big red bulls eye on the wtc in 9/11

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by fedr808, Nov 14, 2008.

  1. stereologist Escapee from Dr Moreau Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    Impossible? Clearly not.

    There are crackpots in all kinds of jobs. Beyond your short list. There are crackpots that are architects with the same delusions and fantasies.

    It's fine if you want to be part of the fantasy world. I notice you avoid posting evidence.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the presence of butt joints in the perimeter columns point directly to a bad design. a full 1/3 of the joints in the perimeter were butt joints, one of the weakest joints known.

    once the perimeter was compromised the building essentially "unzipped" itself.
    an engineer that used to post here by the name of tony agrees with me on this point.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Sifreak, that is a genuine question.

    The way it has been answered is the fact that the building in and of itself is 95% air. There is surprisingly little material compared to similar buildings.

    Now remember that the exterior bars did not fail as badly as the central ones did. And when the center ones failed the floors above had more than enough empty space to implode on themselves
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    If they have a model of the collapse, they should render it to an animation so we can all see exactly what happened. I remember a really accurate looking rendering of one of the airplane impacts, but I've never seen one for the collapse.

    That's a good point. To do it properly, you should start with a stable model. But then you'd have to create a huge impact to cause damage to it, and also set a fire inside it.

    What I was thinking was to just build a model that was already damaged. Of course you could still set it on fire, or what have you. Either way, I'd be interested to see any kind of model that collapses the way the twin towers did. I mean, something that starts off a little more stable than a "house of cards", anyway.
     
  8. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    That does look like a weak-ass floor truss design.

    If I understand your explanation correctly, you are saying a number of floor trusses sagged, and failed, thus the perimeter columns buckled and failed. So we have both deformation (floor trusses and perimeter columns), and we also have the connections failing outright (breaking apart).

    What would you say became of the central support columns?

    It wouldn't have to be a perfect scale model. I'd be happy to see just about anything, (short of a "house of cards", as I mentioned to Stereologist), that can hold itself up for awhile, and then collapse completely to the floor.

    How would you design such a model, if you really wanted to show that a structure could do that?

    I was thinking maybe a metal structure made of thin wire, held together with wax joints instead of solder. It might have to be loaded up with some little weights. Then, put a fire in there, and maybe the heat-sink effect would cause all of the wax joints to fail at the same time. I doubt it though.

    If anyone has any suggestions, I would greatly appreciate hearing them. I'm just wondering how weak the buildings must have been before and/or during the collapses.
     
  9. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    The buildings appear to have been built in a slap-dash way. They were supposed to be aircraft proof initially. WTC 7 had bomb proof sections. Seems strange to put all of that weight on top of the weak supports. I think at least somebody should propose that buildings are built sturdier in the future.
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Steel truss floors pretty much universally have a bad reputation among fire fighters for sagging and collapsing in office fires.
     
  11. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    How come then when planes hit buildings in other countries the buildings did not come down completely like in the case of the towers of deception ?.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you need to educate yourself on the design of these towers.
    once you understand how the perimeter, core, and floors worked together you'll understand how they fell.

    in structures like the empire state building the outside walls bore all the weight.
    this isn't true in the case of WTC 1&2.
    the floors, core, and perimeter played key roles in keeping them erect.
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    My post was regarding the trussed floors. I can (when I have time) cite any number of sources backing up my claim.

    Or perhaps you would care to cite a single appropriate source that explicitly and unequivocally states that trussed floors are reliable and stable in a fire.

    Or, for that matter, you'd care to cite one other building of a tube in tube design that has been hit by an aircraft, engulfed in fire over multiple floors, and not collapsed.

    Related links:
    First link

    Second Link

    Choi, Burgess and Plank raise some interesting points which seem to largely go ignored by the 'truth movement'.
     
  14. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028

    Huh? When did commercial airliners hit other buildings in other countries? Linky please.
     
  15. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    As far as I know, the core was damaged by the impact...but if you look at pictures of the "spire" of the core columns that was left after the initial collapse wave, it did not completely fail.

    Well...if the model is not reasonably accurate, then the data it produces is meaningless. Just because a system performs one way at one scale, does not mean it will perform the same way at a different scale. It's why we don't have meter long ants. I personally don't have the math skills to compute the calculations necessary to make a physical model that would perform in the same manner as the full sized original. Computer modeling would be the best way to try to recreate the collapse.
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    pincho, when they built these things they thought that the fire foam/wall surrounding the central beams would protect the beams from the fire, they assumed and made one hell of an ass of themselves, because when the plane crashed, the debris literaly annihalated that wall leaving the steel open to the flames.
     
  17. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Engineers have. There has been plenty of papers written about the structural design of the WTC, what was learnt and the recommendations for the future.
     
  18. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    When have other boeing 707's hit any other buildings of similar size, engineering, and architecture?

    And mike, stfu, youd kill your own family if you could frame it on mossad, stop being an a-hole and actually work out the science.

    Think about it, mike, and just think for a few seconds of your life.

    How the hell could the explosives have worked?
    The building collapsed two hours after the plane hit.
    We know the explosives couldnt have been detonated then because if the explosives had been blown the building would have fallen immediately.
    Of course knowing you, ill answer your next statement because it's pretty obvious.

    No they did not have a delay in the detonation, why you ask? because when the plane hit the towers the force was strong enough to tear through the outer steel walls and rip the protective walls around the central columns to shreds, do you think a few pounds of thermite would do anything?

    Now knowing you your going to ignore this but heres another reason that as usual you are wrong.

    The explosives had to have been planted on the center support columns. Unfortunately for you, the protective lining is totally solid and to get into the columns is neigh impossible, sure you can have a hole a shine a flashlight, but in order to do repair youd have to rip it up, which I dont believe has happened on the 80th floors.

    That means that the explosives HAD to have been planted when the building was build, which was around the 70's.

    First off, I dont think that some guy from DOD would go unnoticed there especially if he were planting C4 all over the place.

    Secondly, batteries back then probably dont last for 30 years.

    Third, depending on the explosives used, the explosives could have become inert withing 15 years let alone thirty.

    Fourth, Do you think those primitive circuits could survive 30 years of wear and ageing, and survive a plane crash with razor sharp debris flying at 600+mph, AND 800 degree celsius fires for two hours?

    And fifth, the radio would have had to have been active for the past thirty years, hell, I dont think there is a radio reciever that small on the planet that is that old and still works very well.

    And 6th, What makes you think that the radio signal could have even made it through the fire wall, through the heat and fire (which is practically impossible for small radio recievers of that era because of convection) metal walls, and into the central column to a bag of 30 year old, worn out, explosives that due to some miracle have not been destroyed by the fire and due to another miracle are still active after 30 years.
     
  19. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548

    I googled "WTC spire" and found that there was a bit of core that remained, but it only stood for about 15 seconds before it too collapsed. But I did also see some pics of a few core columns that remained, (there was one that the ground zero workers were marking with spray paint, for example)


    I fully agree. It's just that the only other thing I've seen collapse like that is a house of cards, which is quite an unstable structure. If that represents the state of the twin towers before collapsing, then there must have been a lot of damage throughout the building before the collapse.

    On the other hand, if the top part of the building caused the damage on its way down, then there should be some way to make a structure that could do that to itself. I am trying to think of a way to make any kind of a model where the top part can drive the rest of the the structure down to the floor. (Although, now that I think about it, the twin towers also ejected a lot of material outward, so maybe I should by trying to find a way to make a model that does that also.)
     
  20. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Why do you feel the need to build a model? What do you believe happened on 9/11?

    Don't just JAQ off...(just asking questions) Do you believe that 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes, and flew them into buildings...or do you believe it was an "inside job"?
     
  21. stereologist Escapee from Dr Moreau Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    You ask excellent questions here.

    One of the problems with modeling structures with physical models is the cost. Another is safety. Another is time.

    The problem here is that there are a lot of uncertainties in the modeling process. The biggie of course is the damage done by the planes. The next is the exact location of the fires and the damage they did.

    What computer modeling does is allows someone to try a lot of different scenarios. If the end result of the scenarios is the building collapsing, then the conclusion is that the impacts and fires lead to collapse of the structure.

    Suppose that there are 100 tested scenarios that all lead to a collapse. Which one are you going to deliver as an animation?

    I remember a Myth Buster episode in which they built a model of the Hindenberg and set it on fire. The fire starts off small and then after a 5 or 10 seconds it quickly consumes the model. They declare "busted". This was all dependent on their model scaling. Lots of things don't scale. It may be very difficult and very unreliable to scale fires in models.

    Computer modeling of buildings and other large structures is well worked out. Lots of conditions can be tested faster, safer, and more reliably than testing with physical models.
     
  22. stereologist Escapee from Dr Moreau Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    685
    Some good statements here Pincho.

    I don't think that the buildings were built poorly. What the buildings did was create a lot of floor space for the cost. This design removed structural components that reduced the rentable floor space. It was a great idea. It worked. It was a safe building as long as terrorists didn't direct a plane into the structure. There had been a fire in the building. The fire did not destroy the building because the fireproofing was not removed.

    One of the issues that concerns me is that the owner of the building is the Port Authority. They are given a so-called papal dispensation to disregard NYC skyscraper codes. NYC has some good building codes in place. I think that the Port Authority should have to follow the city codes.
     
  23. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    All I'm trying to do is get an estimate of how unstable the buildings were before their collapse. It seems to me that you could build a crude model, and get a feel for it.
     

Share This Page