9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-12-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Skyking, I hope you diddnt think I was referring to you with regards the diapers comment, that was aimed at psikeyhacker only
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2015, 10:13 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Oh hell son, I can eat off the back menu at Denny's now Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-12-2015 10:13 AM)skyking Wrote:  Oh hell son, I can eat off the back menu at Denny's now Tongue

So long as you know we are both singing from the same hymn sheet ( excuse the analogy) I'm happy my friend Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-12-2015, 11:55 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-12-2015 10:06 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(29-12-2015 09:29 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  You're such a dick. You give Skyking grief while I take you to school on the actual construction parameters, something that after 14 years you're still quite ignorant about.

LMFAO Laugh out load Laugh out load Laugh out load

You are such a joke.

Construction parameters? I provided 4 links specifying 425,000 cubic yards for the total mount of concrete in the towers.

Where does the NIST provide any number for the total? The data that the NIST does provide does not come near that total. But does the NIST say that number is wrong? It is simply that if there was any concrete anywhere else the NIST does not mention it and you ASSUME that the NIST did not leave anything out.

But where is there any data on the horizontal steel beams in the core? No data so they must not exist, right? Try finding a flat picture on the layout of those beams. Were they the same on every floor? Since the elevator shafts were different lengths they did not have to be.

psik

More pointless drivel.

You ask us to do the research for your pointless questions.
Instead of proposing a well thought out, researched hypothesis all you do is spout arcane and mostly unsourced data without explaining how any of it fits into whatever pet conspiracy you have.

We can sit here and argue about how many tons of concrete were used, not used , its weight etc. and none of it has any bearing (pun intended) on the conversation if you don’t put forth a concise and cogent point on why and how it matters.

We’ve already established that you are not trained in mechanical engineering, construction, architecture or physics. Your “pretense of knowledge” is old hat, a thinly veiled attempt at being an expert on the subject.

You are a wannabe, a fake, a narcisistic troll that is begging for attention, no matter how small. You come to a forum that has nothing to do with real analysis of building failure and pretend to be a credible source with the hopes of finding someone who will pat you on the back and say, “by golly old chap, you’re on to something there”.

The reason you’re here is because no one in any of the construction fields will give you the time of day. Why? Because you are a crackpot.

You are a sad little man looking for validation and I only feel pity for you. Go earn a degree in any of the above fields like I have and then write a peer-reviewed report on why the towers could not have come down because of the impact of the planes. At that point come back and you can rub it in my face and I’ll apologize to you and grovel at your feet. But until then I will continue to mock you and the ridiculous non-sensical garbage you seem to hold so dear as being somehow relevant.
Something that neither they nor you have shown to be.

Come back when you have something of value to share.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
30-12-2015, 07:16 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Ok, so I cracked open my materials handbook. Thermal deformation relates to stress fairly easily.

Strain= change in temp * coefficient of thermal expansion * modulus of elasticity.

This is overly simplified. But it does come up with some interesting numbers.

Change in temp is 1350 degrees Fahrenheit.
Coefficient of thermal expansion for structural steel is 0.00000660/degrees Fahrenheit
Modulus of elasticity is 29,000 kips per square inches.

This gives a strain of 250 kips per square inch.

The ultimate strength of structural steel is 58 kips per square inch. That's ultimate, not even elastic limit (36 ksi) which would be enough to do irreparable damage.

Again, overly simplistic but interesting none the less.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like natachan's post
30-12-2015, 09:12 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-12-2015 07:16 PM)natachan Wrote:  Ok, so I cracked open my materials handbook. Thermal deformation relates to stress fairly easily.

Strain= change in temp * coefficient of thermal expansion * modulus of elasticity.

This is overly simplified. But it does come up with some interesting numbers.

Change in temp is 1350 degrees Fahrenheit.
Coefficient of thermal expansion for structural steel is 0.00000660/degrees Fahrenheit
Modulus of elasticity is 29,000 kips per square inches.

This gives a strain of 250 kips per square inch.

The ultimate strength of structural steel is 58 kips per square inch. That's ultimate, not even elastic limit (36 ksi) which would be enough to do irreparable damage.

Again, overly simplistic but interesting none the less.

Your post made me crack open my strength of materials book, ah, the memories Dodgy (damn you natachan!)

Here is a bit of data on the structural steel columns used in the WTC.

Perimeter Column Data
Chapter 2 of the NIST document NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel indicates that the perimeter columns were 14 in (35.56 cm) in width and 13.5 in (34.29 cm) in depth for all of the columns from the 9th to the 107th floor. This data is shown in the following figure from the NIST document.

[img]nist_perim_col.jpg[/img] (to see diagram http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.ph...olumn_Data

Regarding the thickness of the steel used in the perimeter columns, the NIST document makes the following statements:

Perimeter columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gauge steel, most commonly 0.25 in (6.35 mm) ...

In contrast to the upper stories, in the lower stories, the perimeter column flanges were as thick as 3 in. (76 mm) and typically made of lower strength steels.

Fourteen grades of steel were used in the construction of the perimeter columns with minimum yield strengths of 36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, and 100 ksi*.

The lighter grades of steel were used towards the upper floors to reduce weight making them more succeptible to deformation in a shorter amount of time.

*A metal’s yield strength and ultimate tensile strength values are expressed in tons per square inch, pounds per square inch or thousand pounds (KSI) per square inch. For example, a tensile strength of a steel that can withstand 40,000 pounds of force per square inch may be expressed as 40,000 PSI or 40 KSI (with K being the denominator for thousands of pounds).

General notes: A kip equals 1000 pounds-force

One inch of steel will expand 0.00000645 inches for every degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
30-12-2015, 09:27 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
From a study (pdf format, having difficulty hyperlinking).
[PDF]Integrity of Structural Steel After Exposure to Fire
files.engineering.com/download.aspx?folder...4a0e...Steel...

“Above 1200 degrees F, steel properties decrease so dramatically that they are of no structural interest”

In Figure 2 you can see that tensile strength drops precipitously after 800 F
@ 800 F tensile strength at approx 80%
@ 900 F tensile strength at approx 60%
@ 1000 F tensile strength at approx 50%
@ 1200 F tensile strength at approx <30%

The perimeter columns of the building that were not destroyed by the impact quickly lost their tensile strength as the fires raged. No conspiracy theory need apply.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
31-12-2015, 05:03 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
You and I are probably looking at the same book then.

I assumed A-36 structural steel, which has the strength listed.

And as I said, this is grossly oversimplified. I simply wanted to see how much the change in temp would relate to a chainge in strain. I thought it would be near the yield point and that was all I tried to find out.

I could do the full model and math, but I simply don't care. I have other shit to do and this fits in with what I've read and heard from other engineers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(31-12-2015 05:03 AM)natachan Wrote:  You and I are probably looking at the same book then.

I assumed A-36 structural steel, which has the strength listed.

And as I said, this is grossly oversimplified. I simply wanted to see how much the change in temp would relate to a chainge in strain. I thought it would be near the yield point and that was all I tried to find out.

I could do the full model and math, but I simply don't care. I have other shit to do and this fits in with what I've read and heard from other engineers.

Ditto.
But your back of the napkin calcs did take me down memory lane, a nice little brain exercise, so I’m glad you brought it up. Thumbsup

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-12-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Psiks gone very quiet all of a sudden. I guess he realises he got majorly served. Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: