What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?

reply to post by plube


I dont really give a flying F**&^ about any of the reports THIS was a TOTALLY CHAOTIC event nothing will model it with a 100% accurate result.

As the other truthers are reluctant to try WHY dont you have a look at the possible impacts loads of 15 floors of the North Tower and 30/31 of the South Tower dropping onto the floor below.

These floor slabs were held up angle cleats on the inside of the walls so if cleats fail floors could fall inside the building a major design problem.

Now approx mass of floorslab was around 600 tons of concrete I will be generous and say 100 tons for decking and trusses NO lets make that 200 SO SAY 800 Tons. Structural fixings have usually a 3:1 safety margin to keep engineers sleeping soundly so that would make 2400 tons lets make that a 6:1 to keep the truthers happy.
So thats 4800 tons.

Now you work out the load of ONE just ONE floor of 800 tons dropping 12ft lets see what load it could generate NOW if you tell the others such as psike,anok,max etc they may take notice.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You can see the corner of the building in the background and the flimsy web of steel that connected one perimeter array to another at a 90 degree angle. We are supposed to believe that that gave stiffness to the building rather than the three dimensional array of steel in the core.

The moment bracing effect of the spandrels + columns is not reliant on the corner elements. Why would you think it was? The very frame structure with the long spandrel interconnections makes a moment frame, the building could literally have no corner moment strength whatsoever and still resist overturning.

I don't think you know what you're talking about psikey.

I never said or thought that it was. I said the rigidity of the building came from the three dimensional array of steel IN THE CORE. But then I get told, not it was the perimeter. But each side of the perimeter is only two dimensional. The are only three dimensional by being joined at the corners. So I was pointing out how weak the corners had to be.

We are all supposed to be so impressed by MOMENT FRAME.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I never said or thought that it was. I said the rigidity of the building came from the three dimensional array of steel IN THE CORE. But then I get told, not it was the perimeter. But each side of the perimeter is only two dimensional. The are only three dimensional by being joined at the corners. So I was pointing out how weak the corners had to be.

We are all supposed to be so impressed by MOMENT FRAME.

psik

You were wrong. The strength of the building comes from a number of factors including the moment frame provided by walls parallel to the force applied and the hat truss is responsible for transferring loads between the normal walls.

I don't think you really have any complaint here, you've just decided in your mind that the core is super strong and want to try and ridicule other people. The fact is that you don't seem to understand the basic structural principles that underly the WTC.

Originally posted by exponent
You were wrong. The strength of the building comes from a number of factors including the moment frame provided by walls parallel to the force applied and the hat truss is responsible for transferring loads between the normal walls.

I don't think you really have any complaint here, you've just decided in your mind that the core is super strong and want to try and ridicule other people. The fact is that you don't seem to understand the basic structural principles that underly the WTC.

You are the one who brought up moment frame!

www.wisegeek.com...

The perimeter is only boxlike if you look at all four sides but they are 200 feet on the side and the corners look kind of weak. The core has columns averaging 16 feet apart which is denser than a normal grid skyscraper which is 30 feet. So what I am saying makes perfect sense. The NIST admits the core supported 53% of the building's gravity load.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


There's nothing to answer in this post, you've not responded to my points except by repeating yourself. The exterior walls provide a significant part of the moment resisting capacity in the towers. That is why the core probably couldn't stand on its own. It has very little in the way of moment resistance as it relied on the rest of the building.

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

There's nothing to answer in this post, you've not responded to my points except by repeating yourself. The exterior walls provide a significant part of the moment resisting capacity in the towers. That is why the core probably couldn't stand on its own. It has very little in the way of moment resistance as it relied on the rest of the building.

And you can just CLAIM THINGS. The phrase "significant amount" is true no matter what it was because significant is subjective. How can anyone argue that something is not significant? But the core is 3 dimensional averaging 16 feet of solid steel to the next horizontal right angle while it is 200 feet for the perimeter and it is not a single solid piece for that distance.

Curious how the towers were able to support themselves for 1200 feet without the hat truss. Was that truss to help transfer the load of the antenna to the perimeter columns instead of having it all on the core?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And you can just CLAIM THINGS. The phrase "significant amount" is true no matter what it was because significant is subjective. How can anyone argue that something is not significant?

The word 'significant' here indicates that it was important. Is it really this hard to understand? The exterior walls provided a needed resistive capacity. Is that better?

But the core is 3 dimensional averaging 16 feet of solid steel to the next horizontal right angle while it is 200 feet for the perimeter and it is not a single solid piece for that distance.

So what? What type of connections were the beams attached with? What was its maximum moment resistance?

You're not actually doing anything more than claiming here psikey. The fact is that you know I can go back this up by quoting the NIST report, but you have nothing to quote other than your own personal feelings about what would happen with a building likely a hundred times larger than anything you've ever built.

It's inane, why don't you focus on actually learning about the invent instead of trying to show off that you can make things up and assume they are true?

Curious how the towers were able to support themselves for 1200 feet without the hat truss. Was that truss to help transfer the load of the antenna to the perimeter columns instead of having it all on the core?

psik

I'll let you figure out if there's potentially an example of a tower, maybe without a huge antenna, maybe you could check whether it was constructed with a hat truss, or read some of the structural documentation.

Wait, what's that? Read and learn? Hah I'm sorry psikey, I was only joking, I know you'll just reply with another "BUT I AM RIGHT!!!" post.

Moment resistance? Are you serious?

What happened to the core in the collapses was not because it swayed too much from lack of floors. The core fell vertically, that would not happen if it swayed too much. Also it would take a lot of swaying, and a lot of time, for the core to fail that way, just like bending a piece of wire over and over before it finally fails from heat and stress. You seem to think it would be instant?

You are talking theory again and trying to claim that happened, but you seem to fail to understand how that works in real life.

You know it takes a little effort to even understand what you guys are claiming half the time, because you don't explain things like someone who knows what they're talking about would.

When are you going to demonstrate sagging trusses putting a pulling force on columns?

Originally posted by exponent
You're not actually doing anything more than claiming here psikey.

Hilarious because that is exactly what you are doing.

You have no idea whatsoever how the core would react without the floors.

One thing that is for sure is the core would not collapse instantly if floors were removed. So your hypothesis is nonsense.

The core was designed to sway, the floors and the outer walls were designed to move with it. If the core couldn't hold it's own mass, and the floors were trying to rigidly stop it, the floor connections would fail. I mean you think the sagging trusses caused the core to fail, right? Wouldn't the core swaying put more force on the connections, than sagging trusses could put on the massive columns? Again your whole hypothesis contradicts itself, you should think more clearly about what you're claiming mate.

And please demonstrate how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on columns?

My favorite tactic is to post this clip:




LOL!

Originally posted by ANOK
Moment resistance? Are you serious?

What happened to the core in the collapses was not because it swayed too much from lack of floors.

Good job I wasn't talking about the collapses then!

You are talking theory again and trying to claim that happened, but you seem to fail to understand how that works in real life.

You know it takes a little effort to even understand what you guys are claiming half the time, because you don't explain things like someone who knows what they're talking about would.

When are you going to demonstrate sagging trusses putting a pulling force on columns?

ANOK you are commenting in the very thread where you've refused to read a paper that you asked for. Stop claiming you know physics better than anyone else when you won't even read a single paper.

I was not claiming that the core failed due to a lack of moment framing. I was pointing out that the core could not stand on its own due to a lack of moment framing as you clearly realised and added:

You have no idea whatsoever how the core would react without the floors.

One thing that is for sure is the core would not collapse instantly if floors were removed. So your hypothesis is nonsense.

Is this your standard of proof? It's nonsense because you say it's nonsense even though you've no basis to make such claims? Give me a break.

The core was designed to sway, the floors and the outer walls were designed to move with it. If the core couldn't hold it's own mass, and the floors were trying to rigidly stop it, the floor connections would fail. I mean you think the sagging trusses caused the core to fail, right? Wouldn't the core swaying put more force on the connections, than sagging trusses could put on the massive columns? Again your whole hypothesis contradicts itself, you should think more clearly about what you're claiming mate.

