No, it wouldn't slow the falling portion down at all... the reason being that, even without the additional kinetic energy of its momentum, the upper portion (which no longer had any support of its own) GREATLY exceeded each subsequent floors load bearing capability. As each floor collapsed, the falling mass increased with the addition of that floors weight; once this started, NONE of the floors (except, of course, the solid basement) had the integrity to stop it.
9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
No, it wouldn't slow the falling portion down at all... the reason being that, even without the additional kinetic energy of its momentum, the upper portion (which no longer had any support of its own) GREATLY exceeded each subsequent floors load bearing capability. As each floor collapsed, the falling mass increased with the addition of that floors weight; once this started, NONE of the floors (except, of course, the solid basement) had the integrity to stop it.
that's my point.
THE BUTT JOINTS damaged the building.
the damage was done when the towers were constructed.
The mass would increase with each destroyed LEVEL but that does not mean the kinetic energy increased or even remained constant with each level.
My model flattened or damaged 6 LEVELS below the point of impact. But there were 20 more that were even stronger that were further down and undamaged.
So why can't you build a multilevel physical model that does what you say instead of just TALK?
The Laws of Physics do not give a damn what anyone says.
psik
Interesting. Could you print out your model here, attach it or link to it? I would like to see how you handled the rather complicated physics.
Thanks in advance.
Indeed, the Laws of Physics don't give a damn, no matter how much YOU and your conspiracy-theory friends shout and stomp your feet...
You appear to not have the slightest clue about these buildings, nor why the subsequent levels were incapable of stopping or slowing the falling mass.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
So, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that no building is ever designed to withstand the kinetic energy produced when one level fails. The next time a building needs to be demolished, I'd like to see the demolition crew just rig up one floor and see if the top part of the building free-falls straight through the bottom part, demolishing everything in its path.
Pickeyhackr and his friends might not be able to change the laws of physics when they shout and stomp their feet, but Alex Jones on the other hand is said to actually have the power...
Not sure if that would work since the damage was not confined to one single level. We do have empirical evidence that flying a fully fueled jet at full throttle into a building will work but I think that is a very expensive way to do the demolition and we would need to fool religious zelots into thinking they were doing it for their god.
Neddy Bate
It depends on the building and how it is made. It would not work on the Empire State Building(whatever they are calling it now), because it is a concrete reinforced lattice structure, not a tube in a tube steel frame, truss floor structure like the Twin Towers. In the ES building the frame forms the floors, they are able to support each other and withstand falling debris, in the Twin Towers the floors might as well have not been there given how little rubble it took to make them fail. I'll ask you since psik has yet to answer it, how much resistance does a marble encounter if you drop it down a vertical tube? Once you answer that question you have the answer to how the Twin Towers failed so spectacularly. Most of the area of the remaining building was truss floor, unable to even hold just 2 floors worth of weight(they were built to only hold 1.5 times design load, that load being the live loads of just that one floor).
The white, unmarked areas only had this under them...
Which might as well have been empty air as far as stopping falling beams or other floors. Once collapse initiated the floors were stripped off of their connections and the unsupported walls and core fell to pieces, the walls falling over in long strips.
The building in the upper left of this photo is Building 7, the building the outer frame is leaning against is Building 6. Notice the severe damage visible on the front of building 7.
Grumpy
It depends on the building and how it is made. It would not work on the Empire State Building(whatever they are calling it now), because it is a concrete reinforced lattice structure, not a tube in a tube steel frame, truss floor structure like the Twin Towers. In the ES building the frame forms the floors, they are able to support each other and withstand falling debris, in the Twin Towers the floors might as well have not been there given how little rubble it took to make them fail. I'll ask you since psik has yet to answer it, how much resistance does a marble encounter if you drop it down a vertical tube? Once you answer that question you have the answer to how the Twin Towers failed so spectacularly. Most of the area of the remaining building was truss floor, unable to even hold just 2 floors worth of weight(they were built to only hold 1.5 times design load, that load being the live loads of just that one floor).
The white, unmarked areas only had this under them...
Which might as well have been empty air as far as stopping falling beams or other floors. Once collapse initiated the floors were stripped off of their connections and the unsupported walls and core fell to pieces, the walls falling over in long strips.
The building in the upper left of this photo is Building 7, the building the outer frame is leaning against is Building 6. Notice the severe damage visible on the front of building 7.
Grumpy
one of the main points to make is that this construction isn't like a framed house or like the empire state building.
the core and perimeter and floors ALL played a role in keeping those buildings erect.
take out enough of any one of them and those towers would collapse.
the floors themselves did not support any of the weight of the building but they DID prevent it from twisting and to a certain extent bending.
psik refuses to address the question of butt joints.
the core and perimeter and floors ALL played a role in keeping those buildings erect.
take out enough of any one of them and those towers would collapse.
the floors themselves did not support any of the weight of the building but they DID prevent it from twisting and to a certain extent bending.
psik refuses to address the question of butt joints.
Here's the thing - if you were to take a multi-story building and drop the top 10% of said structure several stories onto the rest of it, it probably WOULD bring down a large part of it, no matter how the building was built.
However, as Grumpy has shown time and again - the design of the Twin Towers was not designed to weather such stresses.
Here one of those long strips hit the Bankers building, there's a section of the outer frame stuck into it's face.
Those buildings were not solid, as the Empire State building is. They were mostly made of air, weak floors(as in strong enough to hold ONLY their own weight, unlike the Empire State), an empty outer tube of steel(and, as the photo shows, far from a solid wall) and an elevator core, but mostly air.
This is what the floor trusses looked like from below(those at the top of the photo)and above before the four inch lightweight concrete was poured for floors. A falling beam would either punch through the 1/8 inch thick floor pans or would strip the trusses at their inner and outer connections. When that happens the floor then provides no resistance at all.
Grympy
It is really funny how you people seem to know so much about "My Friends" when Phil Jayhan threatened to kick me off his site for ignoring their hollow towers bullsh!t.
And then you keep showing pictures of trusses that were the same due to the modular design of the towers but then we don't see pictures of the horizontal beams in the core. Were they the same all of the way down the towers?
But then we never hear how many connections there were for the floors all around the core and the perimeter. Funny that! And how could a mere collapse hurl steel horizontally fast enough to make it stick in other buildings? Show the evidence and don't care about an explanation for it. Curious!
It's that 9/11 Religion! Just Believe Brothers and Sisters!!!
psik
It is really funny how you people seem to know so much about "My Friends" when Phil Jayhan threatened to kick me off his site for ignoring their hollow towers bullsh!t.
And then you keep showing pictures of trusses that were the same due to the modular design of the towers but then we don't see pictures of the horizontal beams in the core. Were they the same all of the way down the towers?
But then we never hear how many connections there were for the floors all around the core and the perimeter. Funny that! And how could a mere collapse hurl steel horizontally fast enough to make it stick in other buildings? Show the evidence and don't care about an explanation for it. Curious!
It's that 9/11 Religion! Just Believe Brothers and Sisters!!!
psik
Science... the great thing about it is that it remains true, no matter if you wish to believe it or not.
psikeyhackr
As you can see, the core was basically a box within a box, with a perimeter of very heavy vertical beams(The 500,600,900 and 1000 rows)that were the main support for the core and top hat truss. Plus internal columns that tied the cross beams together and supported their spans. There was a perimeter u channel that surrounded the whole core at each floor, it is what the floor trusses transferred their load to on the core side. The men in the right hand photo are sitting on that perimeter u channel. The cross hatch steel behind those men is part of the climbing crane, not the structure, but the rightmost core column is one of the big boys. In the background behind them are the cross beams, which were the same on every floor, forming flooring squares in various configurations depending on the elevator placement of that floor. But the white areas were trusses little stronger than the main floor trusses, though they used 6 inches of regular weight concrete. Also note the partially assembled floor trusses behind that column to see just how puny those trusses were. The ONLY things that got stronger the lower you go are the steel thickness of the outer panels and the core columns, everything else was standardized and modular, including the crossbeams in the core.
Grumpy
As you can see, the core was basically a box within a box, with a perimeter of very heavy vertical beams(The 500,600,900 and 1000 rows)that were the main support for the core and top hat truss. Plus internal columns that tied the cross beams together and supported their spans. There was a perimeter u channel that surrounded the whole core at each floor, it is what the floor trusses transferred their load to on the core side. The men in the right hand photo are sitting on that perimeter u channel. The cross hatch steel behind those men is part of the climbing crane, not the structure, but the rightmost core column is one of the big boys. In the background behind them are the cross beams, which were the same on every floor, forming flooring squares in various configurations depending on the elevator placement of that floor. But the white areas were trusses little stronger than the main floor trusses, though they used 6 inches of regular weight concrete. Also note the partially assembled floor trusses behind that column to see just how puny those trusses were. The ONLY things that got stronger the lower you go are the steel thickness of the outer panels and the core columns, everything else was standardized and modular, including the crossbeams in the core.
Grumpy
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Grumpy,
I just don't get it. The floor connections look way too weak bring down that massive core. Why didn't the core remain standing? Surely the core was even more massive at the bottom than it was a the top, so even the top of the core would not have enough kinetic energy to destroy the bottom of the core. Doesn't it make more sense to assume that "something" drastically reduced the structural integrity of the core, and then the collapse followed from that? And by "something" I don't necessarily mean explosives, but I do mean something that was designed to demolish the buildings.
I just don't get it. The floor connections look way too weak bring down that massive core. Why didn't the core remain standing? Surely the core was even more massive at the bottom than it was a the top, so even the top of the core would not have enough kinetic energy to destroy the bottom of the core. Doesn't it make more sense to assume that "something" drastically reduced the structural integrity of the core, and then the collapse followed from that? And by "something" I don't necessarily mean explosives, but I do mean something that was designed to demolish the buildings.
It is really funny how you people seem to know so much about "My Friends" when Phil Jayhan threatened to kick me off his site for ignoring their hollow towers bullsh!t.
And then you keep showing pictures of trusses that were the same due to the modular design of the towers but then we don't see pictures of the horizontal beams in the core. Were they the same all of the way down the towers?
But then we never hear how many connections there were for the floors all around the core and the perimeter. Funny that! And how could a mere collapse hurl steel horizontally fast enough to make it stick in other buildings? Show the evidence and don't care about an explanation for it. Curious!
It's that 9/11 Religion! Just Believe Brothers and Sisters!!!
psik
I was interested in your model which showed that the towers wouldn't collapse apparently you missed my post. Here is a repost of it.
Neddy Bate
Neither the core, nor the perimeter frame could stand on their own, they were braced in the vertical position by three equipment floors and the dampers on all of the truss floors. And, undamaged, they did that for 30+ years, even surviving a big bomb in the basement in 1993. Those buildings fell because the damage the aircraft impacts reduced the safety factor built in to the design. If there had been no fires(or just small fires confined to non-critical areas)those buildings would likely still stand, having been repaired to as good as or better than new. But instead there were multi-floor, widespread fires ignited by the fuel in those planes. With the reduced safety factor, it took a little over an hour for the structural steel in Two to reach the point of catastrophic failure, and the floors all got stripped, the outer frames fell over, breaking the bolted joints, and the whole house of cards fell into a pile. An hour later Tower One showed it was not a fluke, physics acted exactly the same and One fell into a pile. All that held those beams together were a lot of 5/8 inch bolts at the but joints, their strength did not come from their connections(which were weak)but from their position above the lower beam, the weight being applied on a simple flat plate. All the bolts did is hold them in perfect vertical alignment. A few degrees of flex would break those bolts, and then the beam encountered zero resistence as it fell through the mostly empty outer frame, rubble pressure pushed all the outer frame outward and the core got turmed back inti single column pieces 36 feet long when their pathetic connections failed.
