9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2015, 08:45 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-03-2015 01:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 12:01 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  You mean a multi-level structure capable of supporting its own weight could not completely collapse due to the drop of its top 12% onto the rest which is supposedly what happened to the north tower.

It is not a "multi-level structure". It is a single self-supporting structure.
The floors are suspended from the structure and do not support each other - no floor bears the weight of another.

The building is not made of floors stacked one on top of another.

When the floor support was weakened by the fire, the floors started to detach from the structure.
The weight of a floor dropping onto the one below detached it as it was already weakened. The combined mass of several floors continued the job.

You do not have a single shred of evidence that a floor outside the core ever fell and impacted another floor. That is nothing but a speculative fantasy that collapse believers use to rationalize their nonsense.

How many connections were there along the inner and outer perimeters of each floor? How could they give way simultaneously? If they did not give way simultaneously then the floor had to tilt. That would cause it to squeeze the core. That would cause a lot of friction.

The building was self supporting. Picking on the floors as not being self supporting is silly and amusing. That means all of the horizontal beams in every skyscraper are not self supporting. Your argument is utterly specious.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 02:25 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-03-2015 08:45 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 01:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not a "multi-level structure". It is a single self-supporting structure.
The floors are suspended from the structure and do not support each other - no floor bears the weight of another.

The building is not made of floors stacked one on top of another.

When the floor support was weakened by the fire, the floors started to detach from the structure.
The weight of a floor dropping onto the one below detached it as it was already weakened. The combined mass of several floors continued the job.

You do not have a single shred of evidence that a floor outside the core ever fell and impacted another floor. That is nothing but a speculative fantasy that collapse believers use to rationalize their nonsense.

How many connections were there along the inner and outer perimeters of each floor? How could they give way simultaneously? If they did not give way simultaneously then the floor had to tilt. That would cause it to squeeze the core. That would cause a lot of friction.

The building was self supporting. Picking on the floors as not being self supporting is silly and amusing. That means all of the horizontal beams in every skyscraper are not self supporting. Your argument is utterly specious.

psik




(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 07:10 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-03-2015 08:45 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 01:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not a "multi-level structure". It is a single self-supporting structure.
The floors are suspended from the structure and do not support each other - no floor bears the weight of another.

The building is not made of floors stacked one on top of another.

When the floor support was weakened by the fire, the floors started to detach from the structure.
The weight of a floor dropping onto the one below detached it as it was already weakened. The combined mass of several floors continued the job.

You do not have a single shred of evidence that a floor outside the core ever fell and impacted another floor. That is nothing but a speculative fantasy that collapse believers use to rationalize their nonsense.

How many connections were there along the inner and outer perimeters of each floor? How could they give way simultaneously? If they did not give way simultaneously then the floor had to tilt. That would cause it to squeeze the core. That would cause a lot of friction.

The building was self supporting. Picking on the floors as not being self supporting is silly and amusing. That means all of the horizontal beams in every skyscraper are not self supporting. Your argument is utterly specious.

psik


Quote:Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and
Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-03-2015, 09:38 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 07:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and
Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I do not see your links to what they said about the collapses of the twin towers.

You are implying that they said something so why not provide the evidence?

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 09:38 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 07:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and
Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

I do not see your links to what they said about the collapses of the twin towers.

You are implying that they said something so why not provide the evidence?

psik

I quoted what they said.

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
16-03-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 09:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 09:38 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  I do not see your links to what they said about the collapses of the twin towers.

You are implying that they said something so why not provide the evidence?

psik

I quoted what they said.

You are now claiming to have quoted what they said. If you posted quotes then you should have not trouble posting the links that you got the quotes from.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 10:29 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 09:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  I quoted what they said.

You are now claiming to have quoted what they said. If you posted quotes then you should have not trouble posting the links that you got the quotes from.

psik

Why dont you copy and paste what chas said into google. You dont need links.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2015, 10:39 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 10:29 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(16-03-2015 09:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  I quoted what they said.

You are now claiming to have quoted what they said. If you posted quotes then you should have not trouble posting the links that you got the quotes from.

psik

Had you simply Googled their names, it would be the first link.

But, here you go, lazybones.

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
16-03-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(15-03-2015 08:45 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  The building was self supporting. Picking on the floors as not being self supporting is silly and amusing.
No, it's engineering.
That's why buildings in the 1800s were never that big. Each level had to support the weight/mass of every level above it. Structures like the Pyramids were huge, and could be because of their shape, but they're obviously not very 'real estate' efficient.
When they developed steel skeletons, the height that engineers were able to build towers to skyrocketed. No floor supports the weight of the floors above it, it's distributed through the skeleton. If that weren't the case, the 1st floor of buildings the size of the Twin Towers would have to be gigantic to a ridiculous scale.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like LostLocke's post
16-03-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(16-03-2015 11:07 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(15-03-2015 08:45 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  The building was self supporting. Picking on the floors as not being self supporting is silly and amusing.
No, it's engineering.
That's why buildings in the 1800s were never that big. Each level had to support the weight/mass of every level above it. Structures like the Pyramids were huge, and could be because of their shape, but they're obviously not very 'real estate' efficient.
When they developed steel skeletons, the height that engineers were able to build towers to skyrocketed. No floor supports the weight of the floors above it, it's distributed through the skeleton. If that weren't the case, the 1st floor of buildings the size of the Twin Towers would have to be gigantic to a ridiculous scale.

You are using two different terms, LEVELS and FLOORS. Each LEVEL includes a FLOOR. But each LEVEL also includes the columns and any braces. The FLOORS did not support the weight above even before there were skyscrapers. That is why the eighty-six 750 ton floor assemblies could all be the same. But the columns on level 10 were not the same as the columns on level 100.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: