I agree that some truthers do this, but I think they do it much less, because they know they're fighting against the current and so are generally more careful with the arguments they make. In any case, I think it's safe to say that you, me, Tony and Headspin go for the evidence that has the most backing and I haven't really seen any of us disagree on anything of importance.
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
I agree that some truthers do this, but I think they do it much less, because they know they're fighting against the current and so are generally more careful with the arguments they make. In any case, I think it's safe to say that you, me, Tony and Headspin go for the evidence that has the most backing and I haven't really seen any of us disagree on anything of importance.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I had hoped for intelligent answers. I forgot who I was asking. Mea culpa.
.
If you think asking about Putin calling Bush is relevant to the collapse of buildings in New York, that is your business. Did Putin even tell Bush something was going to happen in New York? How much evidence do you have that the call even occurred?
I was able to find this:
http://fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/051602_liewontstand.html
Provide a link indicating that Putin called Bush the day before because that is what you said.
psik
you never responded to my response to your post on page 95.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2170746&postcount=1885
do you consider my post an unintelligent response? if so, why?
maybe you just didn't see or read my response ?
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
First, there was only a butt joint every third column since they were staggered.
The butt joint was also fairly robust with heavy end plates and ASTM A325 bolts, which NIST says met the 120,000 psi rating. This situation would have retained at least 50% of the strength of the column. So if you had a butt joint every third column then the bending resistance would have been about 83% of what it would have been if there were no butt joints. The perimeter columns themselves had a minimum factor of safety of 5.00 to 1 so if you factor in the butt joints it would be derated to 4.15 to 1. That means the columns, even with the butt joints, were only stressed at 24% of their capacity. This is really strong Leopold!
The butt joints had nothing to do with why the buildings collapsed and the photos show this. So what is your point?
Last edited:
.
If it can't be blamed on the building then what can it be blamed on?
He might have to seriously consider accepting the unacceptable.
psik
Generally speaking, any type of connection can be as weak or as strong as a structural designer chooses to make it.
A butt joint type of connection can be a moment connection ( or even stronger ), or, weaker than a moment connection. A moment connection, for the benefit of anyone not being familiar with structural design, simply means that the connection is as strong as the two members being connected. It is as if the two connected members were instead one monolithic piece. It would be very surprising if the WTC structural designer did not design the column butt joint connections, and also the spandrel butt joint connections, to be moment connections. There would have been no reason whatever to design the column or spandrel connections to be weaker than moment connections. In fact, it would have been derelict to design them weaker than moment connections.
The type of connection between column modules is not the issue of greatest importance. What is important is whether the connection between columns, and, between spandrels, was as strong as need be.
A butt joint type of connection can be designed to be stronger than if the two connected pieces were actually one large single piece.
I do not visit this thread with the ambition to get into an argument with any misanthrope about whether they have ascribed to me a statement that I really did not make. In all future interaction with this thread, I will ignore any case of someone perhaps morphing my previous statements ( Heaven knows that none of the saints round here would ever tell a lie about anything ).
It is not in my interest or that of anyone else to waste even more time or energy to argue about who lied or who did not concerning someone else's statements.
What difference does it make whether you believe that It is easy or hard for me to admit a mistake? I do not appear on this site to try to prove my virtue to you. And it is not your job as a human being to judge my virtue.
I'm all for the possibility that someone may have lied, misquoted or misinterpreted something you've said. However, I myself haven't seen any evidence of such and you haven't provided any.
Uno Hoo said:
When -I- believe that someone has gotten something wrong, whether it's me or someone else, I have gone to great lengths to ferret out just who is at fault. But to each their own. The comments you continue to make, in my view, are quite helpful. I just hope that you and Tony can get along again because you both seem to know a fair amount concerning the design of buildings.
Uno Hoo said:
I'm certainly not getting paid for it, laugh
. Personally, I think that everyone judges everyone else after a bit in threads. They may not make their judgement known, but I still believe it's there. Frequently they -do- make their judgement known in one way or another. Anyway, the people who's judgement I tend to care about the most are the people who have been kindest to me as well as the people who I feel to be right; understandably, I have cared a great deal about how people like Tony, Headspin and psikey think of me, but I also care about people who haven't made up their minds (at present that would be you and perhaps fedr at times) as well as people who still essentially believe in the official storyline (MacGyver, Stryder, leopold, shaman and a few others who pop their heads in now and then). There are a few others who have been somewhat harsher and whose estimation I frequently ignore.And remember this: Notice how massive the spandrels are. The inward pull of a floor structure that was trying to collapse would need to cause the spandrels to buckle if the structure as a whole were to fail. The floor structure was designed to support 5 times the Building Code required load. Therefore, the spandrels were designed to resist buckling under an inward pull equal to 5 times the Building Code required load.
And a very important point has been raised. The massive weight of the building above a claimed point of failure would have provided a great amount of friction of an upper column module upon a lower column module. Disregarding the shear strength of the bolts in the column-to-column butt joint, the friction would have provided quite a bit of resistance to the column and spandrel being pulled in at a claimed point of failure. Such friction resistance to inward buckling is not normally a factor in designing a floor to column/spandrel connection, so, this aforementioned friction is an additional factor, a bonus, in favor of the building having been strong enough to resist the ravage of fire.
As has already been pointed out by someone, the building(s) were still standing a minute after the impact(s), so the immediate structural damage alone was not fatal.
And, as each bit of evidence of structural robustness is advanced by someone, it seems to become more likely that the building(s) were strong enough to resist harm by ensuing fire. The columns and spandrels were not insulated against heat being conducted from some hot area into all other cooler areas. A hot fire in the storey which was visited by the jetliner would have quite well had its heat conducted into columns and spandrels above and below. And being cooled by relatively free exposure to the atmosphere outside. It must seem unlikely that the columns and spandrels could have wound up being weakened by fire enough to have buckled and been pulled inward even if the floor joists had been weakened enough to sag.
Even if we presume that the floor structure sagged, let us think about this: the movie of the collapse(s) do not show the columns and spandrels being displaced inward. The movie just shows the building moving down.
Even if we presume that the floor structure sagged and initiate a pancake, then the floor structure of each storey would have been tearing loose from its connection with its columns/spandrels and plummeting. If the floor structures pancaked, then the floors would have been falling while the columns/spandrels which they had torn loose from would have been standing as before. Explain, somebody, if floors pancaking caused the collapse, how do floors torn loose from the perimeter columns cause the columns to fall?
Even if we presume, otherwise, that the sagging floors pulled the perimeter columns inward enough/pulled the spandrels inward enough to buckle, so as to initiate building dropping, we still have a big problem. Explain, somebody, why we do not see, in the movie, the columns/spandrels moving inward? Or, outward, for that matter?
As I said in an earlier post, possible tampering with the connection bolts could have enabled the jetliner to knock down columns instead of only itself being vaporized ala F4 Phantom. But, attributing the building collapse to tampered bolts leads to the contradiction that such changes in the building structure are not seemingly proved by the visible evidence in the movie.
A few days ago, while sitting in my garden and drinking my first cup of coffee, I realized how Thermite demolition could have have hypothetically been placed, been directed by being shaped, and have brought down the building(s). With the movie evidence being what it is. I am happily satisfied that I have solved the case, including recognizing how to go on the hunt for the crooks. Perhaps I will eventually share my findings with the honest and truthful posters here, who never tell lies about each other's statements, or perhaps I will sit by and enjoy the spectacle of how some posters attack each other, whether fairly or unfairly, rather like the spectacle of male squirrels in mating season who chase each other round and round in Oak trees with the motive of biting each other's genitals off.
Molten metal flow down outside of building: With at least 58 tons of Aluminum available in an impacted storey, it is fair to assume that burning jet fuel temperature would have provided more than enough gallons of molten Aluminum to make a waterfall like witnessed and photographed. The 58 tons of Aluminum did not pop into hyperspace. It had to melt and spill out. Yellow color? The photograph displaying goldy yellow color is poorly exposed. The building and goldy waterfall is two stops or more overexposed. A correct exposure would show much less or no goldy color. But, a goldy color can be ably explained by the presence of coloring agents in molten Aluminum that is not hot enough to do much glowing. Copper, present in every storey of a building like WTC, exhibits a lovely goldy color when in alloy with Aluminum in certain percentages which would have been entirely possible in WTC. Also, it would have entirely possible for fiberglass batt insulation to have been involved in an waterfall of Aluminum. Fiberglass batts were a soundproofing material, which quite likely would have been present in the interior partitions of any storey in the WTC. Many fiberglass batts Have a characteristic yellow dye placed upon the fiberglass during manufacture.
