big red bulls eye on the wtc in 9/11

I'm not an engineer, or anything, but what you wrote doesn't really make sense. A computer model is just calculations. So to say that the only acceptable procedure is to do calculations, and not use a computer model is a faux'pas surely?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are thoroughly confused. I said that the use of a physical model is somewhat irrelevant.

When you get to be an engineer, (when Hell freezes over solid to the core) then come and argue with an engineer. Until then, buzz off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

show me the post where i said such a thing.

edit:
do me a favor and go back to your self imposed ban.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A clear effort to misstate what has been said about the WTC. Typical twoofer effort to misrepresent.

 

You are overstating the strength by an order of magnitude. Also the Port Authority doe snot have to follow the city skyscraper codes.

 

Well then I was therefore agreeing with you, so this reply now doesn't make sense. Real models can't be scaled for everything, but computer models can get close for building the structures. But not close for the exact demolishion of them through random factors.

 

Why are you saying moment of inertia? That's a resistance to rotational rate. That revolutionary innovation opened up floor space. The rest of your statement does not tell us anything at all relevant to the issue at hand.

The irrelevant input is from you.

 

The Strong central columns of both one and 2 were taken out by the planes the weight above the weakened columns was to much for them to bare they pancaked.Once the ball got rolling gravity took over as the building fell more and more weight was placed on the floors below exceeding there designed limits the build started to do an implode on sorts all the way to the ground. The design of the building was for both units of load the outside walls and the inside columns one could not stand with out the other and the heat from the fire was a contributing factor as well as mentioned before the hotter stell gets the weaker it becomes at 600 degrees it will loss half of it strength and after 800 to 1000 degrees it will start to melt.

 

"Moment of inertia" is a very, very, familiar expression to anybody who has ever done structural engineering design work. You obviously are completely bluffing when you claim to have any slightest expertise in structural design.

You are very obviously totally ignorant of any important aspect of the structural design and integrity of the towers and are obviously a troll.

Where is my spray can of roach and troll exterminator?

 

Well, then, tell us in your next post the pounds per square foot of floor area of live load that, in your humble opinion, the towers were required to be structurally designed to support.

 

I'm not the one feigning expertise. You are. The factor is 2 to 3.

Besides the value you asked for here is nonsense. The value is dependent on the vertical position in the structure.

It's clear who the troll is.

 

DEAR RESPECTED SCIENCE COLLEAGUE STEREOLOGIST; You were asked to provide, compatible with your structural engineering competence, the pounds per square foot of live load that the towers were required to have their floor structures designed for.

You have not provided such a number. Anybody actually familiar with structural engineering would have instantly known what what was asked and would have posted a useful number. You are either a fraud or you are playing a silly joke on us by pretending to be one just to get our reaction.

I have used up a good part of my valuable time to try to make a serious input in this thread on a subject that is a VERY SERIOUS ONE. You seem to be just trying to argue for the fun of it. You have been outed.

 

DEAR RESPECTED SCIENCE COLLEAGUE Trippy: You have certainly been exuberant in trying to wow me, and, us, with dramatic pictures.

[Originally Posted by Uno Hoo
Anybody who mouth offs and says that a floor truss will simultaneously sag too much to carry its own weight and at the same time will expand and irresistibly push over a phenomenally strong strong column network is hallucinating.]

Would you be so kind and friendly as to carefully (if possible) read (actually, now, reread ) my original statement, posted just above, for your convenience. To be sure that you can find it.

Please especially notice the mutually contradictory concepts. Perhaps you were initially too busy with other, important, business when you first glanced at my original post.

1. mutually contradictory concept: a floor truss will sag too much to carry its own weight....

2. mutually contradictory concept: at the same time will expand and irresistibly push over a phenomenally strong column ....

3. mutually contradictory concept: ...a phenomenally strong column network.

Your dramatic pictures show some events which seem to have happened somewhat at the same time epoch. You seem to be claiming a specific train of cause-and-effect which you have not done nothing in the slightest to substantiate.

Tell me again WAIT A MINUTE! You have not told me the first time! Tell me how a floor truss, which is too heat soaked and sags like a wet noodle, can push with enough virility against a column to disrupt it. Perhaps you think that the perimeter column network was not phenomenally strong. Perhaps you think that the towers structural design was not revolutionary and uniquely strong. If so, tell us how and why it was actually pitifully weak. Perhaps you think that the columns were sabotaged so that their inherent design superiority was severely compromised, so that their actual strength at the time of their demise was but a mere shadow of their superior design strength; If so, please tell us how and why their strength was sabotaged.

Whatever you do, please supply to me the human courtesy of actually reading my post and properly understanding it, rather than again hallucinating some other post and some other wrong understanding.

 

My understanding was that the collapse was not initiated from the expansion. The truss didn't push the wall over. The sagging (and possibly cooling) floors pulled the perimeter columns inward, which led to the collapse. Look at the photos again.

Sure there may have been some initial pushing with thermal expansion. The outer walls probably resisted it the expansion, although I doubt the steel was like a "wet noodle".

I like MacGuyver's description.

 

UNO HOO, I've already stated that this value is immaterial. If you want this number you'll need to find it yourself. I don't have to do your bidding. All you've done is post some fraudulent values to support a false claim.