9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2016, 03:38 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(27-04-2016 10:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A lot of structures are build to a state of as weak as possible, often otherwise thought of as efficient or as cheap as possible.

Horse sh!t! Structures would becollapsingleftand right.

Quote:Safety factors are often calculated using detailed analysis because comprehensive testing is impractical on many projects, such as bridges and buildings, but the structure's ability to carry load must be determined to a reasonable accuracy.

Many systems are purposefully built much stronger than needed for normal usage to allow for emergency situations, unexpected loads, misuse, or degradation (reliability).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety

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
27-04-2016, 09:26 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(27-04-2016 03:38 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 10:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A lot of structures are build to a state of as weak as possible, often otherwise thought of as efficient or as cheap as possible.

Horse sh!t! Structures would becollapsingleftand right.

Quote:Safety factors are often calculated using detailed analysis because comprehensive testing is impractical on many projects, such as bridges and buildings, but the structure's ability to carry load must be determined to a reasonable accuracy.

Many systems are purposefully built much stronger than needed for normal usage to allow for emergency situations, unexpected loads, misuse, or degradation (reliability).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety

psik

Yes and? Do you fail to know how the basics of what "as possible" means for humans? Do you have some notions that humanity is ideal and perfect and if things go wrong it had to be done by nefarious grand means? Limiting regulations are stretched to the degrees they can be, otherwise resources wouldn't last.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2016, 09:54 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(27-04-2016 03:38 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 10:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A lot of structures are build to a state of as weak as possible, often otherwise thought of as efficient or as cheap as possible.

Horse sh!t! Structures would becollapsingleftand right.

psik


Laugh out load

Ah, no.

For reference, please become aware of the wonder of modern engineering (Yah, it's a car not a building but the analogy should still suffice...) that is the Ford model EA

Wiki-pedia link => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Falco...alia%29#EA

Ford has been building cars for what now? A hundred odd years and they can still develop a 'Lemon'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 03:08 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(27-04-2016 03:38 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 10:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A lot of structures are build to a state of as weak as possible, often otherwise thought of as efficient or as cheap as possible.

Horse sh!t! Structures would becollapsingleftand right.

No, you stupid cunt. It means not building a house to the standards of a underground bomb shelter, because it's an expensive and unnecessary waste of manpower and materials. The towers were built to spec, but the specs never accounted for impacts from 747's combined with their added mass and the structural weakening of the steel from the fire. The towers were built to be more than adequate to support their own weight and handle most anything nature could be expected to throw at them, and indeed they did for decades. Then people flew airplanes into them, something no structural engineer or city planner had ever thought about needing to design against.

Conceivably one could build a jetliner proof skyscraper (much as we do earthquake resistant foundations), but why would you? Before 9-11, the very idea was preposterous; and one could argue that's one of the reasons it was so effective.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 11:17 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(27-04-2016 09:26 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes and? Do you fail to know how the basics of what "as possible" means for humans?

And my stack of paper loops and washers is not designed to hold humans. So comparing "as weak as possible" of my model to "as weak as possible" in a real building is nonsense.

So my physics demonstration is to show "as weak as possible" could not collapse straight down was the entire point. Trying to turn it into semantic debating bullsh!t is ridiculous.

[63,973]
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
28-04-2016, 11:33 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(27-04-2016 10:23 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  [...] It is a physics demonstration. How many times have I said an accurate model requires accurate data on the real building which we do not have?

Yes we do (or did). I could quote you the exact longitudinal loading, the torsion, and the vertical and horizontal bending moment of every single beam, column, and brace in the entire structure. The thing which we don't know—and cannot accurately predict by modelling—is the load transference through the structural members from the impact of the mass of the plane, plus the progressive weakening effects of those structural members as the avgas burned.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
It may have been said before, but I think all this is a leadup to some big AHA moment, based on the 'conspiracy of the gaps'.
This freefall collapse just cannot happen! It shows right here in THE BOOK OF ELEVATIONS
That it must be so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like skyking's post
30-04-2016, 06:38 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(27-04-2016 03:38 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 10:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A lot of structures are build to a state of as weak as possible, often otherwise thought of as efficient or as cheap as possible.

Horse sh!t! Structures would becollapsingleftand right.

Quote:Safety factors are often calculated using detailed analysis because comprehensive testing is impractical on many projects, such as bridges and buildings, but the structure's ability to carry load must be determined to a reasonable accuracy.

Many systems are purposefully built much stronger than needed for normal usage to allow for emergency situations, unexpected loads, misuse, or degradation (reliability).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety

psik

I don't think you understand what this means. Which is fine, code is difficult and dense.

When designing, we build for use. Our loads are determined by codes (ASCE usually) that guide us in how much to design for. When using safety factors I think you are greatly overestimating what they are. We add maybe an extra 20% of the expected load. We then aim for a design capacity within 5% of that. Hell, I've seen people try to hit that number on the dot. That's not safe for other reasons though and I wouldn't do it.

There's a lot of other things that effect capacity, but they're kind of complicated. I will just state that during the service life of a structure the capacity decreases below the original design capacity. That part of the reason we have safety factors.

So no, they aren't designed to hold much more than they have to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
30-04-2016, 06:57 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(28-04-2016 11:17 AM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(27-04-2016 09:26 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes and? Do you fail to know how the basics of what "as possible" means for humans?

And my stack of paper loops and washers is not designed to hold humans. So comparing "as weak as possible" of my model to "as weak as possible" in a real building is nonsense.

So my physics demonstration is to show "as weak as possible" could not collapse straight down was the entire point. Trying to turn it into semantic debating bullsh!t is ridiculous.

[63,973]
psik

Your "model" isn't a model, just a delusion of a model. It bears no relation to reality.

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
30-04-2016, 06:08 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(30-04-2016 06:38 AM)natachan Wrote:  When using safety factors I think you are greatly overestimating what they are. We add maybe an extra 20% of the expected load.

And how is the expected live load computed? If a building is rental space aren't some tenents going to create greater loads than others. Don't many commercial rental contracts specify maximum loads. So isn't the safety factor computed as greater than that maximum load.

What I mean by "weak as possible" for my physics demonstration model is support just strong enough to hold the static load. The reason I have 11 single loops at the top is because I tested dozens of loops to destruction to see what a single loop could hold. It took from 12 to 15 washers to crush a loop. There was no 20% safety factor.

A heavier model where the supports between each level had to be different would be much better. But it would cost more and take more time to test.

It is certainly curious that engineering schools could not come up with a test to prove the truth in FIFTEEN YEARS. No matter what the truth is.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: