WTC Collapses

[psikeyhackr]

Your model is too simple to yield anything but the most basic data. You only account for mass and velocity, and nothing else. Other factors need to be considered in such a complex chain of events. Your model doesn't account for material strength or any other details. I'm not an expert in physics..but these are the issues I see.

.
ha

Cheap dodge! I admitted that I was ignoring the strength of material supports but that would simply have slowed things down even more. I was DEMONSTRATING that mass alone slowed things down even with gravitational acceleration and it was the change relative to freefall that mattered. Only the inverted masses with the heaviest weights at the top came down with the same percentage of change from freefall as the north tower. The others took even longer without material strength. Your debating FUN is nothing but word games.

This 9/11 crap will go on FOREVER with people doing nothing but playing word games.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

.
ha

Cheap dodge! I admitted that I was ignoring the strength of material supports but that would simply have slowed things down even more. I was DEMONSTRATING that mass alone slowed things down even with gravitational acceleration and it was the change relative to freefall that mattered. Only the inverted masses with the heaviest weights at the top came down with the same percentage of change from freefall as the north tower. The others took even longer without material strength. Your debating FUN is nothing but word games.

This 9/11 crap will go on FOREVER with people doing nothing but playing word games.

psik

What did I dodge? You asked me what was wrong with your idea, and I told you. Simple formulas yield simple results. No word games involved.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That information was covered previously. The buildings Steel framework was made from lighter steel the closer you got to the top of the building, they didn't use the same Grade throughout the whole structure because it would of added un-necessary cost to the construction since the building was designed to support it's own weight with a margin for office equipment and people. It was never designed to take an impact, only retrofitted in case of an accident.

This basically means that during a fire it wouldn't take as long for the upper floors steel to distort than the higher grade steel of the floors below.

Yes, the steel did not need to be as heavy wall as the tower ascended but that was due to lighter loads and is done in all high rise buildings. However, you don't seem to be too sure about just what grade steel was used where and why, so I copied some information for you and others and posted it here.

The steel at the top was not a weaker grade. The core columns were standard structural steel per ASTM A36 with a 36,000 psi yield strength from bottom to top. The perimeter columns used different grades and at the top of the building they were, in fact, 65,000 psi yield high strength steel. The factor of safety of the core columns was 3.00 to 1 everywhere and the perimeter columns 5.00 to 1 minimum when considering gravity loads only.

This is from an article in an issue of the Engineering News Record from the time the towers were built.

The steel superstructure rising from the continuous foundations will contain steels of four basic stress grades A36 (36,000psi yield strength), A441 (50,000-psi yield strength), high-strength steel (65,000-psi yield strength) and heat-treated constructional alloy steel (100,000-psi yield strength).

For record-height towers of New York's World Trade Center, engineers proportion columns to avoid floor warpage when high-strength steels are used for exterior columns and A36 steel for interior columns.

A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

The procedure calls for proportioning of columns in each story for the same unit stress under gravity loads, regardless of the grade of steel in the columns. Thus, all columns will shorten the same amount, and differential shortening will be eliminated as a possible cause of floor warpage. The reserve strength of high strength steel members will then be available to resist wind stresses.

The structural engineers adopted this particular design because of the great length of the columns, use of different grades of steel and their plan to take wind stresses in the exterior columns only.

The concept was explained to the New York Architectural League by John Skilling, a partner in Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson, of Seattle, consulting structural engineers on the World Trade Center (see p. 124).

Record-height towers. The. Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center will provide offices and exhibit areas for government agencies, trade services and private business concerned with exports and imports. The project will occupy a 16-acre site along the Hudson River in downtown Manhattan. Its twin towers, 110 stories high, will be 100 ft taller than the Empire State Building (excluding its TV antennas on --top), currently the world's tallest building (ENR Jan. 23, p. 33). Rising the full 1,3 50-ft height without a setback, each tower will be 208 ft square. It will be designed to resist a 45-psf wind, with both low sway and low acceleration.

Exterior columns will be spaced 39 inches c-c. Made of various high-strength steels, they will be 14-inch square hollow-box sections, for high torsional and bending resistance, and windows will be set between them. Spandrels welded to the columns at each floor will convert the exterior walls into giant Vierendeel trusses.

Interior columns are all in or around the elevator-stairway core. Thus, the office areas are free of columns. All the core columns will be made of A36 steel (36,000-psi yield point). As a result, corner columns at the base of the core may be solid steel as large as 2 x 8 ft in section.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Actually it doesn't fit. You see simply there were two planes that crashed into the buildings, they were witnessed by many bystanders, the wreckage of these planes was found strewn around that definitely identified them as planes. I watched the actually event as it was televised world wide and it was definitely planes (When the first plane hit I thought it was a film on the television that hadn't been advertised but then when the commentary started to state about what had just happened and then the second plane hit, reality sank in.)

There is so much proof identifying that simply planes were used to demolish targets (or just cause extensive damage. They probably didn't think it would bring them down) and no proof for demolitions, just a bunch of "truthers" running around in circles, trying to pick holes in reality.

First, nobody here is denying that planes hit the towers. The real question is how much damage did they do. I know how much damage they did. It doesn't sound like you actually know how much damage the planes did or didn't do. If you haven't you should read the NIST report and you will learn. The NIST has even admitted that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapses. They are trying to say fire caused it but they don't have any pyhsical evidence for high temperatures in the steel because they got only 236 pieces out of 50,000 from the towers and what they have did not experience high temperatures.

You probably also don't know that the collapses initiated on floors above the aircraft damage. The North Tower collapse initiated at the 98th floor and the aircraft nose hit the building at the 95th and 96th floor at a 10 degree downward pitch angle. The South Tower was hit at the 78th and 79th floor with the aircraft at a 6 degree downward pich angle yet the collapse initiated at the 82nd floor. If you don't believe me read the NIST report on it.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What did I dodge? You asked me what was wrong with your idea, and I told you. Simple formulas yield simple results. No word games involved.

.
I said in FALL OF PHYSICS:

So I have done the calculations for 3 "magical" cases. In each case four masses are magically suspended and when struck from above each mass is released with no resistance.

.
So I admitted that from the start but you then tell me this:

Your model doesn't account for material strength or any other details.

.
Now the whole point of the thing was to show that "merely" varying the distribution of mass changed the collapse time. So what sense does it make to have been talking about the collapses of the towers for SEVEN YEARS without demanding the distribution of mass when plenty of people have been pointing out that they came down TOO FAST for most of the seven years?

But you say nothing about the changes in collapse times due to mass distribution. So I have to wonder if you understood the entire point of the exercise you are criticizing.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

The factor of safety of the core columns was 3.00 to 1 everywhere and the perimeter columns 5.00 to 1 minimum when considering gravity loads only.

.
So a tower should not have been able to collapse in less than 18 seconds even if it was only supported by the core columns or perimeter columns.

psik

 

[scott3x]

The factor of safety of the core columns was 3.00 to 1 everywhere and the perimeter columns 5.00 to 1 minimum when considering gravity loads only.

So a tower should not have been able to collapse in less than 18 seconds even if it was only supported by the core columns or perimeter columns.

Yep. From what I understand, not a single floor should have collapsed due to the jets and jet fuel initiated fires. However, that's harder to prove; the speed of the collapses is the hardest thing for the experts to swallow though. Some do, ofcourse. Many psychiatrists and psychologists have weighed in on why many people still believe the 9/11 story...

 

[MacGyver1968]

.

So I have to wonder if you understood the entire point of the exercise you are criticizing.

psik

You called it...I don't understand everything your saying...that's why I asked you several pages ago clarify your position. I don't understand how you can think 15 floors of mass in motion, and continuously feed by gravitational acceleration, would be effected so much by the static intertia and structural strength of one floor, that it would eventually slow, and then stop. This gives me a "does not compute" error.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Yep. From what I understand, not a single floor should have collapsed due to the jets and jet fuel initiated fires. However, that's harder to prove; the speed of the collapses is the hardest thing for the experts to swallow though. Some do, ofcourse. Many psychiatrists and psychologists have weighed in on why many people still believe the 9/11 story...

