QUOTE (Mel+Mar 7 2006, 03:39 AM)
Hi RealityCheck!!!!!
An absolute fabrication on your part. I have never posted anything about motive, opportunity, method, co-ordination and control, etc, etc, etc, on this or any other site, and there is very little, if any, from anyone else either.
The only discernible LOGICAL from this is that you outright lied. Honestly, RC.
And my original reply still stands: waste of time conjecture that would not be supportable by logic or math.
The hook's now back in your dingy (careful you don't snag, now).
Mel.
.
I have posted stuff about motive. I confess.
Motive is a part of the puzzle. The question "who benefits?" is important to solving the crime, in my humble opinion.
I don't see why the focus must always be on pure physics. This is an interdisciplinary subject.
cheers
QUOTE
I mean, you and others have posted MUCH regarding MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY, METHOD, CO-ORDINATION AND CONTROL etc etc etc. So doesn't it seem LOGICAL to START from that question I put to you?
An absolute fabrication on your part. I have never posted anything about motive, opportunity, method, co-ordination and control, etc, etc, etc, on this or any other site, and there is very little, if any, from anyone else either.
The only discernible LOGICAL from this is that you outright lied. Honestly, RC.
And my original reply still stands: waste of time conjecture that would not be supportable by logic or math.
The hook's now back in your dingy (careful you don't snag, now).
Mel.
.
I have posted stuff about motive. I confess.
Motive is a part of the puzzle. The question "who benefits?" is important to solving the crime, in my humble opinion.
I don't see why the focus must always be on pure physics. This is an interdisciplinary subject.
cheers
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 6 2006, 07:49 PM)
Do you know what leverage is? The longer the wrench, the more leverage you have, the more torque/force you can put on something. That's what hes saying. The core standing alone is the mother of all torque wrenches. The 40 stories worth of leverage will snap those column connections like twigs!
Another Common Scence classic! vertical columns with a force (gravity) in the vertical direction applies 40 stories of leverage (torque). How did the WTC stand in the first place with 110 stories of potential leverage.
Please add your explanation to your web site.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 6 2006, 11:58 PM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 6 2006, 10:53 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 6 2006, 10:15 PM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 6 2006, 05:45 PM)
Let's pretend the ArsoNIST's do explain everything. (I know they don't, but just for the sake of this discussion.) Could you put it into brief, simple language that even a MORON could understand? Or is your foilhat fantasy really that fu<king mystical, Arty?
...
What's causing that huge explosion, Arty?
When the towers were built the steel and concrete were hoisted up, much of it over 1,000 feet.
It took ENERGY to hoist the material up against the force of gravity.
In doing so the material gained potential energy.
As an EXAMPLE, say you took a 20lb piece of concrete and you placed it upon a car next to the WTC.
Assuming you did this carefully you wouldn't even scratch the paint.
Now take an identical piece of concrete and ride the elevator up to the observation deck. This is analogus to the concrete being poured on a top floor. In this case the elevator has imparted POTENTIAL energy to the piece of concrete.
Now walk over to the side of the WTC and drop the concrete onto the car parked below.
It will do a LOT more than scratch the paint.
It will TOTAL the CAR.
Why do you think that something as MASSIVE as the top of the WTC falling onto the fixed LOWER portion WOULD NOT look like an EXPLOSION.
An EXPLOSION is the sudden release of stored energy.
The collapse of the WTC was the sudden release of stored energy.
Simple enough?
Arthur
Thanks, Art, that's better than nothing I guess but I don't see a 'collapse' accounting for this kind of explosion
especially considering it happened twice in one day to two buildings that were compromised in different ways. Maybe if it only happened to one building (and even then only if it were much more compromised), then maybe I could believe it. But TWO of them?
Oh, wait... three of them... (I know, I know, WTC 7 was a normal, implosion-style CD, different story)
But thanks, anyway.
Jamies reverse explosion. It goes off on top then the cloud gets bigger as it goes down...
Jamie bomb...
CrazyGuy, you've lost all coherence again. Big surprise.
...
What's causing that huge explosion, Arty?
When the towers were built the steel and concrete were hoisted up, much of it over 1,000 feet.
It took ENERGY to hoist the material up against the force of gravity.
In doing so the material gained potential energy.
As an EXAMPLE, say you took a 20lb piece of concrete and you placed it upon a car next to the WTC.
Assuming you did this carefully you wouldn't even scratch the paint.
Now take an identical piece of concrete and ride the elevator up to the observation deck. This is analogus to the concrete being poured on a top floor. In this case the elevator has imparted POTENTIAL energy to the piece of concrete.
Now walk over to the side of the WTC and drop the concrete onto the car parked below.
It will do a LOT more than scratch the paint.
It will TOTAL the CAR.
Why do you think that something as MASSIVE as the top of the WTC falling onto the fixed LOWER portion WOULD NOT look like an EXPLOSION.
An EXPLOSION is the sudden release of stored energy.
The collapse of the WTC was the sudden release of stored energy.
Simple enough?
Arthur
Thanks, Art, that's better than nothing I guess but I don't see a 'collapse' accounting for this kind of explosion
especially considering it happened twice in one day to two buildings that were compromised in different ways. Maybe if it only happened to one building (and even then only if it were much more compromised), then maybe I could believe it. But TWO of them?
Oh, wait... three of them... (I know, I know, WTC 7 was a normal, implosion-style CD, different story)
But thanks, anyway.
Jamies reverse explosion. It goes off on top then the cloud gets bigger as it goes down...
Jamie bomb...
CrazyGuy, you've lost all coherence again. Big surprise.
QUOTE (hereward+Mar 7 2006, 04:15 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Mar 7 2006, 03:39 AM)
Hi RealityCheck!!!!!
An absolute fabrication on your part. I have never posted anything about motive, opportunity, method, co-ordination and control, etc, etc, etc, on this or any other site, and there is very little, if any, from anyone else either.
The only discernible LOGICAL from this is that you outright lied. Honestly, RC.
And my original reply still stands: waste of time conjecture that would not be supportable by logic or math.
The hook's now back in your dingy (careful you don't snag, now).
Mel.
.
I have posted stuff about motive. I confess.
Motive is a part of the puzzle. The question "who benefits?" is important to solving the crime, in my humble opinion.
I don't see why the focus must always be on pure physics. This is an interdisciplinary subject.
cheers
I chose my words carefully:
An absolute fabrication on your part. I have never posted anything about motive, opportunity, method, co-ordination and control, etc, etc, etc, on this or any other site, and there is very little, if any, from anyone else either.
The only discernible LOGICAL from this is that you outright lied. Honestly, RC.
And my original reply still stands: waste of time conjecture that would not be supportable by logic or math.
The hook's now back in your dingy (careful you don't snag, now).
Mel.
.
I have posted stuff about motive. I confess.
Motive is a part of the puzzle. The question "who benefits?" is important to solving the crime, in my humble opinion.
I don't see why the focus must always be on pure physics. This is an interdisciplinary subject.
cheers
I chose my words carefully: ...little, if any...
Of course, means, motive, and opportunity are the big three of any lawyer's case, but I'm no lawyer (I'd rather chew razor blades than be a member of that fraternity...apologies to all those with lawyer backgrounds), and I personally keep the discussion of motive between myself and live subjects.
That said, Foxx gave a pretty darn convincing motivation for dropping the second tower first.
Hi RC!!!!
QUOTE
I mean, you and others have posted MUCH regarding MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY, METHOD, CO-ORDINATION AND CONTROL etc etc etc. So doesn't it seem LOGICAL to START from that question I put to you?
An absolute fabrication on your part. I have never posted anything about motive, opportunity, method, co-ordination and control, etc, etc, etc, on this or any other site, and there is very little, if any, from anyone else either.
The only discernible LOGICAL from this is that you outright lied. Honestly, RC.
And my original reply still stands: waste of time conjecture that would not be supportable by logic or math.
The hook's now back in your dingy (careful you don't snag, now).
Mel.
.
I have posted stuff about motive. I confess.
Motive is a part of the puzzle. The question "who benefits?" is important to solving the crime, in my humble opinion.
I don't see why the focus must always be on pure physics. This is an interdisciplinary subject.
cheers
I chose my words carefully:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I mean, you and others have posted MUCH regarding MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY, METHOD, CO-ORDINATION AND CONTROL etc etc etc. So doesn't it seem LOGICAL to START from that question I put to you? |
An absolute fabrication on your part. I have never posted anything about motive, opportunity, method, co-ordination and control, etc, etc, etc, on this or any other site, and there is very little, if any, from anyone else either.
The only discernible LOGICAL from this is that you outright lied. Honestly, RC.
And my original reply still stands: waste of time conjecture that would not be supportable by logic or math.
The hook's now back in your dingy (careful you don't snag, now).
Mel.
.
I have posted stuff about motive. I confess.
Motive is a part of the puzzle. The question "who benefits?" is important to solving the crime, in my humble opinion.
I don't see why the focus must always be on pure physics. This is an interdisciplinary subject.
cheers
I chose my words carefully: ...little, if any...
Of course, means, motive, and opportunity are the big three of any lawyer's case, but I'm no lawyer (I'd rather chew razor blades than be a member of that fraternity...apologies to all those with lawyer backgrounds), and I personally keep the discussion of motive between myself and live subjects.
That said, Foxx gave a pretty darn convincing motivation for dropping the second tower first.
Hi RC!!!!
.
Hi all! Just got back. Had to catch some sun (for Vitamin D for my bones) before the clouds rolled in again. And my word you've all been 'funny', hehehe.
Mel:
- ALMOST ALL Cters (including hereward) have said/posted something 'non-physics' by way of 'context'. I have asssumed you to be in the CTer 'camp', and so in TACIT agreement with all they post.....as your non-disagreement so far with whatever 'context' they posted/said to date would confirm. My apologies if my 'lumping' you in with the other CTers was out of order, mate!
- Re the 'floor coverings'. Firstly remember (as I've had to point out to Foxx already because he TOO 'forgot' this) that the floors have an UNDERSIDE which is 'ceilings' for next lower level....so any crunched/burned ash/concrete dust/particles can accumulate ON the floor coverings can escape out the window on THAT floor along with the coverings, heh?....and along with the escaping air expelled from thar floor. And also any 'impact' dust/chunks created from the underside are forced DOWN into the floor below from that underside when 'hit'....and then escape out THAT floor's windows, heh? That sound reasonable?
hereward: That executive toy 'ball bearing' cradle is an INVALID analogy/principle illustration, since once the momentum is TRANSFERRED from one ball-bearing to the next, the 'incoming' ball is STOPPED because it is NO LONGER ACCELERATED BY GRAVITY....and so the 'balls' DO NOT ACCUMULATE....and they are NOT CONTINUING TO BE ACCLERATED BY GRAVITY. In the collapse, the floors ACCUMULATE AND ACCELERATE REMORSELY DOWN. The WEIGHT/MOMENTUM/IMPULSES involved are enourmous and UNRELENTING. There is NO WAY any 'trinket' cradle of PENDULUM ball bearings which have no weight/gravity acting CONTINUOUSLY in ONE DIRECTION (rather than 'penduluming...ie 'STOP and RETURN' to starting position, heh?) is remotely representative as analogy OR demonstrative of priciples involved in tower collapses. Cheers.
Christophera Do you honestly believe that the core columns shorn of integral support and battered all along their height by those millions of pounds of debris which would have caused vibrations like earthquake, would not have stressed any lower sections of those core columns? And that when those core column remnants were STILL briefly SWAYING/teetering before collapsing (because they could not have stood anyway as per design, even if 'undamaged') they were NOT 'levering' against the HUGE AND HEAVY MASS of debris around their lower portions?....and that this 'levering' would not have done futher damage to lower column 'connections'. And about those Beams from core to perimeter walls to help support the floors: The strength of ANY PART of that floor structure eventually depended on the CONNECTIONS PER"UNIT" WEIGHT/IMPULSE LOAD at either edge. Once local collapse weight/impulse presented itself on any ONE floor's 'connections, these would have had NO CHANCE against the momemtum tranferrred INexorably DOWN without respite for 'rebound'...in fact, even as the whole upper section was crunched into the bottom section, gravity would be INCREASING THE IMPACT STRESSES moment by moment! How can any 'connections' withstand something they were NEVER expected to handle?...irrespective of WHAT those connections were 'connecting'. In other words, the 'beams' merely added WEIGHT and momentum for the NEXT hit on the floor below.
Foxx You still haven't answered the question seriously. Now, no more 'posing' and 'prosing', heh?....do you honestly think that a CD which you NOW agree is fraught with imponderables, could have been considered in the first place? When this was pointed out to you early on by many posters, you and others on your side said that CD in those circumstances was 'doable'. NOW you imply that, after all, it may NOT have been an easy thing to accomplish without CERTAIN failures of command and control and timing and sequencing. And NOW, when someone points to the OBVIOUS fact that any alleged CD would have 'done' the firt-impacted/fired tower FIRST irrespective of what else was happening, you come and say that the 'fires' and the 'joystick' etc didn't go to 'plan'. What PLAN, if as you say, it was almost a SURE BET that NO-ONE could have pulled off ONE CD let alone TWO or more WITHOUT being certain of EVERYTHING. Your response does not pass the Ausie BS test...in that it is NOT EVEN 'ARTISTIC', let alone PLAUSIBLE. Please do better if you want to be believed as genuine in your objections. The question still remains, therefore, "WHY "CD" the second impacted tower first; WHY not the first impacted tower first? What difference did ANYTHING ELSE make to such a LOGICAL order of 'alleged' CD plans which would help avert suspicion?
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi all! Just got back. Had to catch some sun (for Vitamin D for my bones) before the clouds rolled in again. And my word you've all been 'funny', hehehe.
Mel:
- ALMOST ALL Cters (including hereward) have said/posted something 'non-physics' by way of 'context'. I have asssumed you to be in the CTer 'camp', and so in TACIT agreement with all they post.....as your non-disagreement so far with whatever 'context' they posted/said to date would confirm. My apologies if my 'lumping' you in with the other CTers was out of order, mate!
- Re the 'floor coverings'. Firstly remember (as I've had to point out to Foxx already because he TOO 'forgot' this) that the floors have an UNDERSIDE which is 'ceilings' for next lower level....so any crunched/burned ash/concrete dust/particles can accumulate ON the floor coverings can escape out the window on THAT floor along with the coverings, heh?....and along with the escaping air expelled from thar floor. And also any 'impact' dust/chunks created from the underside are forced DOWN into the floor below from that underside when 'hit'....and then escape out THAT floor's windows, heh? That sound reasonable?
hereward: That executive toy 'ball bearing' cradle is an INVALID analogy/principle illustration, since once the momentum is TRANSFERRED from one ball-bearing to the next, the 'incoming' ball is STOPPED because it is NO LONGER ACCELERATED BY GRAVITY....and so the 'balls' DO NOT ACCUMULATE....and they are NOT CONTINUING TO BE ACCLERATED BY GRAVITY. In the collapse, the floors ACCUMULATE AND ACCELERATE REMORSELY DOWN. The WEIGHT/MOMENTUM/IMPULSES involved are enourmous and UNRELENTING. There is NO WAY any 'trinket' cradle of PENDULUM ball bearings which have no weight/gravity acting CONTINUOUSLY in ONE DIRECTION (rather than 'penduluming...ie 'STOP and RETURN' to starting position, heh?) is remotely representative as analogy OR demonstrative of priciples involved in tower collapses. Cheers.
Christophera Do you honestly believe that the core columns shorn of integral support and battered all along their height by those millions of pounds of debris which would have caused vibrations like earthquake, would not have stressed any lower sections of those core columns? And that when those core column remnants were STILL briefly SWAYING/teetering before collapsing (because they could not have stood anyway as per design, even if 'undamaged') they were NOT 'levering' against the HUGE AND HEAVY MASS of debris around their lower portions?....and that this 'levering' would not have done futher damage to lower column 'connections'. And about those Beams from core to perimeter walls to help support the floors: The strength of ANY PART of that floor structure eventually depended on the CONNECTIONS PER"UNIT" WEIGHT/IMPULSE LOAD at either edge. Once local collapse weight/impulse presented itself on any ONE floor's 'connections, these would have had NO CHANCE against the momemtum tranferrred INexorably DOWN without respite for 'rebound'...in fact, even as the whole upper section was crunched into the bottom section, gravity would be INCREASING THE IMPACT STRESSES moment by moment! How can any 'connections' withstand something they were NEVER expected to handle?...irrespective of WHAT those connections were 'connecting'. In other words, the 'beams' merely added WEIGHT and momentum for the NEXT hit on the floor below.
Foxx You still haven't answered the question seriously. Now, no more 'posing' and 'prosing', heh?....do you honestly think that a CD which you NOW agree is fraught with imponderables, could have been considered in the first place? When this was pointed out to you early on by many posters, you and others on your side said that CD in those circumstances was 'doable'. NOW you imply that, after all, it may NOT have been an easy thing to accomplish without CERTAIN failures of command and control and timing and sequencing. And NOW, when someone points to the OBVIOUS fact that any alleged CD would have 'done' the firt-impacted/fired tower FIRST irrespective of what else was happening, you come and say that the 'fires' and the 'joystick' etc didn't go to 'plan'. What PLAN, if as you say, it was almost a SURE BET that NO-ONE could have pulled off ONE CD let alone TWO or more WITHOUT being certain of EVERYTHING. Your response does not pass the Ausie BS test...in that it is NOT EVEN 'ARTISTIC', let alone PLAUSIBLE. Please do better if you want to be believed as genuine in your objections. The question still remains, therefore, "WHY "CD" the second impacted tower first; WHY not the first impacted tower first? What difference did ANYTHING ELSE make to such a LOGICAL order of 'alleged' CD plans which would help avert suspicion?
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 6 2006, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 6 2006, 06:53 PM)
Thanks, Art, that's better than nothing I guess but I don't see a 'collapse' accounting for this kind of explosion
especially considering it happened twice in one day to two buildings that were compromised in different ways. Maybe if it only happened to one building (and even then only if it were much more compromised), then maybe I could believe it. But TWO of them?
Oh, wait... three of them... (I know, I know, WTC 7 was a normal, implosion-style CD, different story)
But thanks, anyway.
Do you think what happened to the two towers was THAT different?
They were nearly identical in construction.
They were BOTH run into by high speed commercial jets on the same day thus the same external conditions.
Arthur
Art, you know very well that the hits were totally different. Why bull$hit?
Do you know what leverage is? The longer the wrench, the more leverage you have, the more torque/force you can put on something. That's what hes saying. The core standing alone is the mother of all torque wrenches. The 40 stories worth of leverage will snap those column connections like twigs!
Another Common Scence classic! vertical columns with a force (gravity) in the vertical direction applies 40 stories of leverage (torque). How did the WTC stand in the first place with 110 stories of potential leverage.
Please add your explanation to your web site.
Hi reasonwhy!
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
And as to 'vertical' loads. The loads were ONLY VERTICAL FOR AS LONG AS THE STRUCTURES HAD LATERAL SUPPORT FROM THE WHOLE REST OF THE BUILDING. Once that support is lost, as in the REMNANT CORE COLUMNS, the 40+ story high columns became 'levers arms' because the loads are no longer 'perfectly' balanced' either way by any lateral supports.
Watch that video which shows metamars' 'spire'. See that lone column swaying to and fro? What forces do you think such long lever arms are delivering to the bottom sections as the column sways one way then is stopped to sway the other way? ALL of the core remnant columns would have behaved to more/less degree as 'lever arms' because they were too 'slender to height' ratio and hence unstable in the vertical plane. See?
Cheers!
RC.
.
especially considering it happened twice in one day to two buildings that were compromised in different ways. Maybe if it only happened to one building (and even then only if it were much more compromised), then maybe I could believe it. But TWO of them?
Oh, wait... three of them... (I know, I know, WTC 7 was a normal, implosion-style CD, different story)
But thanks, anyway.
Do you think what happened to the two towers was THAT different?
They were nearly identical in construction.
They were BOTH run into by high speed commercial jets on the same day thus the same external conditions.
Arthur
Art, you know very well that the hits were totally different. Why bull$hit?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 7 2006, 04:41 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 6 2006, 07:49 PM)
Do you know what leverage is? The longer the wrench, the more leverage you have, the more torque/force you can put on something. That's what hes saying. The core standing alone is the mother of all torque wrenches. The 40 stories worth of leverage will snap those column connections like twigs!
Another Common Scence classic! vertical columns with a force (gravity) in the vertical direction applies 40 stories of leverage (torque). How did the WTC stand in the first place with 110 stories of potential leverage.
Please add your explanation to your web site.
Hi reasonwhy!
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
And as to 'vertical' loads. The loads were ONLY VERTICAL FOR AS LONG AS THE STRUCTURES HAD LATERAL SUPPORT FROM THE WHOLE REST OF THE BUILDING. Once that support is lost, as in the REMNANT CORE COLUMNS, the 40+ story high columns became 'levers arms' because the loads are no longer 'perfectly' balanced' either way by any lateral supports.
Watch that video which shows metamars' 'spire'. See that lone column swaying to and fro? What forces do you think such long lever arms are delivering to the bottom sections as the column sways one way then is stopped to sway the other way? ALL of the core remnant columns would have behaved to more/less degree as 'lever arms' because they were too 'slender to height' ratio and hence unstable in the vertical plane. See?
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 03:14 AM)
I have downsized the pictures for posted images and the links will go to the larger ones... I love the pictures - (some great ones have been posted)... but wouldn't it be better to just post the links to large pictures, instead of just pasting the whole thing 6 or 8 times added by a one sentence comment? Filling the board up with post after post of large pictures just slows it down...especially for those on dialup... or outback services.
Sorry, Foxx. I'll keep that in mind. Great post, btw.
Sorry, Foxx. I'll keep that in mind. Great post, btw.
JamesX and Foxx, I now pronounce you man and wife.
Totally awesome, dude. Thanks for 'stopping by'.
Is it just me or does the guy look like he's about to have a heart attack?
Do you know what leverage is? The longer the wrench, the more leverage you have, the more torque/force you can put on something. That's what hes saying. The core standing alone is the mother of all torque wrenches. The 40 stories worth of leverage will snap those column connections like twigs!
Another Common Scence classic! vertical columns with a force (gravity) in the vertical direction applies 40 stories of leverage (torque). How did the WTC stand in the first place with 110 stories of potential leverage.
Please add your explanation to your web site.
Hi reasonwhy!
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
And as to 'vertical' loads. The loads were ONLY VERTICAL FOR AS LONG AS THE STRUCTURES HAD LATERAL SUPPORT FROM THE WHOLE REST OF THE BUILDING. Once that support is lost, as in the REMNANT CORE COLUMNS, the 40+ story high columns became 'levers arms' because the loads are no longer 'perfectly' balanced' either way by any lateral supports.
Watch that video which shows metamars' 'spire'. See that lone column swaying to and fro? What forces do you think such long lever arms are delivering to the bottom sections as the column sways one way then is stopped to sway the other way? ALL of the core remnant columns would have behaved to more/less degree as 'lever arms' because they were too 'slender to height' ratio and hence unstable in the vertical plane. See?
Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi RC,
Agenst my better judgment I will answer. For your information, the force you are implying that the freestanding core is not made to withstand is shear wind force. 9/11 was a calm day except for the explosions going off in the surrounding WTC buildings.
Torque is defined as:
Force x Moment Arm = Torque
• The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
Another way of explaining the above equation is that torque is the product of the magnitude of the force and the perpendicular distance from the force to the axis of rotation (i.e. the pivot point).
Let the force acting on an object be broken up into its tangential, Ftan, and radial, Frad, components (see Figure 2). (Note that the tangential component of force, Ftan is perpendicular to the moment arm, whereas the radial component, Frad, is parallel to the moment arm.) The radial component of the force has no contribution to the torque because it passes through the pivot point (ie. it is parallel to the moment arm). So, only the tangential component of the force affects the torque.
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/t...e.intro108.html
You are describing the columns as the moment arm. You now need a force in any direction other than parallel to the moment arm because it would pass through the pivot point. Sorry , your example has no contribution to the torque as stated above(Rotate the graphic 90 degrees if it helps you understand the concept).The columns would have fallen over if torque were applied instead of collapsing as the video shows. I would think any real scientist would know this information
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 3 2006, 12:53 AM)
Is it just me or does the guy look like he's about to have a heart attack?
QUOTE (Schneezter+)
HEH!
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 6 2006, 09:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 7 2006, 04:41 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 6 2006, 07:49 PM)
Do you know what leverage is? The longer the wrench, the more leverage you have, the more torque/force you can put on something. That's what hes saying. The core standing alone is the mother of all torque wrenches. The 40 stories worth of leverage will snap those column connections like twigs!
Another Common Scence classic! vertical columns with a force (gravity) in the vertical direction applies 40 stories of leverage (torque). How did the WTC stand in the first place with 110 stories of potential leverage.
Please add your explanation to your web site.
Hi reasonwhy!
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
And as to 'vertical' loads. The loads were ONLY VERTICAL FOR AS LONG AS THE STRUCTURES HAD LATERAL SUPPORT FROM THE WHOLE REST OF THE BUILDING. Once that support is lost, as in the REMNANT CORE COLUMNS, the 40+ story high columns became 'levers arms' because the loads are no longer 'perfectly' balanced' either way by any lateral supports.
Watch that video which shows metamars' 'spire'. See that lone column swaying to and fro? What forces do you think such long lever arms are delivering to the bottom sections as the column sways one way then is stopped to sway the other way? ALL of the core remnant columns would have behaved to more/less degree as 'lever arms' because they were too 'slender to height' ratio and hence unstable in the vertical plane. See?
Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi RC,
Agenst my better judgment I will answer. For your information, the force you are implying that the freestanding core is not made to withstand is shear wind force. 9/11 was a calm day except for the explosions going off in the surrounding WTC buildings.
Torque is defined as:
Force x Moment Arm = Torque
• The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
Another way of explaining the above equation is that torque is the product of the magnitude of the force and the perpendicular distance from the force to the axis of rotation (i.e. the pivot point).
Let the force acting on an object be broken up into its tangential, Ftan, and radial, Frad, components (see Figure 2). (Note that the tangential component of force, Ftan is perpendicular to the moment arm, whereas the radial component, Frad, is parallel to the moment arm.) The radial component of the force has no contribution to the torque because it passes through the pivot point (ie. it is parallel to the moment arm). So, only the tangential component of the force affects the torque.
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/t...e.intro108.html
You are describing the columns as the moment arm. You now need a force in any direction other than parallel to the moment arm because it would pass through the pivot point. Sorry , your example has no contribution to the torque as stated above(Rotate the graphic 90 degrees if it helps you understand the concept).The columns would have fallen over if torque were applied instead of collapsing as the video shows. I would think any real scientist would know this information
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 7 2006, 01:18 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 6 2006, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 6 2006, 06:53 PM)
Thanks, Art, that's better than nothing I guess but I don't see a 'collapse' accounting for this kind of explosion
especially considering it happened twice in one day to two buildings that were compromised in different ways. Maybe if it only happened to one building (and even then only if it were much more compromised), then maybe I could believe it. But TWO of them?
Oh, wait... three of them... (I know, I know, WTC 7 was a normal, implosion-style CD, different story)
But thanks, anyway.
Do you think what happened to the two towers was THAT different?
They were nearly identical in construction.
They were BOTH run into by high speed commercial jets on the same day thus the same external conditions.
Arthur
Art, you know very well that the hits were totally different. Why bull$hit?
You GOTTA be kidding me
Yeah James, the WTC 2 tower was hit somewhat lower and somewhat off center compared to WTC 1, and if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Arthur
especially considering it happened twice in one day to two buildings that were compromised in different ways. Maybe if it only happened to one building (and even then only if it were much more compromised), then maybe I could believe it. But TWO of them?
Oh, wait... three of them... (I know, I know, WTC 7 was a normal, implosion-style CD, different story)
But thanks, anyway.
Do you think what happened to the two towers was THAT different?
They were nearly identical in construction.
They were BOTH run into by high speed commercial jets on the same day thus the same external conditions.
Arthur
Art, you know very well that the hits were totally different. Why bull$hit?
You GOTTA be kidding me
Yeah James, the WTC 2 tower was hit somewhat lower and somewhat off center compared to WTC 1, and if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Arthur
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 6 2006, 11:50 PM)
Don't forget the 1 x 3 "I" Beam running from the core to the perimeter wall.
What 1x3 "I" beam????
I figure they had to have a beam at each corner of the core that ran to the perimeter, for the floor trusses that didn't line up with the Core to attach to.
But other than that, what beams?
Arthur
What 1x3 "I" beam????
I figure they had to have a beam at each corner of the core that ran to the perimeter, for the floor trusses that didn't line up with the Core to attach to.
But other than that, what beams?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:50 AM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 7 2006, 01:18 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 6 2006, 11:27 PM)
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 6 2006, 06:53 PM)
Thanks, Art, that's better than nothing I guess but I don't see a 'collapse' accounting for this kind of explosion
especially considering it happened twice in one day to two buildings that were compromised in different ways. Maybe if it only happened to one building (and even then only if it were much more compromised), then maybe I could believe it. But TWO of them?
Oh, wait... three of them... (I know, I know, WTC 7 was a normal, implosion-style CD, different story)
But thanks, anyway.
Do you think what happened to the two towers was THAT different?
They were nearly identical in construction.
They were BOTH run into by high speed commercial jets on the same day thus the same external conditions.
Arthur
Art, you know very well that the hits were totally different. Why bull$hit?
You GOTTA be kidding me
Arthur
No, you've got to be kidding me, Arty. Either that or you are severely mentally impaired. Either way, you make zero sense and I'm not going to pretend your kookery is something worth replying to. Good day, sir.
Do you know what leverage is? The longer the wrench, the more leverage you have, the more torque/force you can put on something. That's what hes saying. The core standing alone is the mother of all torque wrenches. The 40 stories worth of leverage will snap those column connections like twigs!
Another Common Scence classic! vertical columns with a force (gravity) in the vertical direction applies 40 stories of leverage (torque). How did the WTC stand in the first place with 110 stories of potential leverage.
Please add your explanation to your web site.
Hi reasonwhy!
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
And as to 'vertical' loads. The loads were ONLY VERTICAL FOR AS LONG AS THE STRUCTURES HAD LATERAL SUPPORT FROM THE WHOLE REST OF THE BUILDING. Once that support is lost, as in the REMNANT CORE COLUMNS, the 40+ story high columns became 'levers arms' because the loads are no longer 'perfectly' balanced' either way by any lateral supports.
Watch that video which shows metamars' 'spire'. See that lone column swaying to and fro? What forces do you think such long lever arms are delivering to the bottom sections as the column sways one way then is stopped to sway the other way? ALL of the core remnant columns would have behaved to more/less degree as 'lever arms' because they were too 'slender to height' ratio and hence unstable in the vertical plane. See?
Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi RC,
Agenst my better judgment I will answer. For your information, the force you are implying that the freestanding core is not made to withstand is shear wind force. 9/11 was a calm day except for the explosions going off in the surrounding WTC buildings.
Torque is defined as:
Force x Moment Arm = Torque
• The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
Another way of explaining the above equation is that torque is the product of the magnitude of the force and the perpendicular distance from the force to the axis of rotation (i.e. the pivot point).
Let the force acting on an object be broken up into its tangential, Ftan, and radial, Frad, components (see Figure 2). (Note that the tangential component of force, Ftan is perpendicular to the moment arm, whereas the radial component, Frad, is parallel to the moment arm.) The radial component of the force has no contribution to the torque because it passes through the pivot point (ie. it is parallel to the moment arm). So, only the tangential component of the force affects the torque.
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/t...e.intro108.html
You are describing the columns as the moment arm. You now need a force in any direction other than parallel to the moment arm because it would pass through the pivot point. Sorry , your example has no contribution to the torque as stated above(Rotate the graphic 90 degrees if it helps you understand the concept).The columns would have fallen over if torque were applied instead of collapsing as the video shows. I would think any real scientist would know this information
Hi reasonwhy.
Hehehe...you couldn't resist the "...a calm day except for the explosions going off...", heh mate?
Either way, though...whether because of 'alleged explosions' or a tower falling on/around it, the remnant core columns were hardly in any condition to do anything BUT 'fall down'.
Consider the F-radial Forces exerted CHAOTICALLY and ASYMMETRICALLY from DIFFERENT directions THROUGHOUT the collapse. Why do you think that lone column in metamars' 'spire' video was STILL SWAYING after the main collapse hit bottom? The same forces which got THAT going would have had a similar effect on the OTHER columns too. And even if any column was EVEN JUST A LITTLE BIT OFF-vertical for reasons of damage/weight ditribution of debris etc, what would that relentless leverage do but FURTHER STRESS the bottom sections? And it wouldn't help whenever some part of the core remnant fell against some other parts (as happened in that metamars' 'spire' video, where the 'legs' were knocked out from under the column which was supporting that 'spire' until it too was brought down by that falling column).
So F-radial Forces were PRESENT in the necessary strength for the various column remnants to EVENTUALLY succumb....some sooner than others.
Remember, the columns were effectively NOT 'braced' anymore as designed for their height at that point; they were set 'oscillating' to some (more/less) frequency by the collapse forces; the 'recovery' after such 'imbalance' in the vertical plane would be AGAINST DESIGN PARAMETERS owing to lost lateral support; and at NO stage were the remnants 'perfectly vertical/stationary' before the vertical loads were converted to F-radial force on the 'lever arm' of each and every now-unsupported column (whose whole-height and bottom sections would have been damaged by the 'crushing' and 'shoving' of the millions of pounds of steel etc which created that pile of rubble from which they stood out temporarily).
Plenty of F-radial forces there reasonwhy. The day might have been calm, but the collapse sure wasn't, heh?
RC.
.
especially considering it happened twice in one day to two buildings that were compromised in different ways. Maybe if it only happened to one building (and even then only if it were much more compromised), then maybe I could believe it. But TWO of them?
Oh, wait... three of them... (I know, I know, WTC 7 was a normal, implosion-style CD, different story)
But thanks, anyway.
Do you think what happened to the two towers was THAT different?
They were nearly identical in construction.
They were BOTH run into by high speed commercial jets on the same day thus the same external conditions.
Arthur
Art, you know very well that the hits were totally different. Why bull$hit?
You GOTTA be kidding me
Arthur
No, you've got to be kidding me, Arty. Either that or you are severely mentally impaired. Either way, you make zero sense and I'm not going to pretend your kookery is something worth replying to. Good day, sir.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 7 2006, 06:41 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 6 2006, 09:34 PM)
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 7 2006, 04:41 AM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 6 2006, 07:49 PM)
Do you know what leverage is? The longer the wrench, the more leverage you have, the more torque/force you can put on something. That's what hes saying. The core standing alone is the mother of all torque wrenches. The 40 stories worth of leverage will snap those column connections like twigs!
Another Common Scence classic! vertical columns with a force (gravity) in the vertical direction applies 40 stories of leverage (torque). How did the WTC stand in the first place with 110 stories of potential leverage.
Please add your explanation to your web site.
Hi reasonwhy!
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
And as to 'vertical' loads. The loads were ONLY VERTICAL FOR AS LONG AS THE STRUCTURES HAD LATERAL SUPPORT FROM THE WHOLE REST OF THE BUILDING. Once that support is lost, as in the REMNANT CORE COLUMNS, the 40+ story high columns became 'levers arms' because the loads are no longer 'perfectly' balanced' either way by any lateral supports.
Watch that video which shows metamars' 'spire'. See that lone column swaying to and fro? What forces do you think such long lever arms are delivering to the bottom sections as the column sways one way then is stopped to sway the other way? ALL of the core remnant columns would have behaved to more/less degree as 'lever arms' because they were too 'slender to height' ratio and hence unstable in the vertical plane. See?
Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi RC,
Agenst my better judgment I will answer. For your information, the force you are implying that the freestanding core is not made to withstand is shear wind force. 9/11 was a calm day except for the explosions going off in the surrounding WTC buildings.
Torque is defined as:
Force x Moment Arm = Torque
• The moment of a force; the measure of a force's tendency to produce torsion and rotation about an axis, equal to the vector product of the radius vector from the axis of rotation to the point of application of the force and the force vector.
Another way of explaining the above equation is that torque is the product of the magnitude of the force and the perpendicular distance from the force to the axis of rotation (i.e. the pivot point).
Let the force acting on an object be broken up into its tangential, Ftan, and radial, Frad, components (see Figure 2). (Note that the tangential component of force, Ftan is perpendicular to the moment arm, whereas the radial component, Frad, is parallel to the moment arm.) The radial component of the force has no contribution to the torque because it passes through the pivot point (ie. it is parallel to the moment arm). So, only the tangential component of the force affects the torque.
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/t...e.intro108.html
You are describing the columns as the moment arm. You now need a force in any direction other than parallel to the moment arm because it would pass through the pivot point. Sorry , your example has no contribution to the torque as stated above(Rotate the graphic 90 degrees if it helps you understand the concept).The columns would have fallen over if torque were applied instead of collapsing as the video shows. I would think any real scientist would know this information
Hi reasonwhy.
Hehehe...you couldn't resist the "...a calm day except for the explosions going off...", heh mate?
Either way, though...whether because of 'alleged explosions' or a tower falling on/around it, the remnant core columns were hardly in any condition to do anything BUT 'fall down'.
Consider the F-radial Forces exerted CHAOTICALLY and ASYMMETRICALLY from DIFFERENT directions THROUGHOUT the collapse. Why do you think that lone column in metamars' 'spire' video was STILL SWAYING after the main collapse hit bottom? The same forces which got THAT going would have had a similar effect on the OTHER columns too. And even if any column was EVEN JUST A LITTLE BIT OFF-vertical for reasons of damage/weight ditribution of debris etc, what would that relentless leverage do but FURTHER STRESS the bottom sections? And it wouldn't help whenever some part of the core remnant fell against some other parts (as happened in that metamars' 'spire' video, where the 'legs' were knocked out from under the column which was supporting that 'spire' until it too was brought down by that falling column).
So F-radial Forces were PRESENT in the necessary strength for the various column remnants to EVENTUALLY succumb....some sooner than others.
Remember, the columns were effectively NOT 'braced' anymore as designed for their height at that point; they were set 'oscillating' to some (more/less) frequency by the collapse forces; the 'recovery' after such 'imbalance' in the vertical plane would be AGAINST DESIGN PARAMETERS owing to lost lateral support; and at NO stage were the remnants 'perfectly vertical/stationary' before the vertical loads were converted to F-radial force on the 'lever arm' of each and every now-unsupported column (whose whole-height and bottom sections would have been damaged by the 'crushing' and 'shoving' of the millions of pounds of steel etc which created that pile of rubble from which they stood out temporarily).
Plenty of F-radial forces there reasonwhy. The day might have been calm, but the collapse sure wasn't, heh?
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:59 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 6 2006, 11:50 PM)
Don't forget the 1 x 3 "I" Beam running from the core to the perimeter wall.
What 1x3 "I" beam????
I figure they had to have a beam at each corner of the core that ran to the perimeter, for the floor trusses that didn't line up with the Core to attach to.
But other than that, what beams?
Arthur
The clete at finish floor elevation to the right of the truss floor whare it joins into the spandrel plate is for holding the 1 x 3 "I" beam while being welded in place. Notice the the truss is sitting on it's clete, slightly lower (corrugation DIM) to set FF. The beams were set on 20 foot centers all the way around the towers.
The tower used the perimeter walls to take the major gravity load. With the designed gravity loads the perimeter wall will deform, the truss floors, not designed for compression and tension loads, would buckle or tear without "I beams connecting the perimeter box column wall to the interior box columns. If they buckle the perimeter walls buckle.
To support that concept I present the concrete schedule with it's vertical flooring scheme and ask that you note the sequence of high strength concrete in the scheme to ADD compressional and tensional strength uniformly up the towers.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg
I remember very well the documentary showing how the up to 60 foot long beams were set. The construction crews set the truss floors up next to the beam to be set and used the floor to walk back and forth between the perimeter and the core rather than climbing up and down ladders when welding the beam into place. The next picture in the series has been removed, along with alot of other pictures that would help you to know how the tower was constructed.
If you knew how it was really constructed, you would NEVER believe it collapsed.
What 1x3 "I" beam????
I figure they had to have a beam at each corner of the core that ran to the perimeter, for the floor trusses that didn't line up with the Core to attach to.
But other than that, what beams?
Arthur
The clete at finish floor elevation to the right of the truss floor whare it joins into the spandrel plate is for holding the 1 x 3 "I" beam while being welded in place. Notice the the truss is sitting on it's clete, slightly lower (corrugation DIM) to set FF. The beams were set on 20 foot centers all the way around the towers.
The tower used the perimeter walls to take the major gravity load. With the designed gravity loads the perimeter wall will deform, the truss floors, not designed for compression and tension loads, would buckle or tear without "I beams connecting the perimeter box column wall to the interior box columns. If they buckle the perimeter walls buckle.
To support that concept I present the concrete schedule with it's vertical flooring scheme and ask that you note the sequence of high strength concrete in the scheme to ADD compressional and tensional strength uniformly up the towers.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg
I remember very well the documentary showing how the up to 60 foot long beams were set. The construction crews set the truss floors up next to the beam to be set and used the floor to walk back and forth between the perimeter and the core rather than climbing up and down ladders when welding the beam into place. The next picture in the series has been removed, along with alot of other pictures that would help you to know how the tower was constructed.
If you knew how it was really constructed, you would NEVER believe it collapsed.
I've seen a number of pics where fairly large pieces of perimeter wall are in free fall. Moreover, they are no longer attached to the floor sections. That indicates it must have been relatively easy to break the connections between the floor sections and perimeter wall. If that's the case, it's not surprising to see so many piece of perimeter sections falling outward and down.
I thought that the floor sections were secured to the the outer perimeter using one-inch bolts and were not welded. If anyone has any info, I'm interested. It would have been fairly easy to shear one-inch bolts in a global collapse. Welds probably would have been stronger but even those would have likely failed during a collapse.
I thought that the floor sections were secured to the the outer perimeter using one-inch bolts and were not welded. If anyone has any info, I'm interested. It would have been fairly easy to shear one-inch bolts in a global collapse. Welds probably would have been stronger but even those would have likely failed during a collapse.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 03:14 AM)
Before you are going to get ANY kind of collapse first you need a massive fire. Sorry, I digress from jumping ahead to collapses. I'm still looking for the fires in the South tower.
(snip)
Still looking for the "raging fires", eh, Foxx?
Have faith, my son! One day, all shall be revealed!!
In the movie "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery ", there was a character called "mini-me", a midget version of the main villain. Perhaps we should introduce the concept of "mini-raging fires". Then, maybe we can ALL agree on terminology! Woo-hoo!!
(snip)
Still looking for the "raging fires", eh, Foxx?
Have faith, my son! One day, all shall be revealed!!
In the movie "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery ", there was a character called "mini-me", a midget version of the main villain. Perhaps we should introduce the concept of "mini-raging fires". Then, maybe we can ALL agree on terminology! Woo-hoo!!
Most of those large sections of perimeter wall that were still standing after the collapse show no signs of floors still attached either. It looks like it was relatively easy to break the floor connections. One could say the same thing for that tall spire structure that was left standing which was apparently the remnant of the inner core. It looked like it was stripped clean of any floor connections.
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 08:24 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:59 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 6 2006, 11:50 PM)
Don't forget the 1 x 3 "I" Beam running from the core to the perimeter wall.
What 1x3 "I" beam????
I figure they had to have a beam at each corner of the core that ran to the perimeter, for the floor trusses that didn't line up with the Core to attach to.
But other than that, what beams?
Arthur
The clete at finish floor elevation to the right of the truss floor whare it joins into the spandrel plate is for holding the 1 x 3 "I" beam while being welded in place. Notice the the truss is sitting on it's clete, slightly lower (corrugation DIM) to set FF. The beams were set on 20 foot centers all the way around the towers.
The tower used the perimeter walls to take the major gravity load. With the designed gravity loads the perimeter wall will deform, the truss floors, not designed for compression and tension loads, would buckle or tear without "I beams connecting the perimeter box column wall to the interior box columns. If they buckle the perimeter walls buckle.
To support that concept I present the concrete schedule with it's vertical flooring scheme and ask that you note the sequence of high strength concrete in the scheme to ADD compressional and tensional strength uniformly up the towers.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg
I remember very well the documentary showing how the up to 60 foot long beams were set. The construction crews set the truss floors up next to the beam to be set and used the floor to walk back and forth between the perimeter and the core rather than climbing up and down ladders when welding the beam into place. The next picture in the series has been removed, along with alot of other pictures that would help you to know how the tower was constructed.
If you knew how it was really constructed, you would NEVER believe it collapsed.
On the one hand, I'm very glad you posted this. In a discussion I had with my cousin (an architect), she told me that concrete strengths as low as 1000 psi might have been employed, which would make the pulverisation of it easier to attain. However, she said, the exact psi must be specced out somewhere. Apparently, you have found that "somewhere". The concrete was, indeed, quite strong.
However, your use of the term "vertical flooring scheme" in no way implies (to me, non-architect that I am) that it was applied vertically. As this document refers to "Architectural Drawings", I'm afraid you really need those to make your case.
Also, I understand that the construction of the WTC towers has been studied in textbooks. It's inconceivable to me that textbooks would omit such a detail. Can you provide any evidence from textbooks??
What 1x3 "I" beam????
I figure they had to have a beam at each corner of the core that ran to the perimeter, for the floor trusses that didn't line up with the Core to attach to.
But other than that, what beams?
Arthur
The clete at finish floor elevation to the right of the truss floor whare it joins into the spandrel plate is for holding the 1 x 3 "I" beam while being welded in place. Notice the the truss is sitting on it's clete, slightly lower (corrugation DIM) to set FF. The beams were set on 20 foot centers all the way around the towers.
The tower used the perimeter walls to take the major gravity load. With the designed gravity loads the perimeter wall will deform, the truss floors, not designed for compression and tension loads, would buckle or tear without "I beams connecting the perimeter box column wall to the interior box columns. If they buckle the perimeter walls buckle.
To support that concept I present the concrete schedule with it's vertical flooring scheme and ask that you note the sequence of high strength concrete in the scheme to ADD compressional and tensional strength uniformly up the towers.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg
I remember very well the documentary showing how the up to 60 foot long beams were set. The construction crews set the truss floors up next to the beam to be set and used the floor to walk back and forth between the perimeter and the core rather than climbing up and down ladders when welding the beam into place. The next picture in the series has been removed, along with alot of other pictures that would help you to know how the tower was constructed.
If you knew how it was really constructed, you would NEVER believe it collapsed.
On the one hand, I'm very glad you posted this. In a discussion I had with my cousin (an architect), she told me that concrete strengths as low as 1000 psi might have been employed, which would make the pulverisation of it easier to attain. However, she said, the exact psi must be specced out somewhere. Apparently, you have found that "somewhere". The concrete was, indeed, quite strong.
However, your use of the term "vertical flooring scheme" in no way implies (to me, non-architect that I am) that it was applied vertically. As this document refers to "Architectural Drawings", I'm afraid you really need those to make your case.
Also, I understand that the construction of the WTC towers has been studied in textbooks. It's inconceivable to me that textbooks would omit such a detail. Can you provide any evidence from textbooks??
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71237
Oh, look ... sunlight glinting off those Gold core columns.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcfromcore.up.out.jpg
WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
and again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
The reply to ALL this testimonial evidence (which is above reproach) is the WEAK argument...
The reply to ALL this testimonial evidence (which is above reproach) is the WEAK argument...
IF so, then why don't we see any pictures?
Well, how about this one? what is coming out of the ground there... [size=5]Lava...Molten Aluminum...Molten Glass ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/molten003LG.html
Zoomed...
32 floors did not come down on one. GET OVER IT. They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust... nothing left that remotely resembles your thinking above.
What an utterly simplistic view you have presented above... while ignoring what is clearly evident in photos & videos.
There, I have answered your question. We have all see the repeating schematics of intact floors, so you dont need to post them again. Your question has been answered whether you like the answer or not.
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
32 floors did not come down on one. GET OVER IT. They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust... nothing left that remotely resembles your thinking above.
What an utterly simplistic view you have presented above... while ignoring what is clearly evident in photos & videos.
There, I have answered your question. We have all see the repeating schematics of intact floors, so you dont need to post them again. Your question has been answered whether you like the answer or not.
32 floors did not come down on one. GET OVER IT. They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust... nothing left that remotely resembles your thinking above.
What an utterly simplistic view you have presented above... while ignoring what is clearly evident in photos & videos.
There, I have answered your question. We have all see the repeating schematics of intact floors, so you dont need to post them again. Your question has been answered whether you like the answer or not.
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please
"They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust... "
That was after the weight of the 32 stories hit each one as the photograph illustrate.
Even if explosions caused the massive tilt and weight to come down on the 78,77, 76th floors it DID come down on it. Your "Exploding Floor Umbrella" is the richest theory I heard yet! HAHAHA!
Since this is the first I've heard of this, do you have any examples of this type of CD? The Exploding Floor Umbrella CD?
Anyone else want to answer the question "intelligently"?
Oh, look ... sunlight glinting off those Gold core columns.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtcfromcore.up.out.jpg
QUOTE
WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
and again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
The reply to ALL this testimonial evidence (which is above reproach) is the WEAK argument...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11? Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed: An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano. http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/ An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482 Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them. http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67 A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155 An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event." http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802 A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11. http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view) http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/ As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948 Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634 even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html and again on September 21, 2001, http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634 and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html |
The reply to ALL this testimonial evidence (which is above reproach) is the WEAK argument...
IF so, then why don't we see any pictures?
Well, how about this one? what is coming out of the ground there... [size=5]Lava...Molten Aluminum...Molten Glass ???
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/molten003LG.html
Zoomed...
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 02:11 AM)
I have a question which can only be understood if I illustrate it.
How can this...
...slow down this...
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
...to a stop when each impact/story only adds another one of these...
Especially when it only has this...
holding it.
I see no one wants to answer the question. Maybe I can rephrase because I see some want to change the question...
Forget what started the collapse, I WILL get to that later. I am addressing the "Global collapse" here and not what happened on each floor. I want to get this one out of the way.
Again, how can 32 floors coming down on one stop?
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
How can this...
...slow down this...
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
...to a stop when each impact/story only adds another one of these...
Especially when it only has this...
holding it.
I see no one wants to answer the question. Maybe I can rephrase because I see some want to change the question...
Forget what started the collapse, I WILL get to that later. I am addressing the "Global collapse" here and not what happened on each floor. I want to get this one out of the way.
Again, how can 32 floors coming down on one stop?
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
QUOTE
Again, how can 32 floors coming down on one stop?
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
32 floors did not come down on one. GET OVER IT. They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust... nothing left that remotely resembles your thinking above.
What an utterly simplistic view you have presented above... while ignoring what is clearly evident in photos & videos.
There, I have answered your question. We have all see the repeating schematics of intact floors, so you dont need to post them again. Your question has been answered whether you like the answer or not.
QUOTE (JamesX+Mar 7 2006, 07:10 AM)
I'm not going to pretend your kookery is something worth replying to. Good day, sir.
He sounds upset.
You must have bitchslapped some sense into him.
"I went to the store the other day and they had some kookery on sale."
"Good day, sir."
Heh!
He sounds upset.
You must have bitchslapped some sense into him."I went to the store the other day and they had some kookery on sale."
"Good day, sir."
Heh!
QUOTE
by arthur
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 01:51 PM)
QUOTE
Again, how can 32 floors coming down on one stop?
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
32 floors did not come down on one. GET OVER IT. They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust... nothing left that remotely resembles your thinking above.
What an utterly simplistic view you have presented above... while ignoring what is clearly evident in photos & videos.
There, I have answered your question. We have all see the repeating schematics of intact floors, so you dont need to post them again. Your question has been answered whether you like the answer or not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, how can 32 floors coming down on one stop? No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please. |
32 floors did not come down on one. GET OVER IT. They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust... nothing left that remotely resembles your thinking above.
What an utterly simplistic view you have presented above... while ignoring what is clearly evident in photos & videos.
There, I have answered your question. We have all see the repeating schematics of intact floors, so you dont need to post them again. Your question has been answered whether you like the answer or not.
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please
"They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust... "
That was after the weight of the 32 stories hit each one as the photograph illustrate.
Even if explosions caused the massive tilt and weight to come down on the 78,77, 76th floors it DID come down on it. Your "Exploding Floor Umbrella" is the richest theory I heard yet! HAHAHA!
Since this is the first I've heard of this, do you have any examples of this type of CD? The Exploding Floor Umbrella CD?
Anyone else want to answer the question "intelligently"?
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 7 2006, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:59 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 6 2006, 11:50 PM)
Don't forget the 1 x 3 "I" Beam running from the core to the perimeter wall.
What 1x3 "I" beam????
I figure they had to have a beam at each corner of the core that ran to the perimeter, for the floor trusses that didn't line up with the Core to attach to.
But other than that, what beams?
Arthur
The clete at finish floor elevation to the right of the truss floor whare it joins into the spandrel plate is for holding the 1 x 3 "I" beam while being welded in place. Notice the the truss is sitting on it's clete, slightly lower (corrugation DIM) to set FF. The beams were set on 20 foot centers all the way around the towers.
The tower used the perimeter walls to take the major gravity load. With the designed gravity loads the perimeter wall will deform, the truss floors, not designed for compression and tension loads, would buckle or tear without "I beams connecting the perimeter box column wall to the interior box columns. If they buckle the perimeter walls buckle.
To support that concept I present the concrete schedule with it's vertical flooring scheme and ask that you note the sequence of high strength concrete in the scheme to ADD compressional and tensional strength uniformly up the towers.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg
I remember very well the documentary showing how the up to 60 foot long beams were set. The construction crews set the truss floors up next to the beam to be set and used the floor to walk back and forth between the perimeter and the core rather than climbing up and down ladders when welding the beam into place. The next picture in the series has been removed, along with alot of other pictures that would help you to know how the tower was constructed.
If you knew how it was really constructed, you would NEVER believe it collapsed.
The clete at finish floor elevation to the right of the truss floor whare it joins into the spandrel plate is for holding the 1 x 3 "I" beam while being welded in place. Notice the the truss is sitting on it's clete, slightly lower (corrugation DIM) to set FF. The beams were set on 20 foot centers all the way around the towers.
Not on the TRUSS FRAMED FLOORS.
Keep in mind that the MECHANICAL FLOORS were referred to as BEAM FRAMED FLOORS in the NIST document. I suspect that is what you are talking about.
On the Truss Framed Floors the Floor SECTIONS were prefabbed in 20 foot sections, so that would have one beam per floor section.
I've seen just too many of the construction pictures to know THAT ain't right.
But don't take MY word for it, look at the picture.
There is NO PLACE to rest this I beam while it is being welded. That clete you point out is for the STRAPS you see on the TOP of the floor to be attached to.
Furthermore, IF you welded an I beam THERE, you could NOT put the next floor section in place because they have BRIDGE TRUSSES running perpendicular to their long axis.
Furthermore you COULDN'T get an I beam in there AFTER the floor was up because by then it is bounded by the core and the perimeter framing.
The floors were in 20 foot sections. The trusses were on 6'8" centers. The Trusses had TWO I beams except at one side of the prefabbed floor section. On the other side, there was NO TRUSS but it did have an I beam.
When the prefabbed sections were put together this would be how the two floor sections would be structurally bonded by welding them together.
You can see this in the actual construction picture.
Note the SINGLE row of knuckles sticking up on the truss in the forefront. Notice the DOUBLE row of knuckles on the truss to the right. The floor section that is placed next to this one will begin with JUST an I beam and 6'8" of floor before the next truss.
To support that concept I present the concrete schedule with it's vertical flooring scheme and ask that you note the sequence of high strength concrete in the scheme to ADD compressional and tensional strength uniformly up the towers.
Don't buy this either. After the 10th floor, the floors going up the tower are ALL the same lightweight concrete except the mechanical floors (BEAM FRAMED) and the top floor.
The only other 60 ft long I beams on the Truss Frame floors HAVE to be the ones that connect the CORNERS of the Core to the perimeter. They are needed so that the floor trusses that are beyond a parallel line with the end of the Core have something to attach to. There are only 4 of those however.
Arthur
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
Yeah, and those clear as day fires are shown on my fires page...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm
Oh, look ... sunlight glinting off those [color=red]Gold core columns.
Zoomed...
You can SEE the people by the bright lights in each picture FOXX.
They are using CUTTING TORCHES.
MORON.
Arthur
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
I must have missed that section in the NIST report where they said the fires were almost out so they had to drop it sooner.
Chapter and page reference please?
Arthur
Exploding Floor Umbrella? Is that what you call the mushroom of laterally expanding dust (which were previously the intact floors amongst all the other weight and inertia you wish to have applied the the lower uncomprised floors. The Mechanical Floor was the 78th... it wasn't a simple truss floor, but was constructed out of massive beams (just as the floors within the core were). The disintegrating upper portion blew outwards... not down. The mechanical floor would have impeded the much lighter disintegrating upper section just as the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor did. Did you not see the scgematic I earlier provided from Arup? Ill dig it up for you again. Don't insult my intelligence with your nonsensical high school theories - come up with some evidence (which in over 400 pages you have failed to do).
Besides, in order for any kind of collapse to occur, you first need a steel-killing fire, and I have already shown that the south tower fire was almost OUT. You have mysteriously avoided any discussion of that evidence from NIST itself after making a great fuss about these imaginary fires in the south tower.
Oh if you missed it...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71335
Exploding Floor Umbrella? Is that what you call the mushroom of laterally expanding dust (which were previously the intact floors amongst all the other weight and inertia you wish to have applied the the lower uncomprised floors. The Mechanical Floor was the 78th... it wasn't a simple truss floor, but was constructed out of massive beams (just as the floors within the core were). The disintegrating upper portion blew outwards... not down. The mechanical floor would have impeded the much lighter disintegrating upper section just as the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor did. Did you not see the scgematic I earlier provided from Arup? Ill dig it up for you again. Don't insult my intelligence with your nonsensical high school theories - come up with some evidence (which in over 400 pages you have failed to do).
Besides, in order for any kind of collapse to occur, you first need a steel-killing fire, and I have already shown that the south tower fire was almost OUT. You have mysteriously avoided any discussion of that evidence from NIST itself after making a great fuss about these imaginary fires in the south tower.
Oh if you missed it...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71335
by arthur
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
What would have happened had the south tower stood after the fire going out... and then the first tower collapsed... Just imagine the investigation going on in that STILL STANDING TOWER. They CERTAINLY could NOT allow that to happen. The photo-documentay evidence (presented in the NIST report itself show that the south tower fire was on it's last gasps. IT was clearly almost out.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
Oh, look ... sunlight glinting off those [color=red]Gold core columns.
Zoomed...
You can SEE the people by the bright lights in each picture FOXX.
They are using CUTTING TORCHES.
MORON.
Arthur
More of the same... Oh, look at the emperors nice new clothes...
Point out the people and their equipment next to this 'lava'...
cutting torches create lava, now?
I wasn't aware of these new Lava-Torches. Can you provide any more documentation for this equipment than the Amazing Underground Bellows?
Exploding Floor Umbrella? Is that what you call the mushroom of laterally expanding dust (which were previously the intact floors amongst all the other weight and inertia you wish to have applied the the lower uncomprised floors. The Mechanical Floor was the 78th... it wasn't a simple truss floor, but was constructed out of massive beams (just as the floors within the core were). The disintegrating upper portion blew outwards... not down. The mechanical floor would have impeded the much lighter disintegrating upper section just as the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor did. Did you not see the scgematic I earlier provided from Arup? Ill dig it up for you again. Don't insult my intelligence with your nonsensical high school theories - come up with some evidence (which in over 400 pages you have failed to do).
Besides, in order for any kind of collapse to occur, you first need a steel-killing fire, and I have already shown that the south tower fire was almost OUT. You have mysteriously avoided any discussion of that evidence from NIST itself after making a great fuss about these imaginary fires in the south tower.
Oh if you missed it...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71335
Exploding Floor Umbrella? Is that what you call the mushroom of laterally expanding dust (which were previously the intact floors amongst all the other weight and inertia you wish to have applied the the lower uncomprised floors. The Mechanical Floor was the 78th... it wasn't a simple truss floor, but was constructed out of massive beams (just as the floors within the core were). The disintegrating upper portion blew outwards... not down. The mechanical floor would have impeded the much lighter disintegrating upper section just as the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor did. Did you not see the scgematic I earlier provided from Arup? Ill dig it up for you again. Don't insult my intelligence with your nonsensical high school theories - come up with some evidence (which in over 400 pages you have failed to do).
Besides, in order for any kind of collapse to occur, you first need a steel-killing fire, and I have already shown that the south tower fire was almost OUT. You have mysteriously avoided any discussion of that evidence from NIST itself after making a great fuss about these imaginary fires in the south tower.
Oh if you missed it...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71335
by arthur
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
What would have happened had the south tower stood after the fire going out... and then the first tower collapsed... Just imagine the investigation going on in that STILL STANDING TOWER. They CERTAINLY could NOT allow that to happen. The photo-documentay evidence (presented in the NIST report itself show that the south tower fire was on it's last gasps. IT was clearly almost out.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
Play dodge ball much?
I asked you to give me an example of this outlandish theory you have of debris going around floors. The ejecta you talk about can easily be explained by anyone looking at the photo I posted. The debris doesn't come out any window until the building is already on it's way over so your exploding floor unbrella theory holds no water. (Get it.. umbrella, water... Ah, never mind...)
That happened before the ejecta didn't it... DIDN'T IT!!!
HEHE
Now back to my question... Anyone?
That's your evidence? One picture from an obscure angle showing nothing more than the initiation of the detonation process... it doesn't even show the top portion which is lost in shadow.
But your still ignoring the evidence that the south tower fire was almost out...and that there were nothing more than comparatively piddley fires to begin with. Even Schneibster called my nice North Fires small - and those were the only major fires which burned slowly and without expanding laterally from the debris piles to any significant degree in an hour.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
Spam on... I have addressed you questions and now you seek to shirk away without providing a response more than smug comments. Where's the 'scientist' in you, oh great logician?
That happened before the ejecta didn't it... DIDN'T IT!!!
LOL
That happened before the ejecta didn't it... DIDN'T IT!!!
LOL
I'm a regular riot aint I.
What 1x3 "I" beam????
I figure they had to have a beam at each corner of the core that ran to the perimeter, for the floor trusses that didn't line up with the Core to attach to.
But other than that, what beams?
Arthur
The clete at finish floor elevation to the right of the truss floor whare it joins into the spandrel plate is for holding the 1 x 3 "I" beam while being welded in place. Notice the the truss is sitting on it's clete, slightly lower (corrugation DIM) to set FF. The beams were set on 20 foot centers all the way around the towers.
The tower used the perimeter walls to take the major gravity load. With the designed gravity loads the perimeter wall will deform, the truss floors, not designed for compression and tension loads, would buckle or tear without "I beams connecting the perimeter box column wall to the interior box columns. If they buckle the perimeter walls buckle.
To support that concept I present the concrete schedule with it's vertical flooring scheme and ask that you note the sequence of high strength concrete in the scheme to ADD compressional and tensional strength uniformly up the towers.
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg
I remember very well the documentary showing how the up to 60 foot long beams were set. The construction crews set the truss floors up next to the beam to be set and used the floor to walk back and forth between the perimeter and the core rather than climbing up and down ladders when welding the beam into place. The next picture in the series has been removed, along with alot of other pictures that would help you to know how the tower was constructed.
If you knew how it was really constructed, you would NEVER believe it collapsed.
The clete at finish floor elevation to the right of the truss floor whare it joins into the spandrel plate is for holding the 1 x 3 "I" beam while being welded in place. Notice the the truss is sitting on it's clete, slightly lower (corrugation DIM) to set FF. The beams were set on 20 foot centers all the way around the towers.
Not on the TRUSS FRAMED FLOORS.
Keep in mind that the MECHANICAL FLOORS were referred to as BEAM FRAMED FLOORS in the NIST document. I suspect that is what you are talking about.
On the Truss Framed Floors the Floor SECTIONS were prefabbed in 20 foot sections, so that would have one beam per floor section.
I've seen just too many of the construction pictures to know THAT ain't right.
But don't take MY word for it, look at the picture.
There is NO PLACE to rest this I beam while it is being welded. That clete you point out is for the STRAPS you see on the TOP of the floor to be attached to.
Furthermore, IF you welded an I beam THERE, you could NOT put the next floor section in place because they have BRIDGE TRUSSES running perpendicular to their long axis.
Furthermore you COULDN'T get an I beam in there AFTER the floor was up because by then it is bounded by the core and the perimeter framing.
The floors were in 20 foot sections. The trusses were on 6'8" centers. The Trusses had TWO I beams except at one side of the prefabbed floor section. On the other side, there was NO TRUSS but it did have an I beam.
When the prefabbed sections were put together this would be how the two floor sections would be structurally bonded by welding them together.
You can see this in the actual construction picture.
Note the SINGLE row of knuckles sticking up on the truss in the forefront. Notice the DOUBLE row of knuckles on the truss to the right. The floor section that is placed next to this one will begin with JUST an I beam and 6'8" of floor before the next truss.
To support that concept I present the concrete schedule with it's vertical flooring scheme and ask that you note the sequence of high strength concrete in the scheme to ADD compressional and tensional strength uniformly up the towers.
Don't buy this either. After the 10th floor, the floors going up the tower are ALL the same lightweight concrete except the mechanical floors (BEAM FRAMED) and the top floor.
The only other 60 ft long I beams on the Truss Frame floors HAVE to be the ones that connect the CORNERS of the Core to the perimeter. They are needed so that the floor trusses that are beyond a parallel line with the end of the Core have something to attach to. There are only 4 of those however.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 01:58 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
Yeah, and those clear as day fires are shown on my fires page...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 09:37 AM)
Oh, look ... sunlight glinting off those [color=red]Gold core columns.
Zoomed...
You can SEE the people by the bright lights in each picture FOXX.
They are using CUTTING TORCHES.
MORON.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 09:58 AM)
QUOTE
by arthur
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
I must have missed that section in the NIST report where they said the fires were almost out so they had to drop it sooner.
Chapter and page reference please?
Arthur
We often stumble onto the truth but most of us brush ourselves off and pretend it did not happen! (Winston Churchill)
QUOTE
by the master hand-waver
Even if explosions caused the massive tilt and weight to come down on the 78,77, 76th floors it DID come down on it. Your "Exploding Floor Umbrella" is the richest theory I heard yet! HAHAHA!
Since this is the first I've heard of this, do you have any examples of this type of CD? The Exploding Floor Umbrella CD?
Anyone else want to answer the question "intelligently"?
Even if explosions caused the massive tilt and weight to come down on the 78,77, 76th floors it DID come down on it. Your "Exploding Floor Umbrella" is the richest theory I heard yet! HAHAHA!
Since this is the first I've heard of this, do you have any examples of this type of CD? The Exploding Floor Umbrella CD?
Anyone else want to answer the question "intelligently"?
Exploding Floor Umbrella? Is that what you call the mushroom of laterally expanding dust (which were previously the intact floors amongst all the other weight and inertia you wish to have applied the the lower uncomprised floors. The Mechanical Floor was the 78th... it wasn't a simple truss floor, but was constructed out of massive beams (just as the floors within the core were). The disintegrating upper portion blew outwards... not down. The mechanical floor would have impeded the much lighter disintegrating upper section just as the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor did. Did you not see the scgematic I earlier provided from Arup? Ill dig it up for you again. Don't insult my intelligence with your nonsensical high school theories - come up with some evidence (which in over 400 pages you have failed to do).
Besides, in order for any kind of collapse to occur, you first need a steel-killing fire, and I have already shown that the south tower fire was almost OUT. You have mysteriously avoided any discussion of that evidence from NIST itself after making a great fuss about these imaginary fires in the south tower.
Oh if you missed it...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71335
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by the master hand-waver Even if explosions caused the massive tilt and weight to come down on the 78,77, 76th floors it DID come down on it. Your "Exploding Floor Umbrella" is the richest theory I heard yet! HAHAHA! Since this is the first I've heard of this, do you have any examples of this type of CD? The Exploding Floor Umbrella CD? Anyone else want to answer the question "intelligently"? |
Exploding Floor Umbrella? Is that what you call the mushroom of laterally expanding dust (which were previously the intact floors amongst all the other weight and inertia you wish to have applied the the lower uncomprised floors. The Mechanical Floor was the 78th... it wasn't a simple truss floor, but was constructed out of massive beams (just as the floors within the core were). The disintegrating upper portion blew outwards... not down. The mechanical floor would have impeded the much lighter disintegrating upper section just as the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor did. Did you not see the scgematic I earlier provided from Arup? Ill dig it up for you again. Don't insult my intelligence with your nonsensical high school theories - come up with some evidence (which in over 400 pages you have failed to do).
Besides, in order for any kind of collapse to occur, you first need a steel-killing fire, and I have already shown that the south tower fire was almost OUT. You have mysteriously avoided any discussion of that evidence from NIST itself after making a great fuss about these imaginary fires in the south tower.
Oh if you missed it...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71335
by arthur
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
What would have happened had the south tower stood after the fire going out... and then the first tower collapsed... Just imagine the investigation going on in that STILL STANDING TOWER. They CERTAINLY could NOT allow that to happen. The photo-documentay evidence (presented in the NIST report itself show that the south tower fire was on it's last gasps. IT was clearly almost out.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 02:20 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 09:37 AM)
Oh, look ... sunlight glinting off those [color=red]Gold core columns.
Zoomed...
You can SEE the people by the bright lights in each picture FOXX.
They are using CUTTING TORCHES.
MORON.
Arthur
More of the same... Oh, look at the emperors nice new clothes...
Point out the people and their equipment next to this 'lava'...
cutting torches create lava, now?
I wasn't aware of these new Lava-Torches. Can you provide any more documentation for this equipment than the Amazing Underground Bellows?
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 09:51 AM)
32 floors did not come down on one.
GET OVER IT.
They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust...
There, I have answered your question.
Your question has been answered whether you like the answer or not.
Pope Foxx has lost it.
He' posts this BS right under a post with this picture
That shows the top section coming down in ONE PIECE.
Arthur
GET OVER IT.
They blew laterally out the sides of the building in a massive plume of dust...
There, I have answered your question.
Your question has been answered whether you like the answer or not.
Pope Foxx has lost it.
He' posts this BS right under a post with this picture
That shows the top section coming down in ONE PIECE.
Arthur
Again, how can 32 floors coming down on one stop?
How did the 110th floor become disconnected from the perimeter columns and core columns before falling down?
Are you suggesting that the thermal effects were felt at the upper levels?
Why were these effects firstly evident at the upper floor, rather than the aircraft impact area?
Gordon
How did the 110th floor become disconnected from the perimeter columns and core columns before falling down?
Are you suggesting that the thermal effects were felt at the upper levels?
Why were these effects firstly evident at the upper floor, rather than the aircraft impact area?
Gordon
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 10:34 AM)
More of the same... Oh, look at the emperors nice new clothes...
Point out the people and their equipment next to this 'lava'...
cutting torches create lava, now?
I wasn't aware of these new Lava-Torches. Can you provide any more documentation for this equipment than the Amazing Underground Bellows?
Thanks, I'll let you play "where's Waldo".
Hint in the top picture one guy is wearing jeans, looking at the other guy who is cutting.
The second picture is iffy, could be a guy cutting, could be a FIRE.
However in either picture there is no evidence of Lava or molten metal either. JUST YELLOW LIGHT, you know, as given off by A FIRE or A TORCH.
Arthur
Point out the people and their equipment next to this 'lava'...
cutting torches create lava, now?
I wasn't aware of these new Lava-Torches. Can you provide any more documentation for this equipment than the Amazing Underground Bellows?
Thanks, I'll let you play "where's Waldo".
Hint in the top picture one guy is wearing jeans, looking at the other guy who is cutting.
The second picture is iffy, could be a guy cutting, could be a FIRE.
However in either picture there is no evidence of Lava or molten metal either. JUST YELLOW LIGHT, you know, as given off by A FIRE or A TORCH.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE
by the master hand-waver
Even if explosions caused the massive tilt and weight to come down on the 78,77, 76th floors it DID come down on it. Your "Exploding Floor Umbrella" is the richest theory I heard yet! HAHAHA!
Since this is the first I've heard of this, do you have any examples of this type of CD? The Exploding Floor Umbrella CD?
Anyone else want to answer the question "intelligently"?
Even if explosions caused the massive tilt and weight to come down on the 78,77, 76th floors it DID come down on it. Your "Exploding Floor Umbrella" is the richest theory I heard yet! HAHAHA!
Since this is the first I've heard of this, do you have any examples of this type of CD? The Exploding Floor Umbrella CD?
Anyone else want to answer the question "intelligently"?
Exploding Floor Umbrella? Is that what you call the mushroom of laterally expanding dust (which were previously the intact floors amongst all the other weight and inertia you wish to have applied the the lower uncomprised floors. The Mechanical Floor was the 78th... it wasn't a simple truss floor, but was constructed out of massive beams (just as the floors within the core were). The disintegrating upper portion blew outwards... not down. The mechanical floor would have impeded the much lighter disintegrating upper section just as the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor did. Did you not see the scgematic I earlier provided from Arup? Ill dig it up for you again. Don't insult my intelligence with your nonsensical high school theories - come up with some evidence (which in over 400 pages you have failed to do).
Besides, in order for any kind of collapse to occur, you first need a steel-killing fire, and I have already shown that the south tower fire was almost OUT. You have mysteriously avoided any discussion of that evidence from NIST itself after making a great fuss about these imaginary fires in the south tower.
Oh if you missed it...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71335
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by the master hand-waver Even if explosions caused the massive tilt and weight to come down on the 78,77, 76th floors it DID come down on it. Your "Exploding Floor Umbrella" is the richest theory I heard yet! HAHAHA! Since this is the first I've heard of this, do you have any examples of this type of CD? The Exploding Floor Umbrella CD? Anyone else want to answer the question "intelligently"? |
Exploding Floor Umbrella? Is that what you call the mushroom of laterally expanding dust (which were previously the intact floors amongst all the other weight and inertia you wish to have applied the the lower uncomprised floors. The Mechanical Floor was the 78th... it wasn't a simple truss floor, but was constructed out of massive beams (just as the floors within the core were). The disintegrating upper portion blew outwards... not down. The mechanical floor would have impeded the much lighter disintegrating upper section just as the mechanical floor in the Madrid Windsor did. Did you not see the scgematic I earlier provided from Arup? Ill dig it up for you again. Don't insult my intelligence with your nonsensical high school theories - come up with some evidence (which in over 400 pages you have failed to do).
Besides, in order for any kind of collapse to occur, you first need a steel-killing fire, and I have already shown that the south tower fire was almost OUT. You have mysteriously avoided any discussion of that evidence from NIST itself after making a great fuss about these imaginary fires in the south tower.
Oh if you missed it...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71335
by arthur
if you read the NIST report you will see why the major impact of this lower and slightly off center crash was to lower the time it took for the tower to fail.
Nonsense... If you read the report you will find that the south tower fire was almost out... that's why they had to drop it sooner.
What would have happened had the south tower stood after the fire going out... and then the first tower collapsed... Just imagine the investigation going on in that STILL STANDING TOWER. They CERTAINLY could NOT allow that to happen. The photo-documentay evidence (presented in the NIST report itself show that the south tower fire was on it's last gasps. IT was clearly almost out.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
BTW... so much for your Amazing Hiding Fires theory. All the south tower fires are clearly mapped and accompanied by splendid pictures.
Play dodge ball much?
I asked you to give me an example of this outlandish theory you have of debris going around floors. The ejecta you talk about can easily be explained by anyone looking at the photo I posted. The debris doesn't come out any window until the building is already on it's way over so your exploding floor unbrella theory holds no water. (Get it.. umbrella, water... Ah, never mind...)
That happened before the ejecta didn't it... DIDN'T IT!!!
HEHE
Now back to my question... Anyone?
Oh and as for your "It was clearly almost out" diatribe.
YOU ARE ONLY MAKING THE NIST CASE.
Because they SAY the trusses cooled and contracted pulling the columns in. Once again...
YOU ARE ONLY MAKING THE NIST CASE.
I'm sure they can do without your help.
YOU ARE ONLY MAKING THE NIST CASE.
Because they SAY the trusses cooled and contracted pulling the columns in. Once again...
YOU ARE ONLY MAKING THE NIST CASE.
I'm sure they can do without your help.
QUOTE
by arthur
That shows the top section coming down in ONE PIECE.
That shows the top section coming down in ONE PIECE.
That's your evidence? One picture from an obscure angle showing nothing more than the initiation of the detonation process... it doesn't even show the top portion which is lost in shadow.
But your still ignoring the evidence that the south tower fire was almost out...and that there were nothing more than comparatively piddley fires to begin with. Even Schneibster called my nice North Fires small - and those were the only major fires which burned slowly and without expanding laterally from the debris piles to any significant degree in an hour.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
Spam on... I have addressed you questions and now you seek to shirk away without providing a response more than smug comments. Where's the 'scientist' in you, oh great logician?
QUOTE (Commen kook+Mar 7 2006, 02:41 PM)
That happened before the ejecta didn't it... DIDN'T IT!!!
LOL
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 02:40 PM)
Again, how can 32 floors coming down on one stop?
How did the 110th floor become disconnected from the perimeter columns and core columns before falling down?
Are you suggesting that the thermal effects were felt at the upper levels?
Why were these effects firstly evident at the upper floor, rather than the aircraft impact area?
Gordon
You're dodging the question. No one said the 110th floor disconnected from anything. Were talking about the weight of all the floors from the 79th to the 110th. Or is the 110th floor not connected to the other floors above the impace by columns? Be they connected or not the weight was there. Or are you in Foxxes exploding floor umbrella camp.
How did the 110th floor become disconnected from the perimeter columns and core columns before falling down?
Are you suggesting that the thermal effects were felt at the upper levels?
Why were these effects firstly evident at the upper floor, rather than the aircraft impact area?
Gordon
You're dodging the question. No one said the 110th floor disconnected from anything. Were talking about the weight of all the floors from the 79th to the 110th. Or is the 110th floor not connected to the other floors above the impace by columns? Be they connected or not the weight was there. Or are you in Foxxes exploding floor umbrella camp.
