World trade centre collapse, 9/11 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Conspiracies' started by someguy1, Nov 4, 2017.

  1. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,087
    It is a "conclusion" that skyscrapers must have more steel toward the bottom in order to support their own weight.

    Curiously we do not seem to have that data on any skyscrapers
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,577
    What an odd thing to say. A friend of mine is an architect; she works on tall steel buildings (although nothing as big as the WTC.) She would find your claim that "we don't have structural data on any skyscrapers" pretty funny.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,087
    Can engineering schools make physical and virtual models of large scale man made physical objects?

    The Collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Model


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Aeroelastic FSI Simulation


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse simulation


    3D Bridge Model Simulation


    Using ANSYS Fluid-Structure Interaction to understand the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcLg6C_WlHg
    Published on Nov 7, 2018 Famous in Australia

    Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse case study
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXJ6CVBt8xk

    CFD Simulation of Flutter (Tacoma Bridge)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzvFxF5LrRA

    Tacoma Bridge Model Test 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlW4bnxxMLY

    Aerostatic Flutter at Tacoma Narrows Bridge
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQwNMc19vFw

    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Model, Long Walkthrough
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6FKoPZURZo

    Models have been done for the Tacoma Narrows bridge for nearly 80 years. The first was done before the bridge even collapsed in less than 4 months. So what is the "obvious reason" that it hasn't been done for the north tower? Just pretend there is no problem and there must not be one.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,087
    Find a link on the distributions of steel and concrete on anything over 500 feet tall.

    Do architects do the engineering math on skyscrapers or do they just design how they look? Frank Lloyd Wright made buildings with leaky roofs.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/wha...-2016-8#his-roofs-werent-properly-supported-1

    A standard joke at the engineering school I attended was "architects take funny physics and funny math".

    My pledge father was an architect. LOL Do you believe job titles tells you how much people know?
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,907
    Well, the World Trade Center did have enough steel to support its own weight for years before 9/11. The conclusion we're talking about is your claim that aircraft impacts and fire could not have destroyed the buildings (message #312). I'm asking what calculations you have to support that conclusion.
     
  9. Beaconator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    810
    I made a bridge out a toothpicks once.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,577
    You can if you like. I don't feel like playing those games with you.
    They do the math - and they calculate wind loads, creepage, yield strengths etc etc. And nowadays they simulate as well.
    ?? Right. And the local Souplantation leaks when it rains a lot. So?
    Nope. Their knowledge does.

    Nor does knowledge mean much without the training and experience to use it.
     
  11. TabbyStar Registered Member

    Messages:
    74
    First off, I would like to express my deepest sorrow for all those lost and those who suffered during and after this awful tradgedy/event!

    To my thread contribution. I always believed the USA government reports post 9/11. I am just that way...trusting in general. As time went on, I learned of conspiracy theories relating to this event. To be honest, I did not try to pick them apart. I simply acknowledged that alternative viewpoints existed in the world.

    More time passed and I started to read more. Trying to remain objective. I never was able to understand, pro or con, aircraft fuel burning temperatures and ductile strength loss of steel under such temperatures. It was beyond my abilities.
    One day I read, or watched a tv program, regarding the Tower designs. It helped me greatly understand the, "pancake" collapse principle of the towers falling. Basically, the architect engineered the structure to be mainly vertically supported by the building exterior...or the shell. It allowed more open visual space within via reduction of support columns.

    It was basically that time that I had personal closure and explanation of how they (the towers) fell. The breach of that high load bearing exterior was unforgiving. Instead of the buildings having an internal spine, or supporting internal membrane, the weight distribution was directed at the exterior shell or walls.

    It makes sense (to me anyway). Once, so to speak, you crack an egg shell.. the rest falls apart rather easily

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again, tragic loss of life in any event. Sad day for families...the USA...and the world as it unfolded!
     
  12. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,087
    It is just so funny that the NIST rejected the pancake theory. I have Googled and linked to it so many times I am not going to do it again.
     
  13. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,393
    ...
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2019
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_NIST_World_Trade_Center_Disaster_Investigation

    Findings
    The Twin Towers
    The investigation team integrated their metallurgyanalysis, experimental results and computer simulation with video and photographs of the destruction and eyewitness accounts to form their understanding for how the buildings collapsed. They came to two conclusions:[15]

    1. A conventional fire should not have caused the collapse of the 110-story skyscrapers in the absence of structural and fire-proofing insulation damage.
    2. The towers would likely not have collapsed if not for the impact and damage that the aircraft caused to the fire-proofing insulation.
    The most probable collapse sequence was similar between the South Tower and North Tower, but they were not identical. However, they both involved all major structural systems of the building design: the core columns, the exterior columns and the building floors.[17]

    1. First, the floors that lost fire-proofing insulation due to debris impact began to sag as a result of the high temperature of the fire.
    2. The sagging floors pulled inward on the girders and caused the exterior walls to deform.
    3. The exterior walls began to buckle under the combined forces of the sagging floors, the fire, and the severed core columns from aircraft impact damage.
    4. Finally, the exterior walls caved in and the buildings collapsed. The stories below provided little resistance to relatively tremendous energy of the falling building, allowing them to fall very quickly.
    The NIST investigation's conclusions do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, in which there is a progressive failure of the floor system.
     
  15. TabbyStar Registered Member

    Messages:
    74
    Nist aside. With 110 parallel floors falling amost all within their footprint (not timberrrrr, like a tree falling), the pancake collapse did take place for at least most of tge structure. Now what cause the initial collapse? I tend to embrace the idea that weakened slab supports from heat and the extra weight of a jetliner and fuel (before the fuel drained or burned off) triggered the 1st pancake reaction.
     
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,393
    did it collapse or was it knocked down ?
     
  17. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,233
    It collapsed - after suffering fatigue from impact of a jet at cruising speed, carrying jet fuel. Something it was never designed - even in an engineer's worst nightmare - to withstand.
     
    TabbyStar likes this.
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,393
    did they decide the small sectioning(& bolting system) of the main steel internal frame was an engineering flaw(inappropriate and degenerative to modern technological engineering knowledge) ?

    i got the distinct impression the entire building was "experimental"
    which probably means the entire complex of buildings was "experimental"
     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,233
    All buildings that stretch the boundaries of engineering must have a first time.
    It's incremental. I don't think that crosses the threshold to 'experimental'.
     

Share This Page