.
Of course the psychiatrists and psychologists that BELIEVE the official story have psychological explanations for the conspiracy nuts.

Now of course if it is ever PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that planes could not bring the buildings down then they can be declared INSANE.

psik

 

[scott3x]

Yep. From what I understand, not a single floor should have collapsed due to the jets and jet fuel initiated fires. However, that's harder to prove; the speed of the collapses is the hardest thing for the experts to swallow though. Some do, ofcourse. Many psychiatrists and psychologists have weighed in on why many people still believe the 9/11 story...

Of course the psychiatrists and psychologists that BELIEVE the official story have psychological explanations for the conspiracy nuts.

Now of course if it is ever PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that planes could not bring the buildings down then they can be declared INSANE.

psik

I don't know about insane; it brings to mind people in mental wards. From what I've heard from some of these psychologists and psychiatrists, it's more an issue of denying something that's hard for many to imagine. I think that Tova Gabrielle , who has an M.A. in Counseling Psychology, puts it fairly well in her article The Psychology Of Patriotic Denial

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It was never designed to take an impact, only retrofitted in case of an accident.

Stryder, I have to wonder where you get your information on the collapse of the towers and their design. I have been amazed at some of the stunningly erroneous comments you have made.

The towers were certainly designed to take an impact.

The towers were designed by John Skilling of the Seattle engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle, & Jackson.

Asked in 1993 if he had considered plane crashes in his design Skilling referred to a 1964 analysis of just this issue: “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all of the fuel would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... the building structure would still be there.” This quote is from City in the Sky, Glanz and Lipton.

The 1964 analysis was based on a fully loaded 707-320B or DC-8 weighing approximately 334,000 lbs. and moving at 600 mph impacting the building anywhere. The NIST acknowledged in their report that they saw the white paper which said these were the reults of the analysis Skilling mentions. Both the weight and speed of the aircraft considered in the analysis were greater than that of the actual aircraft that hit them since they only had a 40% fuel load and were moving slower.

Let's also not forget that the collapses actually initiated above the impact damage, so use a little imagination here. Wouldn't having aircraft impact the buildings in a spectacular way and cause large fires and then blaming those circumstances for the collapses cause most people to not have a second thought about it? It is called a causal ruse.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You called it...I don't understand everything your saying...that's why I asked you several pages ago clarify your position. I don't understand how you can think 15 floors of mass in motion, and continuously feed by gravitational acceleration, would be effected so much by the static intertia and structural strength of one floor, that it would eventually slow, and then stop. This gives me a "does not compute" error.

.
Suppose we had these 15 levels in outer space and no gravity. We also have 15 levels spaced apart, a level, a 12 foot gap, another level, another 12 foot gap etc. So the 15 levels hit one level and it slows down because of conservation of momentum. Now there is a gain in kinetic energy because of the increased mass but there is also a loss of kinetic energy because of reduced velocity. But since velocity is squared in the kinetic energy equation the loss is greater than the gain. So every impact is a NET LOSS in kinetic energy and that does not count any losses due to bending steel and breaking concrete.

Now in outer space the net effect of hitting 15 levels in sequence would be the same as hitting 15 all at once. But even in space both impacted objects would sustain damage. Like in the movie Nemesis when the Enterprise collided with the Romulan ship both ships sustained damage. LOL But on Earth in the case of the north tower. That falling top block gets lighter and weaker in the higher levels. But the stationary lower block gets stronger and heavier coming down. So even if it takes 30 stories to stop the falling block that would still leave more then 50 standing. It is the destruction of the ENTIRE BUILDING that is totally ridiculous and does not compute. Some people can just BELIEVE the video. That video tells me there were other energy sources involved in producing all of those effects.

I could have added kinetic energy and potential energy calculations to FALL OF PHYSICS but I have already talked to enough mathophobes on other sites to know it would not have helped my case.

psik

 

[Stryder]

Stryder, I have to wonder where you get your information on the collapse of the towers and their design. I have been amazed at some of the stunningly erroneous comments you have made.

The towers were certainly designed to take an impact.

No, they were designed to be towers. The design was retrofitted for impacts. If you wanted to structurally engineer a building for impacts you would take it the whole ergonomics route, you wouldn't build a tower so high, you'd probably build something domed.

That's why I state it wasn't built to take impacts because if it was it would have been a bunker.

As for your comments on the steel. On paper it might look great, however you tend to neglect that we live in a world where people don't necessarily do the workload to the designed specifications. This means the materials as they were purchased from different foundary's could easily have had flaws in the materials or shortcut's in design. Thats just humans being humans and making such errors for you.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I don't know about insane; it brings to mind people in mental wards.

LOL

It comes down to how reality works. Physics is how reality works. So if someone believes something can happen which physically cannot possibly happen then they are out of touch with reality.

INSANE

It is like much of the world is in a weird social-psychological state and the people who believe an airliner could bring one of those buildings down are in the majority.

The Matrix has you scott3x. The system has control of your mind. You are a slave Neo.

Now what kind of societal shock will there be if a lot of people start changing their minds about this? After all of this time the engineering schools have painted themselves into a corner. If distribution of mass can prove it could not happen then how do they explain not demanding mass distribution information years ago?

psik

 

[albertchong1999]

Close this stupid thread also... All caused by stupid islamic terrorist.. Nothing interested to argue about!!

 

[scott3x]

Alright, since even my query regarding the closing of the 9/11 HOW thread was closed, I'm not sure where I can properly respond or if there is even an allowed place to do so in this forum. I've decided I'll do so here as it is, after all, another 9/11 thread. I don't intend to continue with this subject here as it doesn't have to do with the WTC Collapses; I have already opened up a debate proposal over in formal debates titled Was 9/11 an inside job?.

However, I did want to comment on the post Stryder made before he closed my thread regarding the closure of the 9/11 HOW thread, so here goes:

9/11 threads are being closed because there is no audience for them here. trying woowoo911.org or some other site.

There is certainly an audience for 9/11 threads here; the size of the One Thread to rule them all thread and this one heartily attest to that. You can, ofcourse, call anyone here a woo woo if you wish. No evidence is needed on your part, you're the moderator and can do such things. It's for this reason that I think it might be best that people who wish to talk about 9/11 issues other then the WTC Collapses may well be best served to take it to the formal debates forum, as I am attempting to do in regards to 9/11 in general. And if you feel that even the WTC Collapses thread shouldn't be here, I think the same could be done for this thread as well.

 

[leopold]

go home scott.
the results of the poll you started should tell you something.

 

[scott3x]

go home scott.
the results of the poll you started should tell you something.

I thought you were ignoring my posts? All the results show is that more people in this particular forum believe the official story regarding 9/11. This isn't surprising given the views of the administrators in sciforums.com. If you were go to a place like JREF, you might be lucky to get one person from the truth movement, while if you were to go to 9/11 truth movement sites, you'd be hard pressed to get 1 or 2 from the official story side. I've presented polls in the past representing the people in New York City, for instance, and the results show that a fair percentage of the people polled believe that the government either let it happen or made it happen.

In any case, I think the most important thing should always be the evidence itself. I would argue that this evidence clearly demonstrates that the towers and WTC 7 were taken down by controlled demolitions and not by the planes and/or fires.

 

[leopold]

Now what kind of societal shock will there be if a lot of people start changing their minds about this? After all of this time the engineering schools have painted themselves into a corner. If distribution of mass can prove it could not happen then how do they explain not demanding mass distribution information years ago?

psik

give it up psikeyhackr, you will never know the weight distribution of WTC 1 and 2.
yes, you can get the floor plans, column dimensions, spandrel weights.
there will be however an important piece of info you will never get and that is the furnishings on each floor.
minor you say? considering that WTC housed some powerhouse banks it's safe to assume that WTC 1 and 2 was filled with all manners of money safes. this in itself will prevent you from getting what you have been screaming for since you started posting here.

 

[John99]

you cant argue with the spawn of Satan.