9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-02-2016, 09:09 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-02-2016 09:02 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Real skyscrapers are not made as weak as possible.

Actually, they are. The stresses and loads in the design are calculated, plus a small margin of safety, and the least amount of material is used to accomplish that design.

That is why the pancaking collapse happened. No floor support was built to carry twice or more the designed load.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 10:13 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-02-2016 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-02-2016 09:02 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Real skyscrapers are not made as weak as possible.

Actually, they are. The stresses and loads in the design are calculated, plus a small margin of safety, and the least amount of material is used to accomplish that design.

That is why the pancaking collapse happened. No floor support was built to carry twice or more the designed load.

Yup.

We put factors on loads. These are to account for changes in live loads (the ones that move, like desks and people). Depending on the engineer the way those factors are applied changes, but the results are the same. The designed capacity is EQUAL to the factored loads. We don't overdesign because steel is expensive and you don't get a great deal of extra effect.

As to the other, again, when materials like steel and concrete fail it is loud. When we crush concrete cylinders it sounds like gunshots in the lab. And these are tiny 6" cylinders. When steel fails it is loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 11:15 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-02-2016 07:35 AM)natachan Wrote:  Do you have a reading problem? By your own thing it says right there the perimeter columns supported the other 47%. Also no where does it say the WALLS got thicker as it went down. It says the support columns did, which I did not know. But I stand by what I said, the difference here probably was not nearly as much as you are assuming. Maybe a doubling of area at the base as compared to the very top. Maybe. I can't imagine it needing much more than that.

WALLS do not support weight in skyscrapers. They are considered part of the dead load. There can be support members that are used in the walls that support weight, but WALLS do not. WALLS are drywall over steel studs. They do not take significant amounts of loading.

So you think you accomplish something by accusing me of saying what I never said. Provide a link to where I said the walls got thicker.

Are you talking about where I said "the walls of the box columns"? Do you understand what a box columns is.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

The cross section of the box columns is shown at the bottom of that link.

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 12:43 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-02-2016 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-02-2016 09:02 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Real skyscrapers are not made as weak as possible.

Actually, they are. The stresses and loads in the design are calculated, plus a small margin of safety, and the least amount of material is used to accomplish that design.

That is why the pancaking collapse happened. No floor support was built to carry twice or more the designed load.

As soon as you put this in "plus a small margin of safety," you contradicted yourself and agreed with me.

The trouble is "small" is a subjective word so why don't you provide a source and tell us just how small that small is. 50% could be regarded as small by some people.

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2016 12:49 PM by psikeyhackr.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Yay, back up to -13.

Quote:Total Reputation: -13

Reputation from Members: 16
Reputation from Posts: 0
Positives: 2
Neutrals: 0
Negatives: 14

Ha ha, something is weird. Website can't do the math. 14 negatives and 2 positives is -13. Laugh out load

[48,926]
psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-02-2016 12:43 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(20-02-2016 09:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  Actually, they are. The stresses and loads in the design are calculated, plus a small margin of safety, and the least amount of material is used to accomplish that design.

That is why the pancaking collapse happened. No floor support was built to carry twice or more the designed load.

As soon as you put this in "plus a small margin of safety," you contradicted yourself and agreed with me.

I neither contradict myself nor do I agree with you.
You have no understanding of engineering tolerances.

Quote:The trouble is "small" is a subjective word so why don't you provide a source and tell us just how small that small is. 50% could be regarded as small by some people.

psik

"small" in the world of engineering is precisely defined for a given application.
You have no understanding of engineering tolerances.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 01:06 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-02-2016 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  I neither contradict myself nor do I agree with you.
You have no understanding of engineering tolerances.

What I see is that you did not provide a link to anything explaining what constitutes "small" and expect your unsupported word to settle the matter.

NOT!!!

Testing ignore. Great! It seems to work.

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Hey! I went to -12 again.

WTF

psik

Physics is Phutile
Fiziks is Fundamental
Since 9/11 Fiziks has been History
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-02-2016 01:06 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(20-02-2016 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  I neither contradict myself nor do I agree with you.
You have no understanding of engineering tolerances.

What I see is that you did not provide a link to anything explaining what constitutes "small" and expect your unsupported word to settle the matter.

NOT!!!

Testing ignore. Great! It seems to work.

psik

Do you even Google, you ignorant twat?

Here, I did it for you.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2016, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2016 04:33 PM by adey67.)
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(20-02-2016 12:45 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  Yay, back up to -13.

Quote:Total Reputation: -13

Reputation from Members: 16
Reputation from Posts: 0
Positives: 2
Neutrals: 0
Negatives: 14

Ha ha, something is weird. Website can't do the math. 14 negatives and 2 positives is -13. Laugh out load

[48,926]
psik

Morondog gave you a minus two rep I've given you a neutral because I don't hate you and I'm sorry for being overly aggressive and unkind its my philosophy not to be cruel now as I explained to you. It concerns me that you revel in negative rep points though I don't think that helps your cause IMHO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: