some ridiculous visualization as a result of that then YOU ARE TO BLAME.

psik

Of course they didn't all miss each other, but they didn't land square either. There is buckling and floor panels will be coming down too. If those crash through the floor panels underneath them, then that will pull the core columns further askew and cause more buckling and collapsing. Obviously this didn't continue for the whole collapse, and the core columns severed, because you can see much of the core still standing for a moment after collapse.

Is this clear?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So where's your evidence to suggest that against logic, they landed square on top of one-another with no angled impacts at all? That is what your imagination is telling you.

I never said anything landed square on top of each other. I am not responsible for your stupid projections.

I said if the upper core came down on the lower core there was no way the horizontal beams connecting the core columns could miss each other. If you came up with some ridiculous visualization as a result of that then YOU ARE TO BLAME.

psik

Of course they didn't all miss each other, but they didn't land square either. There is buckling and floor panels will be coming down too. If those crash through the floor panels underneath them, then that will pull the core columns further askew and cause more buckling and collapsing. Obviously this didn't continue for the whole collapse, and the core columns severed, because you can see much of the core still standing for a moment after collapse.

Is this clear?

ROFL

I provided the link to what you said.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I know what I said, and I already explained what I meant. Are you stupid or something?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I know what I said, and I already explained what I meant. Are you stupid or something?

What you meant was stupid. LOL

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Stupid how? You never seem to explain yourself when I question you. Now you're just being deliberately trollish.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Stupid how? You never seem to explain yourself when I question you. Now you're just being deliberately trollish.

If the columns miss each other there is no way the horizontal beams could do the Lincoln log crap you are talking about. It never crossed my mind. It is not my fault you could imagine something that silly.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Stupid how? You never seem to explain yourself when I question you. Now you're just being deliberately trollish.

If the columns miss each other there is no way the horizontal beams could do the Lincoln log crap you are talking about. It never crossed my mind. It is not my fault you could imagine something that silly.

psik

You don't make any sense. They will miss AND they will hit, but there will hardly be any direct flat-vs-flat impacts, and certainly no perfectly distributed weight. Now could you please stop acting so childish and talk like an adult?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Stupid how? You never seem to explain yourself when I question you. Now you're just being deliberately trollish.

If the columns miss each other there is no way the horizontal beams could do the Lincoln log crap you are talking about. It never crossed my mind. It is not my fault you could imagine something that silly.

psik

You don't make any sense. [B]They will miss AND they will hit[/B], but there will hardly be any direct flat-vs-flat impacts, and certainly no perfectly distributed weight. Now could you please stop acting so childish and talk like an adult?

ROFL

What is the THEY you are talking about now? You posted the diagram of columns missing each other like that was difficult to visualize. But there is no way for the horizontal beams to miss each other without the core moving 40+ feet horizontally.

So you explain what MISSING you are talking about there. That flat-vs-flat impacts is bullsh# YOU made up. You make up something STUPID and then try to accuse me of saying it.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Look, I'm working off your freaking model. Your model shows a perfect landing of the upper on the lower. This is a misrepresentation of anything happening in the towers!

You're just trolling me right now, honestly, since every post of yours is in a condescending tone, often with ROFL attached to the end, as if this is all just some big joke to you. Well no wonder no one ever gets anything done. You don't want it to get done. You just want to laugh at people and act as if you know everything.

At least I'm trying to look for answers.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Look, I'm working off your freaking model. Your model shows a perfect landing of the upper on the lower. This is a misrepresentation of anything happening in the towers!

LOL

You talk about Lincoln Logs and accuse somebody of trolling.

My model is not a tube-in-tube structure. It has fewer than 100 parts. It cannot demonstrate the full complexity of what happened to the WTC. But it is a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. You BELIEVERS just want to pretend that no energy was required to crush intact levels.

Horizontal beams in the core had to hit other horizontal beams. Bending steel and breaking joints would require energy. So where is that energy computed and its effect on any supposed collapse simulated in TEN YEARS?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Look, I'm working off your freaking model. Your model shows a perfect landing of the upper on the lower. This is a misrepresentation of anything happening in the towers!

LOL

You talk about Lincoln Logs and accuse somebody of trolling.

Yeah. Your model assumes that things will land on each-other square. Will you quit with the "lol" and the eye-rolling?

My model is not a tube-in-tube structure. It has fewer than 100 parts. It cannot demonstrate the full complexity of what happened to the WTC. But it is a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure. You BELIEVERS just want to pretend that no energy was required to crush intact levels.

No # sherlock. But it doesn't demonstrate even a semblance to the collapse of a single column, because you reinforce it in a way that allows it to only compress down and have no buckling or lateral movement. The fact that you think it means something just shows how narrow-minded you are.

Horizontal beams in the core had to hit other horizontal beams. Bending steel and breaking joints would require energy. So where is that energy computed and its effect on any supposed collapse simulated in TEN YEARS?

psik

It's been calculated before. You like to ignore it. Gravity, acceleration, weight, etc. It's all there, and you are simply blind as a bat because you literally refuse to see it.

I'm going to make an ultimatum here because I'm getting sick and tired of dealing with you. Respond with decorum and include no LOL or ROFL or any synonymous joke word, and stop ridiculing my points without even understanding them!

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
LOL

You talk about Lincoln Logs and accuse somebody of trolling.

Yeah. Your model assumes that things will land on each-other square. Will you quit with the "lol" and the eye-rolling?

The model is so weak it cannot even stay up straight without the dowel.

It demonstrates the physics of a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure even when it is as weak as possible.

What has kept any engineering school from building a model that can completely collapse?

Could it be the Laws of Physics. ROFL

Why don't you build one with Lincoln Logs.

psik