QUOTE (jackovsky+Mar 7 2006, 02:47 PM)
QUOTE (Commen kook+Mar 7 2006, 02:41 PM)
That happened before the ejecta didn't it... DIDN'T IT!!!
LOL
I'm a regular riot aint I.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 7 2006, 05:34 AM)
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
How did they stand during construction, prior to the hat trusses being built?
How did they stand during construction, prior to the hat trusses being built?
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 7 2006, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 7 2006, 05:34 AM)
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
How did they stand during construction, prior to the hat trusses being built?
Show me a pictiure of the core being built without the perimeter columns...
Show me where anyone said they did...
You're not understanding my illustration and hence my the question. The weight of all the floors were moving downward, connected or not. Unless someone teleported them out as the building as it fell, right.
You know what I'm saying... Poor grammar and all...
How did they stand during construction, prior to the hat trusses being built?
Show me a pictiure of the core being built without the perimeter columns...
So if they were still connected to the columns how did the upper section manage to disconnect itself as a mass from the lower section, then shrink in size in order to be able to fit inside the remaining columns and thence impact the next floor down?
Gordon.
Gordon.
QUOTE
So if they were still connected to the columns how did the upper section manage to disconnect themselves as a mass from the lower section, then shrink in size in order to be able to fit inside the remaining columns and thence impact the next floor down
Show me where anyone said they did...
You're not understanding my illustration and hence my the question. The weight of all the floors were moving downward, connected or not. Unless someone teleported them out as the building as it fell, right.
You know what I'm saying... Poor grammar and all...
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 02:11 AM)
I have a question which can only be understood if I illustrate it.
How can this...
...slow down this...
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
...to a stop when each impact/story only adds another one of these...
Especially when it only has this...
holding it.
I see no one wants to answer the question. Maybe I can rephrase because I see some want to change the question...
Forget what started the collapse, I WILL get to that later. I am addressing the "Global collapse" here and not what happened on each floor. I want to get this one out of the way.
Again, how can [edit: the wieght of] 32 floors coming down on one stop? The fact they they are connected to columns and such only adds wieght.
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
How can this...
...slow down this...
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
[add above images here]
...to a stop when each impact/story only adds another one of these...
Especially when it only has this...
holding it.
I see no one wants to answer the question. Maybe I can rephrase because I see some want to change the question...
Forget what started the collapse, I WILL get to that later. I am addressing the "Global collapse" here and not what happened on each floor. I want to get this one out of the way.
Again, how can [edit: the wieght of] 32 floors coming down on one stop? The fact they they are connected to columns and such only adds wieght.
No hand waving, sophistry or obfuscation allowed please.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 02:59 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 7 2006, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 7 2006, 05:34 AM)
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
How did they stand during construction, prior to the hat trusses being built?
Show me a pictiure of the core being built without the perimeter columns...
I said, prior to the HAT TRUSSES being constructed!! If you look at YOUR post above, YOU specifically say that the:
"'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (VIA HAT TRUSS) "
I know this means nothing to the argument, one way or another. It is just a FINE example of how you "change horses in the middle of the stream"!
"any way the wind blows". Blows being the operative word...
How did they stand during construction, prior to the hat trusses being built?
Show me a pictiure of the core being built without the perimeter columns...
I said, prior to the HAT TRUSSES being constructed!! If you look at YOUR post above, YOU specifically say that the:
"'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (VIA HAT TRUSS) "
I know this means nothing to the argument, one way or another. It is just a FINE example of how you "change horses in the middle of the stream"!
"any way the wind blows". Blows being the operative word...
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day, without the addition of additional energies..
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 5 2006, 12:17 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 4 2006, 04:08 AM)
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 4 2006, 04:00 AM)
Here is another shot of the spire and adjacent interior box columns that were under the spire and the concrete core wall behind it.
I posted the original of that picture above. You do know you are COMPLETELY alone in your assumtion don't you.
Are you saying that the material between those 2 interior box columns is drywall?
Well, sorta, but when you say DRYWALL, most people think about the lightduty sheetrock that you find in residential houses.
I assure you there are MUCH TOUGHER varieties of GYPSUM PANELS.
As I recall, these panels were prefabbed, double thickness using steel studs.
They had to handle the pressure loads from the high speed elevators, so, no they weren't wimpy drywall like your abode.
Arthur
While reading the NIST report for something else I came across a description of the "drywall"
As I suspected, it isn't the same as "drywall" in your house.
The Shaft walls were either 2 or 2 1/2 inches thick (Most home drywall is 1/2") and 16" wide with metal tongue and groves along the long side (This metal T&G served as Wall studs) and the planks were set in metal channels on the floor and ceiling.
So what it means is EACH is a minimum 2 inch thick gypsum panel was encased on ALL SIDES with metal and a panel was only 16" wide, not your typical 4 ft width.
Pretty strong huh?
Well that's just the Wall.
Then this wall was covered with regular SHEETS of Wallboard.
Thus Walls were as much as 3" thick almost of solid gypsum.
They don't specify, but I'd be willing to bet that those INTERNAL metal encased panels were also the heavy duty type, not the LIGHT DUTY stuff one sees in a typical home.
Section 5.4.8 - Page 66 NIST Final Report
Arthur
I posted the original of that picture above. You do know you are COMPLETELY alone in your assumtion don't you.
Are you saying that the material between those 2 interior box columns is drywall?
Well, sorta, but when you say DRYWALL, most people think about the lightduty sheetrock that you find in residential houses.
I assure you there are MUCH TOUGHER varieties of GYPSUM PANELS.
As I recall, these panels were prefabbed, double thickness using steel studs.
They had to handle the pressure loads from the high speed elevators, so, no they weren't wimpy drywall like your abode.
Arthur
While reading the NIST report for something else I came across a description of the "drywall"
As I suspected, it isn't the same as "drywall" in your house.
The Shaft walls were either 2 or 2 1/2 inches thick (Most home drywall is 1/2") and 16" wide with metal tongue and groves along the long side (This metal T&G served as Wall studs) and the planks were set in metal channels on the floor and ceiling.
So what it means is EACH is a minimum 2 inch thick gypsum panel was encased on ALL SIDES with metal and a panel was only 16" wide, not your typical 4 ft width.
Pretty strong huh?
Well that's just the Wall.
Then this wall was covered with regular SHEETS of Wallboard.
Thus Walls were as much as 3" thick almost of solid gypsum.
They don't specify, but I'd be willing to bet that those INTERNAL metal encased panels were also the heavy duty type, not the LIGHT DUTY stuff one sees in a typical home.
Section 5.4.8 - Page 66 NIST Final Report
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 7 2006, 03:25 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 02:59 PM)
QUOTE (Guest+Mar 7 2006, 02:58 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 7 2006, 05:34 AM)
Are you being facetious there, mate? If not, then consider that the 'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (via hat truss). Any shorn/lone columns would NOT stand, they were NEVER designed to. OK?
How did they stand during construction, prior to the hat trusses being built?
Show me a pictiure of the core being built without the perimeter columns...
I said, prior to the HAT TRUSSES being constructed!! If you look at YOUR post above, YOU specifically say that the:
"'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (VIA HAT TRUSS) "
I know this means nothing to the argument, one way or another. It is just a FINE example of how you "change horses in the middle of the stream"!
"any way the wind blows". Blows being the operative word...
Moron, that's not me. That's RC. Speaking of horses when are you taking the blinders off?
How did they stand during construction, prior to the hat trusses being built?
Show me a pictiure of the core being built without the perimeter columns...
I said, prior to the HAT TRUSSES being constructed!! If you look at YOUR post above, YOU specifically say that the:
"'standing' arrangement DEPENDED ON LATERAL SUPPORT from other sidewalls and core (VIA HAT TRUSS) "
I know this means nothing to the argument, one way or another. It is just a FINE example of how you "change horses in the middle of the stream"!
"any way the wind blows". Blows being the operative word...
Moron, that's not me. That's RC. Speaking of horses when are you taking the blinders off?
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:32 PM)
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 07:59 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:32 PM)
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
What happened to the perimeter walls and core? How do you magically remove them from your hand waving?
Edited to better describe CS post.
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
What happened to the perimeter walls and core? How do you magically remove them from your hand waving?
Edited to better describe CS post.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 03:59 PM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:32 PM)
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time. For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
this is where you're forgetting the whole equal and opposite thing. what do you think is holding the TOP floors together?
which floors and framing is the more robust? the top piece, or the bottom piece? which piece is tilting, and therefore no longer distributing horizontal and vertical load to spec, but infact putting angular stresses on connections that expect only perpendicular force vectors?
so, when the top hits the bottom(here's me suspending disbelief that the top part could even become disconnected), the bottom piece hits back, and each floor impacted hits back with the full mass of mother earth behind it.
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time. For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
this is where you're forgetting the whole equal and opposite thing. what do you think is holding the TOP floors together?
which floors and framing is the more robust? the top piece, or the bottom piece? which piece is tilting, and therefore no longer distributing horizontal and vertical load to spec, but infact putting angular stresses on connections that expect only perpendicular force vectors?
so, when the top hits the bottom(here's me suspending disbelief that the top part could even become disconnected), the bottom piece hits back, and each floor impacted hits back with the full mass of mother earth behind it.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 7 2006, 04:09 PM)
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 07:59 AM)
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:32 PM)
Do you mean how can the upper 32 storeys, including the floors, hat truss and columns, be stopped by the remaining 78 storeys, including floors and columns?
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
What happened to the perimeter walls and core? How do you magically remove them from your hand waving?
Edited to better describe CS post.
The columns are all still there. The energy has to go from the floor to the columns through bolts.
Is this your sophistry or obfuscation or both?
Aduo, do you know what I'm saying or is it my "grammar"...
That's your evidence? One picture from an obscure angle showing nothing more than the initiation of the detonation process... it doesn't even show the top portion which is lost in shadow.
But your still ignoring the evidence that the south tower fire was almost out...and that there were nothing more than comparatively piddly fires to begin with. Even Schneibster called my nice North Fires small - and those were the only major fires which burned slowly and without expanding laterally from the debris piles to any significant degree in an hour.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
Spam on... I have addressed you questions and now you seek to shirk away without providing a response more than smug comments. Where's the 'scientist' in you, oh great logician?
That's not "my evidence", it was just funny, you going all POPEISH, right after a picture that clearly contradicts your "decree".
I know an angle can be obtuse, but can an angle be obscure????
Oh well. Not important.
I'm not ignoring the evidence that the fires were "dying down", though that is a relative term, they were also spreading up the towers, as per the NIST report. Nor do I agree that they were "almost out" or were ever in a category that would include the term "piddly".
I mean if you consider .5 to .8 Gigawatts of energy being given off by the fire at the time of collapse as either "piddly" or "almost out", don't bother inviting me to one of your cookouts.
The reason this is IMMATERIAL is that it is all factored INTO the NIST model.
Its NOT the intensity of the fires at the MOMENT that causes the collapse, but the overall impact of the fires and the impact damage over time. Worse, the impact of fire on the floors is more complex then: get hot ==> then fail. It has to do with first expanding, then sagging, then contracting, resulting in pulling the columns inward. NIST goes into good detail on this, you should read it.
And Foxx, we have YET to hear of a CD based explanation for the CLEAR evidence that the columns buckled immediately prior to collapse.
Guess we are gonna have to wait a LONG time for that huh?
Arthur
In the same manner as the tower stands under normal circumstances. The potential energy of the structure mass is absorbed by elastic strain and deformation of the columns.
Since the strain energy absorption capability of these columns necessarily far outweighs the maximum possible release of potential energy from the upper section and indeed from the tower as a whole, we can be sure that the towers would not have collapsed under the conditions pertaining on that day.
Remember that under full load conditions the tower will only absorb 4% of its potential absorption within the elastic limit, and the plastic strain energy dwarfs this by a factor of more than 300. This shows the magnitude of the energy deficit that any collapse must overcome.
In your hypothetical example you will have to be more specific about how high you lift the upper section before dropping it down on the lower section, or the parameters regarding any alternative method by which you intend to impart energy to the upper section.
Gordon.
We are not talking about upper and lower sections. We are only talking about the wieght of 32 storys (Upper section: core columns, floors, computers, people, carpet, doors, door frames, piping, elevator motors, ect... spread out over the story) impacting ONE floor at a time(Spread out across the story the same way). For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it? Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
Are you saying these bolts should have, not only supported but stopped the downward motion of 32 floors above?
What happened to the perimeter walls and core? How do you magically remove them from your hand waving?
Edited to better describe CS post.
The columns are all still there. The energy has to go from the floor to the columns through bolts.
Is this your sophistry or obfuscation or both?
Aduo, do you know what I'm saying or is it my "grammar"...
Foxx
Here is the man with the cutting torch
It is not unreasonable to think that someone using a cutting torch could start a fire while working on a veritable composting pile of flammable materials.
Here is the man with the cutting torch
It is not unreasonable to think that someone using a cutting torch could start a fire while working on a veritable composting pile of flammable materials.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 7 2006, 10:46 AM)
QUOTE
by arthur
That shows the top section coming down in ONE PIECE.
That shows the top section coming down in ONE PIECE.
That's your evidence? One picture from an obscure angle showing nothing more than the initiation of the detonation process... it doesn't even show the top portion which is lost in shadow.
But your still ignoring the evidence that the south tower fire was almost out...and that there were nothing more than comparatively piddly fires to begin with. Even Schneibster called my nice North Fires small - and those were the only major fires which burned slowly and without expanding laterally from the debris piles to any significant degree in an hour.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=71231
Spam on... I have addressed you questions and now you seek to shirk away without providing a response more than smug comments. Where's the 'scientist' in you, oh great logician?
That's not "my evidence", it was just funny, you going all POPEISH, right after a picture that clearly contradicts your "decree".
I know an angle can be obtuse, but can an angle be obscure????
Oh well. Not important.
I'm not ignoring the evidence that the fires were "dying down", though that is a relative term, they were also spreading up the towers, as per the NIST report. Nor do I agree that they were "almost out" or were ever in a category that would include the term "piddly".
I mean if you consider .5 to .8 Gigawatts of energy being given off by the fire at the time of collapse as either "piddly" or "almost out", don't bother inviting me to one of your cookouts.
The reason this is IMMATERIAL is that it is all factored INTO the NIST model.
Its NOT the intensity of the fires at the MOMENT that causes the collapse, but the overall impact of the fires and the impact damage over time. Worse, the impact of fire on the floors is more complex then: get hot ==> then fail. It has to do with first expanding, then sagging, then contracting, resulting in pulling the columns inward. NIST goes into good detail on this, you should read it.
And Foxx, we have YET to hear of a CD based explanation for the CLEAR evidence that the columns buckled immediately prior to collapse.
Guess we are gonna have to wait a LONG time for that huh?
Arthur
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 12:35 PM)
Foxx
Here is the man with the cutting torch
It is not unreasonable to think that someone using a cutting torch could start a fire while working on a veritable composting pile of flammable materials.
Then again, he COULD be roasting marshmallows over a steaming hot pool of molten metal.
Arthur
Here is the man with the cutting torch
It is not unreasonable to think that someone using a cutting torch could start a fire while working on a veritable composting pile of flammable materials.
Then again, he COULD be roasting marshmallows over a steaming hot pool of molten metal.
Arthur
Molten river ... or garbage burning in a barrel?
Well, I guess it's hard to tell from the clarity of the photo. Does it seem likely that they would have burn-barrels on site for burning garbage... there was lot's around? Heres the original...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/molten003LG.jpg
And here's a zoomed in view...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Untitled2.jpg
Melting column... or man with cutting torch?
I don't know for sure arthur, It would be nice to have a clearer view of whats going on there.
You may be right about there being what looks like some one wearing jeans there.I would concur there.
It's possible, I suppose... that if we had a clearer view we might find that there is a guy in behind the column with a cutting torch. Although it seems odd to me that they would be cutting that column at that particular spot.
I don't see any cutting by the 'man in jeans'. Given the scale he seems to be too far away from the bright spot to be able to be responsible for it. Anyone have any better photos of this area?
Here is the original picture...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten001LG.jpg
Here is an enlargement of the area under question.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten001zmsm.jpg
????? or ?????
Well this one has me baffled.
What does that look like to you? Is it some kind of mold growing on the wall?
The original file is very large 1200 by something...
Very Large File
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/molten002.jpg
Reduced---
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten002sm.jpg
Well, I guess it's hard to tell from the clarity of the photo. Does it seem likely that they would have burn-barrels on site for burning garbage... there was lot's around? Heres the original...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/molten003LG.jpg
And here's a zoomed in view...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Untitled2.jpg
Melting column... or man with cutting torch?
I don't know for sure arthur, It would be nice to have a clearer view of whats going on there.
You may be right about there being what looks like some one wearing jeans there.I would concur there.
It's possible, I suppose... that if we had a clearer view we might find that there is a guy in behind the column with a cutting torch. Although it seems odd to me that they would be cutting that column at that particular spot.
I don't see any cutting by the 'man in jeans'. Given the scale he seems to be too far away from the bright spot to be able to be responsible for it. Anyone have any better photos of this area?
Here is the original picture...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten001LG.jpg
Here is an enlargement of the area under question.
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten001zmsm.jpg
????? or ?????
Well this one has me baffled.
What does that look like to you? Is it some kind of mold growing on the wall?
The original file is very large 1200 by something...
Very Large File
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/molten002.jpg
Reduced---
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Molten002sm.jpg
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 12:16 PM)
so, when the top hits the bottom, the bottom piece hits back, and each floor impacted hits back with the full mass of mother earth behind it.
newton,
You REALLY out to change your user name.
The real S.I.Newton is probably up to several hundred RPM by now.
Arthur
newton,
You REALLY out to change your user name.
The real S.I.Newton is probably up to several hundred RPM by now.
Arthur
For the building to be effected, the whole energy of 32 floors worth of falling debris would have to transfer to the bolts connecting the floor wouldn't it?
Absolutely not. The mass would contact the columns, not the floor alone. Collapse of the towers could not happen without failure of the columns, irrespective of floor damage.
Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
The bolts are designed to resist shear forces imparted by the floor. Vertical forces derived from falling material would place a stress on the shoe to column connections. This force woulf far outweigh the resolved horizontal component of the impact force.(the shear force)
Gordon.
Absolutely not. The mass would contact the columns, not the floor alone. Collapse of the towers could not happen without failure of the columns, irrespective of floor damage.
Whatever debris hits the floor, it's energy will spread and transfer to the place that holds the floor up. Where else would it go but the bolts?
The bolts are designed to resist shear forces imparted by the floor. Vertical forces derived from falling material would place a stress on the shoe to column connections. This force woulf far outweigh the resolved horizontal component of the impact force.(the shear force)
Gordon.
QUOTE (Commen sense+Mar 7 2006, 12:31 PM)
The columns are all still there. The energy has to go from the floor to the columns through bolts.
This is apparently what they don't seem to get.
The towers were essentially bolted together, with some welding at higher stress areas.
The bolts/seats failed.
You can SEE this in the many excellent high res FEMA pictures. (posted 100 or so pages back)
Nice square ends of columns and only the bolt holes are enlarged.
The report on steel goes into great detail on how the different parts failed.
Above the impact zone the truss seats failed in random direction
Below the impact zone the truss seats almost all failed DOWNWARD.
that apparently is not clear enough for the CT bunch.
Arthur
This is apparently what they don't seem to get.
The towers were essentially bolted together, with some welding at higher stress areas.
The bolts/seats failed.
You can SEE this in the many excellent high res FEMA pictures. (posted 100 or so pages back)
Nice square ends of columns and only the bolt holes are enlarged.
The report on steel goes into great detail on how the different parts failed.
Above the impact zone the truss seats failed in random direction
Below the impact zone the truss seats almost all failed DOWNWARD.
that apparently is not clear enough for the CT bunch.
Arthur
And Foxx, we have YET to hear of a CD based explanation for the CLEAR evidence that the columns buckled immediately prior to collapse.
Guess we are gonna have to wait a LONG time for that huh?
Not true. I have posted a scenario involving failure of the core which would allow that the core pulls inward on the perimeter columns via the floor.
This is not to be confused with the force, limited to floor mass, which could be exerted through the floors without core movement. In another post I have described the relative sizes of these forces, with and without core movement, and showed that while the latter would be insufficient to buckle the columns, the former would be sufficient.
Gordon.
Guess we are gonna have to wait a LONG time for that huh?
Not true. I have posted a scenario involving failure of the core which would allow that the core pulls inward on the perimeter columns via the floor.
This is not to be confused with the force, limited to floor mass, which could be exerted through the floors without core movement. In another post I have described the relative sizes of these forces, with and without core movement, and showed that while the latter would be insufficient to buckle the columns, the former would be sufficient.
Gordon.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 05:09 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 12:16 PM)
so, when the top hits the bottom, the bottom piece hits back, and each floor impacted hits back with the full mass of mother earth behind it.
newton,
You REALLY out to change your user name.
The real S.I.Newton is probably up to several hundred RPM by now.
Arthur
i don't think so, arthur.
you know how to couple strength, don't you?
the intact frame is coupled to the earth. when the support columns are STRAIGHT, and they are embedded in the earth, they are effectively as thick as they are tall. steel does not compress very much. i invite you to drive your hand(you can wear a steel glove, as i'm not a sicko like reality check) onto a pike moored in the ground. hit it as hard as you can. will it bend, or will your steel glove be pierced, or will your hand simply bounce back up?
do the same experiment with the pike held up only by, say a lighlty applied vice, and you may overcome the friction of the vice, and drive the pike downwards.
what WON'T happen is the steel pike being snapped into neat even pieces.
here's another one. pile a bunch of small sledgehammers on top of each other, and then get a twelve pound 'persuader' and give your best carnival whack on the top of the pile. what's gonna happen?
those support colums are like an interconnected lattice of pikes, especially since the box columns were WELDED all the way up, turning them literally into single thousand ft. high beams.
you disinformationalists are running out of material. i sense a global runaway collapse a-comin'.
p.s. when an idiot calls me an idiot, the insult kind of loses it's bite.
This is down right STUPID
I asked where was this found and no one answered, you know why they didn't answer?
BECAUSE IT COULD BE FROM ANYWHERE IN THE AREA INCLUDING THE OTHER BUILDINGS WHICH BURNED.
I saw the site it came from. It has pictures from ALL OVER. Not just WTC 1,2 or 7.
Get real. Heh!
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Are you saying that they didn't or that they can't? Because they definatly can. Especially with this magnitude of forces.
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Are you saying that they didn't or that they can't? Because they definatly can. Especially with this magnitude of forces.
I'm saying that most likely during the collapse the floors outpaced the destruction of the core.
As the floors failed at the truss seats the core was left with little horizontal bracing and the forces on the core caused the core columns to buckle.
IMHO
Arthur
newton,
You REALLY out to change your user name.
The real S.I.Newton is probably up to several hundred RPM by now.
Arthur
i don't think so, arthur.
you know how to couple strength, don't you?
the intact frame is coupled to the earth. when the support columns are STRAIGHT, and they are embedded in the earth, they are effectively as thick as they are tall. steel does not compress very much. i invite you to drive your hand(you can wear a steel glove, as i'm not a sicko like reality check) onto a pike moored in the ground. hit it as hard as you can. will it bend, or will your steel glove be pierced, or will your hand simply bounce back up?
do the same experiment with the pike held up only by, say a lighlty applied vice, and you may overcome the friction of the vice, and drive the pike downwards.
what WON'T happen is the steel pike being snapped into neat even pieces.
here's another one. pile a bunch of small sledgehammers on top of each other, and then get a twelve pound 'persuader' and give your best carnival whack on the top of the pile. what's gonna happen?
those support colums are like an interconnected lattice of pikes, especially since the box columns were WELDED all the way up, turning them literally into single thousand ft. high beams.
you disinformationalists are running out of material. i sense a global runaway collapse a-comin'.
p.s. when an idiot calls me an idiot, the insult kind of loses it's bite.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 01:23 PM)
I have posted a scenario involving failure of the core which would allow that the core pulls inward on the perimeter columns via the floor.
And this scenario involved the perimeter columns being pulled in starting 10 minutes before the towers collapsed?
Care to give us the cliff notes version or link to this?
Arthur
And this scenario involved the perimeter columns being pulled in starting 10 minutes before the towers collapsed?
Care to give us the cliff notes version or link to this?
Arthur
Many of the box columns in the rubble pile didn't look like they were welded at their ends. There are many seen with their four or six bolt holes empty. Most of the bolts and even welds wouldn't have stood up to the type of impacts that occurred during the collapse. It's rather surprising that the spire was able to remain standing. And even it collapsed in about 10 seconds after it oscillated a bit.
This is down right STUPID
I asked where was this found and no one answered, you know why they didn't answer?
BECAUSE IT COULD BE FROM ANYWHERE IN THE AREA INCLUDING THE OTHER BUILDINGS WHICH BURNED.
I saw the site it came from. It has pictures from ALL OVER. Not just WTC 1,2 or 7.
Get real. Heh!
The large open floor plans are a problem in an event like 911. I'd rather be in a building with columns distributed evenly throughout the floors. I don't know how trusses that long and supported only at the ends could be prevented from sagging and pulling in the perimeter and core columns once they heated up. Even a criss-cross pattern of trusses isn't going to stop the sag. If columns had been distributed throughout the floors, the towers might have survived.
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 7 2006, 06:19 PM)
Many of the box columns in the rubble pile didn't look like they were welded at their ends. There are many seen with their four or six bolt holes empty. Most of the bolts and even welds wouldn't have stood up to the type of impacts that occurred during the collapse. It's rather surprising that the spire was able to remain standing. And even it collapsed in about 10 seconds after it oscillated a bit.
I am no conspiracy theorist (check my previous posts) but check out this video of the "spire" from another angle:
From West Village
While the video is shaky that doesn't look like the core still standing to me, it looks like the facade.
I am no conspiracy theorist (check my previous posts) but check out this video of the "spire" from another angle:
From West Village
While the video is shaky that doesn't look like the core still standing to me, it looks like the facade.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 01:34 PM)
when the support columns are STRAIGHT, and they are embedded in the earth, they are effectively as thick as they are tall. steel does not compress very much.
Reminds me of an old Pilot story,
There once was a pilot named newt and his copilot named foxx.
It was a dark and stormy night,
newt was on final approach to an airport he had never flown to before
approach plate on his knee as he bounced down out of the low scud layer.
sweat was beading on his brow, his eyes peered into the fog trying to make out the runway
At last he sees it and calls out to foxx
Runway in sight, Lower the landing gear and give me 10 degrees flaps,
Foxx adds in the flaps but mentions that they appear to be high and fast,
newt pulls back the throttle some more and calls out to foxx:
Give me another 10 degrees flaps
Foxx does, but he is also worried, "my that's a short runway, I'm not sure we're gonna make it"
but newt is determined,
He applies full top rudder at the same time he cross controls the ailerons, putting the plane into a full sideways slip, the plane is now dropping like a brick.
newt orders foxx: "Give me FULL flaps and be ready on the spoilers and brakes"
foxx pulls the flap handle all the way back, puts his toes on the brakes (and prays) as the plane rapidly sinks like an express elevator.
The plane SLAMS down, right on the paint.
BRAKES yells newt.
Foxx mashes the brakes and doesn't let up.
SPOILERS yells newt as he throws the engines into full reverse
Foxx deploys the spoilers as the plane screams to a halt inches from the end of the runway.
Whewwww says newt, Damn that was a SHORT runway!
You can say that again, says foxx, turning his head from side to side.
But it sure is WIDE.
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
Reminds me of an old Pilot story,
There once was a pilot named newt and his copilot named foxx.
It was a dark and stormy night,
newt was on final approach to an airport he had never flown to before
approach plate on his knee as he bounced down out of the low scud layer.
sweat was beading on his brow, his eyes peered into the fog trying to make out the runway
At last he sees it and calls out to foxx
Runway in sight, Lower the landing gear and give me 10 degrees flaps,
Foxx adds in the flaps but mentions that they appear to be high and fast,
newt pulls back the throttle some more and calls out to foxx:
Give me another 10 degrees flaps
Foxx does, but he is also worried, "my that's a short runway, I'm not sure we're gonna make it"
but newt is determined,
He applies full top rudder at the same time he cross controls the ailerons, putting the plane into a full sideways slip, the plane is now dropping like a brick.
newt orders foxx: "Give me FULL flaps and be ready on the spoilers and brakes"
foxx pulls the flap handle all the way back, puts his toes on the brakes (and prays) as the plane rapidly sinks like an express elevator.
The plane SLAMS down, right on the paint.
BRAKES yells newt.
Foxx mashes the brakes and doesn't let up.
SPOILERS yells newt as he throws the engines into full reverse
Foxx deploys the spoilers as the plane screams to a halt inches from the end of the runway.
Whewwww says newt, Damn that was a SHORT runway!
You can say that again, says foxx, turning his head from side to side.
But it sure is WIDE.
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 7 2006, 02:19 PM)
Many of the box columns in the rubble pile didn't look like they were welded at their ends. There are many seen with their four or six bolt holes empty. Most of the bolts and even welds wouldn't have stood up to the type of impacts that occurred during the collapse. It's rather surprising that the spire was able to remain standing. And even it collapsed in about 10 seconds after it oscillated a bit.
Those 4 and 6 bolt box columns you see are predominately Perimeter columns, which for the most part were just bolted together. (IIRC they were welded at the mech floors)
I do believe that most of the core columns were welded and they came in quite a few different forms depending on where in the tower they were both vertically and within the floor plan. For instance the 4 Corner Core columns carried 20% of the load of the core (out of 47 total). As you went up those interior core columns went from box to I beams.
Arthur
Those 4 and 6 bolt box columns you see are predominately Perimeter columns, which for the most part were just bolted together. (IIRC they were welded at the mech floors)
I do believe that most of the core columns were welded and they came in quite a few different forms depending on where in the tower they were both vertically and within the floor plan. For instance the 4 Corner Core columns carried 20% of the load of the core (out of 47 total). As you went up those interior core columns went from box to I beams.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Are you saying that they didn't or that they can't? Because they definatly can. Especially with this magnitude of forces.
I don't know how trusses that long and supported only at the ends could be prevented from sagging and pulling in the perimeter and core columns once they heated up.
Even if they did sag, the inward pulling force on the perimeter columns would be limited by the horizontal component of the mass of the floor. This force, of only a few hundred tonnes at most, compared with the downward force caused by 56000 tonnes (BZ) of mass, would not be sufficient to cause buckling failure.
Without significant movement of the core the force transferred through the floor would be insignificant.
Another problem with this analysis is that the floors were not all connected to the core columns. The floors outwith the core are connected to beams which are themselves connected to the core. Any inward pulling forces on these columns by these floors would have all of the reaction acting as a series of bending moments on this beam and not directly on the core columns.
Are we to believe that rather than deflect and cause damage to a single beam, or to the floor to beam connections, to which all of the relevant ends of that quadrants' floors are connected, the force instead manifested itself in buckling some 20 larger and stronger vertical columns designed to carry a working load of some half a million Newtons?
Gordon.
Even if they did sag, the inward pulling force on the perimeter columns would be limited by the horizontal component of the mass of the floor. This force, of only a few hundred tonnes at most, compared with the downward force caused by 56000 tonnes (BZ) of mass, would not be sufficient to cause buckling failure.
Without significant movement of the core the force transferred through the floor would be insignificant.
Another problem with this analysis is that the floors were not all connected to the core columns. The floors outwith the core are connected to beams which are themselves connected to the core. Any inward pulling forces on these columns by these floors would have all of the reaction acting as a series of bending moments on this beam and not directly on the core columns.
Are we to believe that rather than deflect and cause damage to a single beam, or to the floor to beam connections, to which all of the relevant ends of that quadrants' floors are connected, the force instead manifested itself in buckling some 20 larger and stronger vertical columns designed to carry a working load of some half a million Newtons?
Gordon.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 02:59 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Are you saying that they didn't or that they can't? Because they definatly can. Especially with this magnitude of forces.
I'm saying that most likely during the collapse the floors outpaced the destruction of the core.
As the floors failed at the truss seats the core was left with little horizontal bracing and the forces on the core caused the core columns to buckle.
IMHO
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:01 PM)
Are we to believe that rather than deflect and cause damage to a single beam, or to the floor to beam connections, to which all of the relevant ends of that quadrants' floors are connected, the force instead manifested itself in buckling some 20 larger and stronger vertical columns designed to carry a working load of some half a million Newtons?
Well unless you can come up with an alternate reason (and evidence to back it up) as to how this happened well before the towers collapsed, making sure that you also explain why the perimeter columns ONLY buckled on the sides with 60 foot floor trusses, not the shorter 30 ft trusses.
YEAH
Arthur
Well unless you can come up with an alternate reason (and evidence to back it up) as to how this happened well before the towers collapsed, making sure that you also explain why the perimeter columns ONLY buckled on the sides with 60 foot floor trusses, not the shorter 30 ft trusses.
YEAH
Arthur
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Of course they do. Strain = deformation / original length.
Strain * E = Force / csa
Forces produce deformations.
Force * distance = energy Therefore no deflection means no energy absorption.
Gordon
No, they don't compress,
Of course they do. Strain = deformation / original length.
Strain * E = Force / csa
Forces produce deformations.
Force * distance = energy Therefore no deflection means no energy absorption.
Gordon
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:20 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Of course they do. Strain = deformation / original length.
Strain * E = Force / csa
Forces produce deformations.
Force * distance = energy Therefore no deflection means no energy absorption.
Gordon
Gordon,
In your estimation, would a long unsupported column be more likely to fail in compression or by bending?
Arthur
No, they don't compress,
Of course they do. Strain = deformation / original length.
Strain * E = Force / csa
Forces produce deformations.
Force * distance = energy Therefore no deflection means no energy absorption.
Gordon
Gordon,
In your estimation, would a long unsupported column be more likely to fail in compression or by bending?
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 03:07 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
Which is why they DIDN'T fail until the floors were stripped from them.
Thus the collapse PROGRESSED down the tower, the floors failing PRIOR to the Core failing.
IMHO
Arthur
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Are you saying that they didn't or that they can't? Because they definatly can. Especially with this magnitude of forces.
I'm saying that most likely during the collapse the floors outpaced the destruction of the core.
As the floors failed at the truss seats the core was left with little horizontal bracing and the forces on the core caused the core columns to buckle.
IMHO
Arthur
Do you have any pictures of all the buckled core columns ?
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
Which is why they DIDN'T fail until the floors were stripped from them.
Thus the collapse PROGRESSED down the tower, the floors failing PRIOR to the Core failing.
IMHO
Arthur
Well unless you can come up with an alternate reason (and evidence to back it up) as to how this happened well before the towers collapsed:
I have already told you once today already that I have posted regarding this topic. Your evidence is a photograph and your theory that this was caused by the floor mass. My evidence is the photograph, the downward movement of the spire prior to visible collapse initiation of the perimeter column collapse, the inordinately high debris pile temperatures, an explanation of the molten metal issuing from the tower, the discrete hot spots identified by the thermal imaging cameras and reasoned arguments that your theory does not hold good.
Gordon
I have already told you once today already that I have posted regarding this topic. Your evidence is a photograph and your theory that this was caused by the floor mass. My evidence is the photograph, the downward movement of the spire prior to visible collapse initiation of the perimeter column collapse, the inordinately high debris pile temperatures, an explanation of the molten metal issuing from the tower, the discrete hot spots identified by the thermal imaging cameras and reasoned arguments that your theory does not hold good.
Gordon
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 11:08 AM)
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 02:59 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Are you saying that they didn't or that they can't? Because they definatly can. Especially with this magnitude of forces.
I'm saying that most likely during the collapse the floors outpaced the destruction of the core.
As the floors failed at the truss seats the core was left with little horizontal bracing and the forces on the core caused the core columns to buckle.
IMHO
Arthur
Do you have any pictures of all the buckled core columns ?
Gordon,
In your estimation, would a long unsupported column be more likely to fail in compression or by bending?
Arthur
Depends on the end connections, csa, second moment and the length. The minimum buckling failure load for a one storey length of the topmost I-section beams is some five times greater than the compressive failure load. For the box sections this ratio would be larger. The minimum length over which a buckling failure would occur in preference to a compressive failure can be found by equating the failure loads and solving for the length.
For these columns the minimum buckling length would be about three storeys, and I say that with regard to the theoretical minimum buckling length being close to the length of the prefab sections.
Gordon.
In your estimation, would a long unsupported column be more likely to fail in compression or by bending?
Arthur
Depends on the end connections, csa, second moment and the length. The minimum buckling failure load for a one storey length of the topmost I-section beams is some five times greater than the compressive failure load. For the box sections this ratio would be larger. The minimum length over which a buckling failure would occur in preference to a compressive failure can be found by equating the failure loads and solving for the length.
For these columns the minimum buckling length would be about three storeys, and I say that with regard to the theoretical minimum buckling length being close to the length of the prefab sections.
Gordon.
Do you have any pictures of all the buckled core columns ? [/QUOTE]
Many HAVE been posted in this thread.
~250 pages or so ago, there was a nice set of them.
Arthur
Many HAVE been posted in this thread.
~250 pages or so ago, there was a nice set of them.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 03:07 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
Which is why they DIDN'T fail until the floors were stripped from them.
Thus the collapse PROGRESSED down the tower, the floors failing PRIOR to the Core failing.
IMHO
Arthur
pancake style, right? where 100% of the descending load is transferred to the nearest available surface?
and then the surface which is impacted takes 100%(nearly, minus energy lost in elastic deformation, and any time/heat variables associated with such energy exchanges) of the force impacted with, right?
and then this happens every twelve or so ft., right, 'pancaking'?
okay. good.
Many HAVE been posted in this thread.
~250 pages or so ago, there was a nice set of them.
Arthur
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
Which is why they DIDN'T fail until the floors were stripped from them.
Thus the collapse PROGRESSED down the tower, the floors failing PRIOR to the Core failing.
IMHO
Arthur
pancake style, right? where 100% of the descending load is transferred to the nearest available surface?
and then the surface which is impacted takes 100%(nearly, minus energy lost in elastic deformation, and any time/heat variables associated with such energy exchanges) of the force impacted with, right?
and then this happens every twelve or so ft., right, 'pancaking'?
okay. good.
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 07:40 PM)
The minimum buckling failure load for a one storey length of the topmost I-section beams is some five times greater than the compressive failure load.
That is only true when the loading is purly axial with infinitely small eccentricity, I think that we can agree that the loads applied were not purely axial.
That is only true when the loading is purly axial with infinitely small eccentricity, I think that we can agree that the loads applied were not purely axial.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE
Do you have any pictures of all the buckled core columns ?
Many HAVE been posted in this thread.
~250 pages or so ago, there was a nice set of them.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 03:49 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 03:07 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
Which is why they DIDN'T fail until the floors were stripped from them.
Thus the collapse PROGRESSED down the tower, the floors failing PRIOR to the Core failing.
IMHO
Arthur
pancake style, right? where 100% of the descending load is transferred to the nearest available surface?
and then the surface which is impacted takes 100%(nearly, minus energy lost in elastic deformation, and any time/heat variables associated with such energy exchanges) of the force impacted with, right?
and then this happens every twelve or so ft., right, 'pancaking'?
okay. good.
I like to think of it more like records on a turntable.
Falling pancakes doesn't do it for me.
100% of the load?
No, when I updated the Perl program that Schneibster created I dropped it to 80%, seemed more reasonable.
I also don't think the perimeter columns below the collapse point added into the falling mass, you can see that for the most part they were stripped away and went outward from the falling mass.
The core failure is more problematic, of course its got a cross weave of beams connecting them, so material landing on them is going to play havoc with them, but who knows, it WAS chaotic in there.
Arthur
Many HAVE been posted in this thread.
~250 pages or so ago, there was a nice set of them.
Arthur
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5489.jpg
Thanks OpelGT73,
And that wasn't even one of the ones I was thinking of.
Arthur
PS you driving a 73 GT?
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Are you saying that they didn't or that they can't? Because they definatly can. Especially with this magnitude of forces.
I'm of course guessing, but I would think that the core would fail more from being bent and fractured.
looking at the design of the towers it appears to me that the columns were MADE to resist VERTICAL compression loads and were put in a STRUCTURE that allowed them to resist BENDING loads.
As the STRUCTURE was destroyed the forces tended to cause them to bend, buckle and fracture, more so than compress.
IMHO.
Arthur
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
Which is why they DIDN'T fail until the floors were stripped from them.
Thus the collapse PROGRESSED down the tower, the floors failing PRIOR to the Core failing.
IMHO
Arthur
pancake style, right? where 100% of the descending load is transferred to the nearest available surface?
and then the surface which is impacted takes 100%(nearly, minus energy lost in elastic deformation, and any time/heat variables associated with such energy exchanges) of the force impacted with, right?
and then this happens every twelve or so ft., right, 'pancaking'?
okay. good.
I like to think of it more like records on a turntable.
Falling pancakes doesn't do it for me.
100% of the load?
No, when I updated the Perl program that Schneibster created I dropped it to 80%, seemed more reasonable.
I also don't think the perimeter columns below the collapse point added into the falling mass, you can see that for the most part they were stripped away and went outward from the falling mass.
The core failure is more problematic, of course its got a cross weave of beams connecting them, so material landing on them is going to play havoc with them, but who knows, it WAS chaotic in there.
Arthur
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE
Do you have any pictures of all the buckled core columns ?
Many HAVE been posted in this thread.
~250 pages or so ago, there was a nice set of them.
Arthur
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata/original/5489.jpg
Thanks OpelGT73,
And that wasn't even one of the ones I was thinking of.
Arthur
PS you driving a 73 GT?
QUOTE (OpelGT73+Mar 7 2006, 02:59 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress,
Are you saying that they didn't or that they can't? Because they definatly can. Especially with this magnitude of forces.
I'm of course guessing, but I would think that the core would fail more from being bent and fractured.
looking at the design of the towers it appears to me that the columns were MADE to resist VERTICAL compression loads and were put in a STRUCTURE that allowed them to resist BENDING loads.
As the STRUCTURE was destroyed the forces tended to cause them to bend, buckle and fracture, more so than compress.
IMHO.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon+Mar 7 2006, 03:30 PM)
Well unless you can come up with an alternate reason (and evidence to back it up) as to how this happened well before the towers collapsed:
I have already told you once today already that I have posted regarding this topic. Your evidence is a photograph and your theory that this was caused by the floor mass. My evidence is the photograph, the downward movement of the spire prior to visible collapse initiation of the perimeter column collapse, the inordinately high debris pile temperatures, an explanation of the molten metal issuing from the tower, the discrete hot spots identified by the thermal imaging cameras and reasoned arguments that your theory does not hold good.
Gordon
That's IT?????
After all this time?????
What happened to the friggin paper?????
MY EVIDENCE IS NOT JUST THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
Its the NIST REPORT plus a number of peer reviewed articles.
Up against that you put that picture, the hot debris pile and your self proclaimed "reasoned arguments"?????
Talk about a DUD.
I Expected a BIG BANG and all it did was go "pop"
Arthur
I have already told you once today already that I have posted regarding this topic. Your evidence is a photograph and your theory that this was caused by the floor mass. My evidence is the photograph, the downward movement of the spire prior to visible collapse initiation of the perimeter column collapse, the inordinately high debris pile temperatures, an explanation of the molten metal issuing from the tower, the discrete hot spots identified by the thermal imaging cameras and reasoned arguments that your theory does not hold good.
Gordon
That's IT?????
After all this time?????
What happened to the friggin paper?????
MY EVIDENCE IS NOT JUST THAT PHOTOGRAPH.
Its the NIST REPORT plus a number of peer reviewed articles.
Up against that you put that picture, the hot debris pile and your self proclaimed "reasoned arguments"?????
Talk about a DUD.
I Expected a BIG BANG and all it did was go "pop"
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 07:54 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 03:49 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 7 2006, 03:07 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 06:49 PM)
Which brings me back to newt's 1300' columns.
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
Which is why they DIDN'T fail until the floors were stripped from them.
Thus the collapse PROGRESSED down the tower, the floors failing PRIOR to the Core failing.
IMHO
Arthur
pancake style, right? where 100% of the descending load is transferred to the nearest available surface?
and then the surface which is impacted takes 100%(nearly, minus energy lost in elastic deformation, and any time/heat variables associated with such energy exchanges) of the force impacted with, right?
and then this happens every twelve or so ft., right, 'pancaking'?
okay. good.
I like to think of it more like records on a turntable.
Falling pancakes doesn't do it for me.
100% of the load?
No, when I updated the Perl program that Schneibster created I dropped it to 80%, seemed more reasonable.
I also don't think the perimeter columns below the collapse point added into the falling mass, you can see that for the most part they were stripped away and went outward from the falling mass.
The core failure is more problematic, of course its got a cross weave of beams connecting them, so material landing on them is going to play havoc with them, but who knows, it WAS chaotic in there.
Arthur
yeah. chaotic enough to send perimeter trees spraying out like lead from an uzi into neighbouring buildings. chaotic enough to make cars flip or burst into flame. can i get a side ordo with that cheeseburger?
No, they don't compress, but without the bracing provided by the floors they will BEND. Given enough load the bend will become a buckle, which will lead to complete failure.
Arthur
but, the lower completely intact floors have the bracing strength of the lower floors, and cannot deform, but must be broken connection by connection. think of billiard balls, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. the falling 'piston', or 'cap' is the most heat weakened, thinnest steel, structurally compromised part of the tower, 'once the collapse was initiated'.
Which is why they DIDN'T fail until the floors were stripped from them.
Thus the collapse PROGRESSED down the tower, the floors failing PRIOR to the Core failing.
IMHO
Arthur
pancake style, right? where 100% of the descending load is transferred to the nearest available surface?
and then the surface which is impacted takes 100%(nearly, minus energy lost in elastic deformation, and any time/heat variables associated with such energy exchanges) of the force impacted with, right?
and then this happens every twelve or so ft., right, 'pancaking'?
okay. good.
I like to think of it more like records on a turntable.
Falling pancakes doesn't do it for me.
100% of the load?
No, when I updated the Perl program that Schneibster created I dropped it to 80%, seemed more reasonable.
I also don't think the perimeter columns below the collapse point added into the falling mass, you can see that for the most part they were stripped away and went outward from the falling mass.
The core failure is more problematic, of course its got a cross weave of beams connecting them, so material landing on them is going to play havoc with them, but who knows, it WAS chaotic in there.
Arthur
yeah. chaotic enough to send perimeter trees spraying out like lead from an uzi into neighbouring buildings. chaotic enough to make cars flip or burst into flame. can i get a side ordo with that cheeseburger?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 7 2006, 07:59 PM)
And that wasn't even one of the ones I was thinking of.
Arthur
PS you driving a 73 GT?
Here is another:
Yes I used to drive a 73 GT but I recently sold it because I may be moving offshore soon: See picture
Arthur
PS you driving a 73 GT?
Here is another:
Yes I used to drive a 73 GT but I recently sold it because I may be moving offshore soon: See picture
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 7 2006, 11:46 AM)