The building swayed. The outer walls and hat truss reduced the amount of sway and still there were complaints. What you are saying is that if you remove all of the elements in the building designed to resist this swaying, it would somehow resist these moments regardless. How?

And please demonstrate how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on columns?

*bzzzt* What is tension?

9/11(the official story) debunks itself perfectly. no tactics required, only ignorance, denial and stupidity on the part of the OSers. deal.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
And you can just CLAIM THINGS. The phrase "significant amount" is true no matter what it was because significant is subjective. How can anyone argue that something is not significant?

The word 'significant' here indicates that it was important. Is it really this hard to understand? The exterior walls provided a needed resistive capacity. Is that better?

But the core is 3 dimensional averaging 16 feet of solid steel to the next horizontal right angle while it is 200 feet for the perimeter and it is not a single solid piece for that distance.

So what? What type of connections were the beams attached with? What was its maximum moment resistance?
.

You don't have any more hard data on the moment resistance of the perimeter than I do on the core. But the core had I-beams 16 feet apart. The perimeter was connected to trusses which we see pictures of all of the damn time and had visco-elastic dampers so we know they were SUPPOSED TO MOVE.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You don't have any more hard data on the moment resistance of the perimeter than I do on the core. But the core had I-beams 16 feet apart. The perimeter was connected to trusses which we see pictures of all of the damn time and had visco-elastic dampers so we know they were SUPPOSED TO MOVE.

psik

edit on 24-6-2012 by psikeyhackr because: sp err

Of course they were supposed to move, they swayed in the wind. How is it this hard to get a simple point across. You say that the core would stand on its own, but it has very little to resist the effects of wind and eccentricity. The outer walls provided the restraint the building needed to stand and they still got complaints about a couple of feet of swaying at the top.

You want to remove all of the exterior construction, the very dampers you point out, the hat truss and somehow you expect this swaying to stay manageable? How is the core going to resist these forces? Where are the needed connections to absorb it? You haven't presented anything other than 'I dont think it would fall therefore it would not fall' in this thread, and as soon as you do I will back up my claims with the same rigour.

Really? 44 pages of this back and forth. I've seen children resolve their issues faster. Take a hint all of this bickering is just a red herring anyway. Please do yourselves a favor and move on to more productive conversations

Originally posted by exponent
You say that the core would stand on its own, but it has very little to resist the effects of wind and eccentricity.

This is a CLAIM on your part. The core would have less wind resistance than the entire building because it would have less width. Without the floors outside the core its strength would not be used supporting them.

If you admit the building swayed in the wind than you admit the perimeter pushed on the core via the floors.

psik

LOL so the core collapsed vertically, after the floors were gone, because the wind pushed it over?

OSer claims just get more ridiculous.

So what caused the core to start collapsing before the floors even started?



No that is not CGI btw.

How do you explain this....



How did that happen if the floors started the collapse, and the whole top section supposedly crushed the rest? How does wind have anything to do with what is happening to the core? Wind is not causing the core to crush vertically, the whole top section, floors and core, is crushing bottom up, before the bottom section starts to collapse. It's obvious the collapse is not being caused by sagging trusses pulling in columns. How do you spin ...er address that?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This is a CLAIM on your part. The core would have less wind resistance than the entire building because it would have less width. Without the floors outside the core its strength would not be used supporting them.

The claim was yours originally, that the core could stand on its own. You based this on nothing but your own false confidence. If you want me to support my claim, you have to support yours.

If you admit the building swayed in the wind than you admit the perimeter pushed on the core via the floors.

Of course it did, how are you still oblivious to the structural design of the towers after a decade?

Originally posted by ANOK
LOL so the core collapsed vertically, after the floors were gone, because the wind pushed it over?

OSer claims just get more ridiculous.

Good job nobody's claiming that.

So what caused the core to start collapsing before the floors even started?

Nothing, the top of the building collapsed to the south:

No that is not CGI btw.

