I'm not an engineer, or anything, but what you wrote doesn't really make sense. A computer model is just calculations. So to say that the only acceptable procedure is to do calculations, and not use a computer model is a faux'pas surely?
big red bulls eye on the wtc in 9/11
- Thread starter fedr808
- Start date
I'm not an engineer, or anything, but what you wrote doesn't really make sense. A computer model is just calculations. So to say that the only acceptable procedure is to do calculations, and not use a computer model is a faux'pas surely?
You are thoroughly confused. I said that the use of a physical model is somewhat irrelevant.
When you get to be an engineer, (when Hell freezes over solid to the core) then come and argue with an engineer. Until then, buzz off.
show me the post where i said such a thing.
edit:
do me a favor and go back to your self imposed ban.
A clear effort to misstate what has been said about the WTC. Typical twoofer effort to misrepresent.
You are overstating the strength by an order of magnitude. Also the Port Authority doe snot have to follow the city skyscraper codes.
Well then I was therefore agreeing with you, so this reply now doesn't make sense. Real models can't be scaled for everything, but computer models can get close for building the structures. But not close for the exact demolishion of them through random factors.
Why are you saying moment of inertia? That's a resistance to rotational rate. That revolutionary innovation opened up floor space. The rest of your statement does not tell us anything at all relevant to the issue at hand.
The irrelevant input is from you.
The Strong central columns of both one and 2 were taken out by the planes the weight above the weakened columns was to much for them to bare they pancaked.Once the ball got rolling gravity took over as the building fell more and more weight was placed on the floors below exceeding there designed limits the build started to do an implode on sorts all the way to the ground. The design of the building was for both units of load the outside walls and the inside columns one could not stand with out the other and the heat from the fire was a contributing factor as well as mentioned before the hotter stell gets the weaker it becomes at 600 degrees it will loss half of it strength and after 800 to 1000 degrees it will start to melt.
"Moment of inertia" is a very, very, familiar expression to anybody who has ever done structural engineering design work. You obviously are completely bluffing when you claim to have any slightest expertise in structural design.
You are very obviously totally ignorant of any important aspect of the structural design and integrity of the towers and are obviously a troll.
Where is my spray can of roach and troll exterminator?
Well, then, tell us in your next post the pounds per square foot of floor area of live load that, in your humble opinion, the towers were required to be structurally designed to support.
I'm not the one feigning expertise. You are. The factor is 2 to 3.
Besides the value you asked for here is nonsense. The value is dependent on the vertical position in the structure.
It's clear who the troll is.
Anybody who has many years experience fighting fires, and dealing with fire damaged structures will tell you that that particular floor design is globally recognized as being notorious for sagging and collapsing under fire conditions (another simple fact that truthers don't want you to think about).
DEAR RESPECTED SCIENCE COLLEAGUE STEREOLOGIST; You were asked to provide, compatible with your structural engineering competence, the pounds per square foot of live load that the towers were required to have their floor structures designed for.
You have not provided such a number. Anybody actually familiar with structural engineering would have instantly known what what was asked and would have posted a useful number. You are either a fraud or you are playing a silly joke on us by pretending to be one just to get our reaction.
I have used up a good part of my valuable time to try to make a serious input in this thread on a subject that is a VERY SERIOUS ONE. You seem to be just trying to argue for the fun of it. You have been outed.
You have not provided such a number. Anybody actually familiar with structural engineering would have instantly known what what was asked and would have posted a useful number. You are either a fraud or you are playing a silly joke on us by pretending to be one just to get our reaction.
I have used up a good part of my valuable time to try to make a serious input in this thread on a subject that is a VERY SERIOUS ONE. You seem to be just trying to argue for the fun of it. You have been outed.
DEAR RESPECTED SCIENCE COLLEAGUE Trippy: You have certainly been exuberant in trying to wow me, and, us, with dramatic pictures.
[Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
Anybody who mouth offs and says that a floor truss will simultaneously sag too much to carry its own weight and at the same time will expand and irresistibly push over a phenomenally strong strong column network is hallucinating.]
Would you be so kind and friendly as to carefully (if possible) read (actually, now, reread ) my original statement, posted just above, for your convenience. To be sure that you can find it.
Please especially notice the mutually contradictory concepts. Perhaps you were initially too busy with other, important, business when you first glanced at my original post.
1. mutually contradictory concept: a floor truss will sag too much to carry its own weight....
2. mutually contradictory concept: at the same time will expand and irresistibly push over a phenomenally strong column ....
3. mutually contradictory concept: ...a phenomenally strong column network.
Your dramatic pictures show some events which seem to have happened somewhat at the same time epoch. You seem to be claiming a specific train of cause-and-effect which you have not done nothing in the slightest to substantiate.
Tell me again WAIT A MINUTE! You have not told me the first time! Tell me how a floor truss, which is too heat soaked and sags like a wet noodle, can push with enough virility against a column to disrupt it. Perhaps you think that the perimeter column network was not phenomenally strong. Perhaps you think that the towers structural design was not revolutionary and uniquely strong. If so, tell us how and why it was actually pitifully weak. Perhaps you think that the columns were sabotaged so that their inherent design superiority was severely compromised, so that their actual strength at the time of their demise was but a mere shadow of their superior design strength; If so, please tell us how and why their strength was sabotaged.
Whatever you do, please supply to me the human courtesy of actually reading my post and properly understanding it, rather than again hallucinating some other post and some other wrong understanding.
[Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
Anybody who mouth offs and says that a floor truss will simultaneously sag too much to carry its own weight and at the same time will expand and irresistibly push over a phenomenally strong strong column network is hallucinating.]
Would you be so kind and friendly as to carefully (if possible) read (actually, now, reread ) my original statement, posted just above, for your convenience. To be sure that you can find it.
Please especially notice the mutually contradictory concepts. Perhaps you were initially too busy with other, important, business when you first glanced at my original post.
1. mutually contradictory concept: a floor truss will sag too much to carry its own weight....
2. mutually contradictory concept: at the same time will expand and irresistibly push over a phenomenally strong column ....
3. mutually contradictory concept: ...a phenomenally strong column network.
Your dramatic pictures show some events which seem to have happened somewhat at the same time epoch. You seem to be claiming a specific train of cause-and-effect which you have not done nothing in the slightest to substantiate.
Tell me again WAIT A MINUTE! You have not told me the first time! Tell me how a floor truss, which is too heat soaked and sags like a wet noodle, can push with enough virility against a column to disrupt it. Perhaps you think that the perimeter column network was not phenomenally strong. Perhaps you think that the towers structural design was not revolutionary and uniquely strong. If so, tell us how and why it was actually pitifully weak. Perhaps you think that the columns were sabotaged so that their inherent design superiority was severely compromised, so that their actual strength at the time of their demise was but a mere shadow of their superior design strength; If so, please tell us how and why their strength was sabotaged.
Whatever you do, please supply to me the human courtesy of actually reading my post and properly understanding it, rather than again hallucinating some other post and some other wrong understanding.
My understanding was that the collapse was not initiated from the expansion. The truss didn't push the wall over. The sagging (and possibly cooling) floors pulled the perimeter columns inward, which led to the collapse. Look at the photos again.
Sure there may have been some initial pushing with thermal expansion. The outer walls probably resisted it the expansion, although I doubt the steel was like a "wet noodle".
I like MacGuyver's description.
1. Floor trusses that extended from the perimeter columns to the core columns were stripped of their sprayed on, foam fireproofing in the initial impact from the shreds of the plane. The resulting fires heated these floor trusses until they begin to sag in the middle, pulling on their connection on either end, until the connection failed. These floor trusses not only support the weight of an individual floor, but provide lateral support to the perimeter columns. When enough of these floor trusses failed, the already overstressed perimeter columns lost their lateral support, buckled and failed. Here is a picture that shows the floor trusses and how light of a construct they were:
Last edited:
UNO HOO, I've already stated that this value is immaterial. If you want this number you'll need to find it yourself. I don't have to do your bidding. All you've done is post some fraudulent values to support a false claim.
Firstly, at this point I strongly doubt you're sufficiently qualified to consider yourself my peer. Generally I expect plebs who wish to address me formally to address me as 'Sir' 'Master' or 'Lord and Saviour'.
Secondly, you accuse me of trying to argue from a logical fallacy, when all I have done is provide direct evidence that these processes were occuring simultaneously. Your inability to understand how they could occur simultaneously does not represent a flaw in the theory, only a flaw in your understanding of the theory.
Correct
Strawman logical fallacy.
argumentum ad ingnoratiam
As far as I am aware, the NIST mechanism does not require pushing forces, only pulling forces. If you believe otherwise, please, feel free to cite page and paragraph number of the appropriate document that explicitly states that pushing forces were involved.
This is a strawman fallacy because you're arguing against an argument that you yourself have setup.
This is an argument from ignorance because your argument boils down to "I can not imagine X happening, therefore X did not happen".
It will take a little effort on my part (effort I don't really have time for just now) but I am 98% certain that I can find photos of steel structural elements that have both sagged and pushed out through walls as a result of fires.
Here's a clue:
Do you think that in this area gravity applies horizontally?
Let's assume that you're right,just for a minute, and the NIST mechanism does in fact require pushing, rather than pulling forces, the term 'sag' and the fact that the floors sagged doesn't neccessarily imply a simple in ability to support it's own weight. Steel expands as it heats, which provides a pushing force. In the situation of the WTC, that pushing force is going to do two things simultaneously (because the force applies in two directions) it's going to push outwards against the core colums, and the permiter columns, but, it will also cause the floors to have the apperance of sagging under their own weight (my recollection/understanding is that such forces will tend to act in concert with pre-existing forces, in this case, gravity).
Proof please?
The towers were constructed with 35 or 36ksi steel (as I recall). Please demonstrate how this qualifies as phenomenally strong.
Please clarify the division between Phenomenally strong and exceptionally strong.
Please clarify the scale you're using.
Or, stop using emotive, unquantafiable adjectives.
They demonstrate that these forces were occuring contemperanously.
They demonstrate a correlation between floor sag and perimeter column bowing.
Appeal to ignorance.
Strawman.
You continue using emotive adjectives rather than useful facts and figures.
I can not address your argument, because there is nothing but empty air to address.
I precisely addressed your post by providing hard evidence that these processes occured at the same time.
I also at the same time demonstrated a correlation between these processes.
Apparently, however, you lack the cognitive function to be able to understand the implications of the images provided.