Conspiratorial Thermite demolition, had it occurred, could have been carried out in such a way as to have produced much less of an amount of molten metal. And, Thermite demolition, had it occurred, could have been done at such a location that it would not have probably been noticed, in all the excitement, no matter how many hundred gallons of molten metal it made. Ask yourself this question: Even if you are a dumb and crazy crook, are you going to do the Thermite trick way up in the air at the storey that was hit by the plane, where everybody is watching on tv, or are you going to do it somewhere else where it might not be easily noticed? It is much the more likely that Thermite demolition, if it was a fact, was not up in the air on tv, but rather was somewhere else more clandestine.
I have solved this case to my own satisfaction, and it is of no further consequence to me whether the thread starter appreciates my virtue, or not, or whether other good ole boys, who don't really lie about each other's posts
, complain about me and then cavort to try to chew each other's balls off linguistically.
Last edited:
How did fire cause this less than one hour after impact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0
I hadn't seen this particular shot before. The bottom of the sheared off section moved at least 20 feet to the right while levels above went left. There is a combined rotate and tilt going on there. Columns had to be completely sheared. And then we don't know the tons of steel and concrete on each level that had to be moved at least 20 feet in 4 seconds.
That is 3.4 miles per hour. That doesn't seem very fast but when it had to involve hundreds of tons that is a hell of a lot. So how did fire do it sideways?
psik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0
I hadn't seen this particular shot before. The bottom of the sheared off section moved at least 20 feet to the right while levels above went left. There is a combined rotate and tilt going on there. Columns had to be completely sheared. And then we don't know the tons of steel and concrete on each level that had to be moved at least 20 feet in 4 seconds.
That is 3.4 miles per hour. That doesn't seem very fast but when it had to involve hundreds of tons that is a hell of a lot. So how did fire do it sideways?
psik
my point is that they were used in load bearing structural members of an innovative design.
i now have serious questions as to was else the designer did, what other corners he cut.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
You are completely ignoring the fact that "with butt joints" there was a safety factor of at least 4.15 to 1. That is extremely robust.
Innovation requires using all of the means available and the WTC design did that in a remarkable way. The staggering took care of what you are concerned about. There were no corners cut. John Skilling is on record as saying the perimeter column design was so strong that all of the columns of one wall and two corners could be removed and the building could still withstand a 100 mph wind.
The design was extremely strong and it seems you are making a non-sensical argument based on an unsupportable bias you seem to have. You are not looking at facts here.
Have you ever designed a structure of any sort?
Last edited:
I uploaded a piece of the video I'm still editing to Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI
It uses cut down pieces of toothpicks to resist a falling mass. In other segments I am still editing 17 toothpicks without washers will stop the falling mass which is a stack of 20 washers weighing 3.8 oz. moving at 8 ft/sec. But adding stationary mass to my toothpicks stops the falling mass within 6 to 8 toothpicks. So adding mass does not cause more to be broken so not knowing the distribution of mass in the WTC but believing the top could come down and destroy the rest is ridiculous.
It will probably be another week or so to finish the rest.
psik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYG9cdgwyqI
It uses cut down pieces of toothpicks to resist a falling mass. In other segments I am still editing 17 toothpicks without washers will stop the falling mass which is a stack of 20 washers weighing 3.8 oz. moving at 8 ft/sec. But adding stationary mass to my toothpicks stops the falling mass within 6 to 8 toothpicks. So adding mass does not cause more to be broken so not knowing the distribution of mass in the WTC but believing the top could come down and destroy the rest is ridiculous.
It will probably be another week or so to finish the rest.
psik
.
And how can any of that account for how and why the building came down in less than 18 seconds?
psik
yes, on the record.
he says something else entirely behind the scenes, i have it in writing tony.
no, i haven't designed any kind of structure except for erector sets, but i do know that common sense doesn't always work in situations like the WTC.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
Leopold you need to show what you say John Skilling said off the record, that you are implying would contradict what he said publicly? I would like to see what the actual quote was that you say you have in writing. Don't forget to add sources.
oops, it seems i made a mistake.
i know what you are thinking, "yeah, sure you did"
actually it wasn't john skilling that i have but leslie robertson.
as you may or may not know leslie design WTC 1 and 2.
unfortunately i cannot post any of it because of the following disclaimer:
NOTE: This article is meant for the informational purposes to the design community and friends of Leslie Robertson. It is not to be published, reproduced, or quoted publicly . . .
Last edited:
- Status