Neither is this, but you don't seem to want to come up with an answer for it. This is WTC1 minutes before collapse, all the columns should be perfectly straight and vertical, but there is obvious damage occurring

How did that happen if the floors started the collapse, and the whole top section supposedly crushed the rest? How does wind have anything to do with what is happening to the core? Wind is not causing the core to crush vertically, the whole top section, floors and core, is crushing bottom up, before the bottom section starts to collapse. It's obvious the collapse is not being caused by sagging trusses pulling in columns. How do you spin ...er address that?

ANOK are you really still refusing to read that paper? You've become the same as Psikey, repeating the same drivel over and over again despite having the answers right in front of your face.

Trusses can fall entirely into tension. That tension must be transmitted to the columns. That force can result in inward bowing. This has been proven by a number of different groups and published in peer reviewed papers. Hell I bet they'd even give you their FEA setup files if you asked nicely.

You won't even read the paper.

reply to post by plube




Hi plube sorry for delay been busy.

You wanted some comments from me well here goes, first of all the main problem when on a site like this is dealing with misconceptions that prevail that all information from an official source is lies and anyone who agrees with that is paid to, well maybe when some of the members have had 3+ decades of listening to that kind of BS they may change their minds, that's not to say that I think TPTB always tell the truth I know they don't.

The other main problem with the internet is everyone becomes an armchair expert I like to stick to forums were I can use my background i.e. eduction,work and hobbies to make a comment on.

Like I said I have been in the construction industry since I left school 30+ years ago first of all as an apprentice in a design/drawing office for a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company then working for various companies mainly on a technical side. I get to spend lots of time on the outside/inside of buildings being constructed or renovated, I have been on the outside of buildings from a few feet to a few hundred feet up doing tests mainly on structural fixings, you know the things that help to hold buildings up/together and give recommendations to architect,engineers and construction managers unlike the vast MAJORITY who comment on 9/11 forums

I would like to think my background and experience gives me a lot more insight to what may have happened on that dreadful day when not just Americans but people from all around the world died!

The other problem is that the people who think this was an inside job use typical clichés when confronted by any information that disagrees with their stance i.e. the government always lies, you are a disinfo agent love that one I am not even from the USA, OR THE NOW FAMOUS ON HERE it looks like a demo/bomb SO IT MUST BE.

I am not going to mention any specific papers regarding this but they all make assumptions(both sides) to describe what happened and because they are written by very learned people, you know prof this doctor that etc these people often don't have any PRACTICLE experience and rely on pure physics etc.

I will give an example one paper works out the energy required to crush all the concrete to fine powder/dust and in the paper mentions a specific particle size of 60-100 microns, now they mention a statement saying “ the workers could not find any concrete” now I and others on here can point to statements saying they found compacted floors They based their calculations on particles of cement of that size found all around now there is a couple of problems with that, sprayed on fire protection can contain cement(lots used in the tower construction) and so do other building materials. Now if they work out the mass of the concrete using that dust size the collapse would not have enough energy or so they claim.

So was all the concrete turned to powder? NO and here is a good example



Now the image above is claimed on truther websites to be concrete that had been melted into a huge lump well one major problem is the paperwork in the concrete that seems to have survived, also you can seen the metal decking used in the floorslabs and some truss steel.

Now what's interesting is that some papers also uses another assumption regarding the floorslabs and state that the columns below the floor impacted would have provided resistance to the impact and these columns get thicker the lower you get, yes they get thicker do they provide resistance for the floorslab that's a big NO!!!!!!!

What held the slabs in position between the walls and the outer core was the angle cleats.



The floorslabs were all the same (apart from a couple of service floors) so the decking,trusses and cleats at the top of the building are the same at the bottom. The floorslabs were all the same area and thickness and designed to carry a similar load people office furniture etc.

So any material that fell on a floorslab would have to be supported by those cleats, if the cleats or bolts sheared or the welds failed that was it! Those cleats were designed to take the floor loads plus an obvious safety margin.

15 floors falling on the North Tower and 30 on the South Tower would impact at many times the safety margin.

Now if the floorslab falls that's a problem for the outer walls and to some extent the core.Once the collapse started the building tore itself apart with nothing supporting the walls they went,thousands of tons of steel concrete etc fell and the rest is history