9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-09-2015, 02:33 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(11-09-2015 04:47 PM)psikeyhackr Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 06:12 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Probably b but no one is engaging with him so unless anyone other than me ( he fucking hates me and refuses to engage with me )starts it up again this thread is dead I think

You're important enough to hate?

Interesting delusion.

Engage you? Have you built a physical model that can completely collapse? The only engagement is about physics. Skyscrapers must hold themselves up therefore the bottom must be strong enough to support more weight than the top.

So people that don't deal with mass distribution and center of gravity are not really engageable. Just amusing.

psik
Ha ha ha lols still obsessing over a single issue and not answering any of the important collateral questions I see. No one needs a computer model for you fella you are 100% predictable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2015, 04:46 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Having said that I saw a fantastic documentary yesterday about how the huge tonnage of aluminium in the aircraft has been overlooked as a possible cause for the explosions heard by firefighters and the collapse of the towers it was quite compelling
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
So this is still a thing?

And he's still making bad claims based on his extensive lack of knowledge of structural engineering?

May I say, it is NOT NECESSARY to know the distribution of loading to calculate the collapse. It is not necessary that "the bottom be stronger than the top." It is simply an interesting note to draw graphs of internal strain on the loading columns. It's a fun exercise for structural engineers. I did something similar earlier, it's a cool graph.

The horizontal beams supported nothing but the floors. They were essentially zero force members in the structural workings of the building as it was designed. They carried none of the loading of the building, that was all done by columns. And, as stated earlier, if a column collapses at one point then it collapses as a unit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like natachan's post
13-09-2015, 12:27 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(12-09-2015 05:54 PM)natachan Wrote:  The horizontal beams supported nothing but the floors. They were essentially zero force members in the structural workings of the building as it was designed. They carried none of the loading of the building, that was all done by columns. And, as stated earlier, if a column collapses at one point then it collapses as a unit.

Is that about dumb working on really stupid?

Quote:This must be assessed and the effective length adjusted in accordance with Table A2.6. In most steel frameworks the effective length is between 0.7 and 1.0 of the distance between lateral restraints.
http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/kshaath/files/...e-1997.pdf

The horizontal beams were about keeping the columns from buckling due to the weight they supported. The horizontal beams were the "lateral restraints". supporting the floors was incidental to their primary purpose.

psik
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 12:41 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Oh noes! It's back! Gasp

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
13-09-2015, 01:51 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(13-09-2015 12:41 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Oh noes! It's back! Gasp

Yup here we go again its a bit like the UFO thread but more amusing and less well argued
Popcorn
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
13-09-2015, 03:35 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
I'm simply going by what the engineers and architects wrote down. Any loading on the horizontal beams would have been negligible. The highest point of axial stress was high, but still not outside the working limit of steel.

Horizontal members in steel frame construction do not, as a rule, take vertical loads.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
13-09-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Hey, psik! I got you pressies!

[Image: brGidOW.jpg]

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
13-09-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(13-09-2015 08:41 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Hey, psik! I got you pressies!

[Image: brGidOW.jpg]

Awesome lols
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(13-09-2015 03:35 AM)natachan Wrote:  I'm simply going by what the engineers and architects wrote down. Any loading on the horizontal beams would have been negligible. The highest point of axial stress was high, but still not outside the working limit of steel.

Horizontal members in steel frame construction do not, as a rule, take vertical loads.

So provide a link to what one of these ENGINEERS said about the horizontal beams in the core? I have not noticed much discussion of the subject.

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