Weren't you the one that spent an absurd number of posts claiming that the variation was insiginificant? Sure you were: So if a variation of 4% was insiginificant, why should we care about a difference of 0.75%? See - keep trolling for long enough and eventually you end up contradicting yourself...
yes, it's what you said. you couldn't find this info for any "scraper" you searched on. what i stated was , in my opinion, why you couldn't. apparently, density of the steel used isn't listed on engineering blueprints you can roll on the floor till you get bed sores dude. yes, the NIST "assumptions" could very well be wrong. they are assuming the floors pancaking down is the reason for the destruction of 1 & 2. and it isn't.
I said the variation in steel. Are you saying you do not know the difference between steel and concrete? You brought up the density of steel. You did not say anything about the density of concrete. You can't figure out who has the problem. psik
To be frank, the only "problem" here is your piss-poor attitude... if you weren't being such a confrontational git all the time, perhaps then people wouldn't feel it preferable to slam their face into a concrete wall rather than discuss this topic with you... EDIT And before you piss and moan about me calling you a confrontational git - I'm done with the kid gloves, simple as that. Either put up some cast iron facts, or don't be upset when people don't take you seriously.
resonance weakened the structure below the collapse . the perimeter butt joints allowed this weakening to happen. after the floors lost their outer supports, they had nowhere to go but straight down. the rumblings of the collapse reinforced the already existing resonance. simple explanation, and very likely the mode of collapse. -my opinion.
So when you said: Even though you said steel, and emphasized the word steel in the quoted portions, you actually meant concrete? Got it. So, to recap: You don't appear to know how to calculate mass from volume and density. You don't understand how density might be important when attempting to infer mass. Even though you've spent the last thirteen years complaining about the lack of information regarding mass distribution in the towers you've never once tried to infer it for yourself and it's not that important anyway. Even though you assert a 4% variation in density is insignificant, you also think a 0.75% variation is significant enough to make a fuss over the use of the word 'assumed' in a sentence. You use the words 'steel' and 'concrete' interchangeably, both directly and implicitly talking about steel when you really mean concrete.
leopold NIST made no such assumption, nor did they claim the pancaking initiated the collapses(though they were a part of the collapse after initiation). NIST found that the collapses were a combination of impact damage and heat effects on structure. Once the collapse initiated and the tops fell through one floor height no remaining strength available in the rest of the building could even effectively slow the collapses. You should actually read the reports, resonance was not a problem. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i disagree. i think it has been proven that a model based on the above quote just doesn't work. something must explain the weakened structure below the collapse. butt joints and resonance are the only two i can think of. one or both of these, in my opinion, played a major role in the collapse of 1 and 2.
Why leopold? Why is it hard to imagine a structure, where each level is designed to transfer its own weight (and only its own weight) to the supporting columns, collapsing when the weight of SEVERAL additional levels is suddenly placed upon them?
because psiky has been going on, and on, and on, about his inability to model the collapse. i assume it's because his assumptions are wrong. he is assuming all the force came from above and he also assumes an intact structure below the collapse. all of the force did not come from above, some of that force was transmitted, by resonance, to floors below the collapse. the above is my reasoning for my opinion. and it makes perfect sense.
leopold Then you think wrongly. It is the ONLY scientifically supported explanation. What's been proven is that you have no clue what the NIST reports actually say, so your opinion about what they are about is based on ignorance, not insight. And gravity does not scale, an ant can lift many times it's own weight, if that ant was 6 feet long, it would not be able to move under it's own power. That is why scale models tell you nothing in this case, any scale model will be many times as strong as the full sized building. You have to use what NIST used, finite element analysis in a computer. It's how we design things these days All of the force did come from above, and the structure below the fire and impact areas was almost entirely in as built condition. Those buildings SURVIVED the impacts of 250,000 lb aircraft at close to or over 500 mph, building one for two hours, building two for one hour. Without intact support structure below the damage and insufficient damage to directly cause collapse initiation that would not be true. And without multifloor, widespread fires they likely would have been repairable and might still be standing. Tower One survived a truck bomb in the basement in 1993 and was repaired to better than new. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The events of 911 were in some ways incredibly simple, in others too complex to be certain we understand everything that happened. First, the simple. The events were caused by flying big cruise missiles full of fuel and people into buildings, which caused them to fall down on a bunch of other buildings, which caused the most damaged ones to also fall down. No other explanation needed or in evidence. The details of the collapses are very complex and not known in many cases. NIST concentrated on examining the evidence of what caused the collapses to start, given the available external evidence and the detailed plans of the buildings. Once collapse initiated and the top sections fell 12 feet, nothing short of solid rock had the resistance necessary to stop it short of the ground, it's just physics. Every piece of steel or yard of concrete hoisted up during construction has a potential energy, if that potential energy is turned into kinetic energy by falling, the top portions of the towers had more energy than the available resistance after falling just one floor(12 feet)and could not be stopped before hitting the ground. Tower One released about a quarter of a kiloton equivalent to TNT, Two about one third of a kiloton equivalent. The way the structure was built(a tube within a tube with truss diaphragm floors)meant that structure had no way of applying resistance to steel falling past it and it was simply pushed to the sides like banana peels by the rubble, the core offered the only real resistance, but it was a fraction of the area and it, too was pushed over, breaking the butt joints like snapping spaghetti. In car accident terms, NIST figured out what caused the car to leave the road, they didn't bother trying to document ever fold that occurred in the sheet metal as it wrapped around the tree. They stopped at collapse initiation(when the bumper contacted the bark)because the rest is just physics. Very complex physics but nothing out of the ordinary. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wasn't it earthquakes that applied the force for your resonance examples? Was there an earthquake in New York on 9/11? Wouldn't that have affected many other buildings? When someone is obviously brining up issues for bullsh!t reasons it is not difficult to ignore. Like I am supposed to go off on an idiotic wild goose cahse because you whistle. psik
*****STANDBY - TRANSLATION PROTOCOL ENGAGED***** *** Input Language - Autodetect - Troother *** *** Output Language Selection - English *** *** Input Text *** Code: [Input=] Wasn't it earthquakes that applied the force for your resonance examples? Was there an earthquake in New York on 9/11? Wouldn't that have affected many other buildings? When someone is obviously brining up issues for bullsh!t reasons it is not difficult to ignore. Like I am supposed to go off on an idiotic wild goose cahse because you whistle. psik[/input] ***** Processing... ***** ***** Operation Complete ***** *** Translation Complete **** *** Output Text *** Code: [Output=] I have no factual, concrete evidence to back my claims, so I am going to ignore what you say. [/output] *** Translation Complete *** ... okay, perhaps that was a little harsh... but somebody had to say it.
psiky, i offered my opinion as to how those buildings imploded the way they did. you don't have to pursue anything, just keep on playing with your model that will never work.
But you have a soul and spirit that you might exercise the virtue of honesty and, in so doing, discern good and evil...as someone has said: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Oh, you admit that a "complete collapse" would never work? That must by why our engineering schools never even talk about making one. THIRTEEN YEARS and they haven't proven anything! TALK, TALK, TALK, TALK, TALK. psik