Again, the only thing more massive were the vertical beams and outer frame pieces, not the floors or crossbeams in the core. Once the frame pieces detached at the joints there was no mechanism for those beams to influence the fall of anything, the floors blew out enmass and were found, compressed into "Moon Rocks" under ALL of the other rubble(IE it beat them into the basement).
Grumpy
Neither the core, nor the perimeter frame could stand on their own, they were braced in the vertical position by three equipment floors and the dampers on all of the truss floors. And, undamaged, they did that for 30+ years, even surviving a big bomb in the basement in 1993. Those buildings fell because the damage the aircraft impacts reduced the safety factor built in to the design. If there had been no fires(or just small fires confined to non-critical areas)those buildings would likely still stand, having been repaired to as good as or better than new. But instead there were multi-floor, widespread fires ignited by the fuel in those planes. With the reduced safety factor, it took a little over an hour for the structural steel in Two to reach the point of catastrophic failure, and the floors all got stripped, the outer frames fell over, breaking the bolted joints, and the whole house of cards fell into a pile. An hour later Tower One showed it was not a fluke, physics acted exactly the same and One fell into a pile. All that held those beams together were a lot of 5/8 inch bolts at the but joints, their strength did not come from their connections(which were weak)but from their position above the lower beam, the weight being applied on a simple flat plate. All the bolts did is hold them in perfect vertical alignment. A few degrees of flex would break those bolts, and then the beam encountered zero resistence as it fell through the mostly empty outer frame, rubble pressure pushed all the outer frame outward and the core got turmed back inti single column pieces 36 feet long when their pathetic connections failed.
Again, the only thing more massive were the vertical beams and outer frame pieces, not the floors or crossbeams in the core. Once the frame pieces detached at the joints there was no mechanism for those beams to influence the fall of anything, the floors blew out enmass and were found, compressed into "Moon Rocks" under ALL of the other rubble(IE it beat them into the basement).
Grumpy
This is the video, a description is below it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo
Here is a computer program that simulates collisions of 100+ masses to show the effect of the Conservation of Momentum on collapse time due to mass distribution.
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=64306#64306
If the masses are all equal the collapse time will be 11.9 seconds. So if the distribution is bottom heavy the time goes up. But that does not take into account the effect of energy lost due to breakage of supports. So it the computed collapse time is close to the real collapse time then for some reason supports did not slow down the collapse of the real building.
So how could that happen?
psik
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Thank you for the information, Grumpy. But if the core and perimeter frame could not stand on their own, then I don't understand how they could support the floors on their own. I am imagining three "house of cards" towers in a row, each on the verge of failing at all times. Next I try to span some uncooked spaghetti between the center tower of cards (core) and the outer two towers of cards (perimeter). The spaghetti just makes the outer towers of cards lean inward and crash. Where is the strength? Earlier you mentioned a marble encountering no resistance as it falls through a tube. Now you are saying that the tube is so weak that it would fail without the marble holding it up. It's circular reasoning, and it just amounts to a house of cards, (like the video that Billvon posted), where there were no connections between the components.
If you are happy with this explanation, then that is fine. However, I find it highly implausible that the buildings were essentially as unstable as "houses of cards". They had to be designed to withstand lateral forces of hurricane winds, and even the unlikely scenario of a jet collision. I suppose you also know of a an explanation, (which I presume you find satisfactory), for the eyewitness testimony regarding molten steel found under ground zero, in some cases more than a month after the event. But please forgive me if I am not so easily satisfied. Something just doesn't seem right here.
- Status