9/11 media happenings

[kyser_soze]

I always thought that the whole big deal with the WTC's design was that it didn't have a conventional shell/core layout, and that it was basically a tall box with floors 'strung' across it - i.e. that it didn't have the same kind of concrete columns that you see in normal high buildings, and that once the external structure was compromised the building was fucked. So what it didn't have was internal upward steel columns.

What this meant was that you had loads and loads and loads of uninterrupted floor space without huge great columns blocking the view and crucially occupying valuable rentable space.

And that it was this unique design that actually caused the problems - a normal building could have survived loosing half a floor and some external support because all the weight would be carried by the columns and lift cores, but because the WTC actually lost a key part of how the building was held together (i.e the outside wall) and fire substantially weakened the remaining steel walls that it started to collapse.

Sorry if that isn't hugely clear...I know what I mean...

 

[Crispy]

The lift/stair/services core was traditional rigid columns and walls, but it only carried a portion of the load, the rest being taken by the external walls, with forces being transferred by the floor decks.

 

[WouldBe]

I can think of partial damage by impact and further heating. Plus dynamic loads once top part of building was destabilised by failure of external columns.

Plus sideways forces from collapsed floors that the central columns weren't designed to cope with.

 

[Crispy]

Not so much that the floors exerted forces, but that once removed, they failed to provide stiffening to the outer skin.

 

[Jazzz]

I can think of partial damage by impact and further heating. Plus dynamic loads once top part of building was destabilised by failure of external columns.

Partial damage around the impact floors, sure. I'm taking things from the point where somehow the top section destabilised (for the sake of argument). Heating? The central steels were a fantastic heat sink. I cannot conceive that they heated significantly where there was no fire.

Plus sideways forces from collapsed floors that the central columns weren't designed to cope with.

I can't see this. The 47 central columns were huge and strongly latticed together. Compared to that the floor trusses were flimsy. Should something heavy fall on the floor truss, it's going to snap where it connects with the central steel; for if not then there's no need for arches or fancy suspension wires with bridges - you could just have two columns with a truss!

 

[WouldBe]

I can't see this. The 47 central columns were huge and strongly latticed together. Compared to that the floor trusses were flimsy. Should something heavy fall on the floor truss, it's going to snap where it connects with the central steel; for if not then there's no need for arches or fancy suspension wires with bridges - you could just have two columns with a truss!

That depends on what damage was caused by the aircraft impact.

The outer wall columns were clearly damaged this could have left the floor trusses hanging from the central columns which would produce some outward force on them that they werent designed to withstand. If the aircraft has hit the cross beams between the central columns again theses aren't designed to take large sideways loads they are only designed to stop the central columns moving apart.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Have you even read the NIST report Jazzz?

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05119.pdf

I'm betting that you haven't.

Edit: This is the section refering to the impacts rather than the building's specs. http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05147.pdf

 

[editor]

Partial damage around the impact floors, sure. I'm taking things from the point where somehow the top section destabilised (for the sake of argument). Heating? The central steels were a fantastic heat sink. I cannot conceive that they heated significantly where there was no fire.

If they're so invincibly strong, how much explosives do you think would have been needed to make them collapse on cue?

Accepting that their placement and preparation would have to be absolutely precise to ensure success, why do you think not a single soul out of the tens of thousands of workers and security staff noticed them being wheeled in, placed, installed and primed in the towers?

And how come not a single suitably qualified structural engineer or demolition expert on the entire planet agrees with your evidence-free demolition claims?

Your claims are based on your own obsession with conspiracies and sheer amateur dabblings.

The NIST findings are based on years of study and peer reviewed analysis. Only in your world would that count for less than the wild theories posited by totally unqualified conspiracy fans on fruitloop sites.

 

[MikeMcc]

Partial damage around the impact floors, sure. I'm taking things from the point where somehow the top section destabilised (for the sake of argument). Heating? The central steels were a fantastic heat sink. I cannot conceive that they heated significantly where there was no fire.

I can't see this. The 47 central columns were huge and strongly latticed together. Compared to that the floor trusses were flimsy. Should something heavy fall on the floor truss, it's going to snap where it connects with the central steel; for if not then there's no need for arches or fancy suspension wires with bridges - you could just have two columns with a truss!

The joints between different sections of the central columns would also be weak points that would fail almost instantly with the impulse, they simply aren't designed to withstand those sorts of forces.

 

[Jazzz]

That depends on what damage was caused by the aircraft impact.

The outer wall columns were clearly damaged this could have left the floor trusses hanging from the central columns which would produce some outward force on them that they werent designed to withstand. If the aircraft has hit the cross beams between the central columns again theses aren't designed to take large sideways loads they are only designed to stop the central columns moving apart.

I wasn't contesting damage leading to failure around the impact floors in my argument.

 

[Jazzz]

If they're so invincibly strong, how much explosives do you think would have been needed to make them collapse on cue?

Accepting that their placement and preparation would have to be absolutely precise to ensure success, why do you think not a single soul out of the tens of thousands of workers and security staff noticed them being wheeled in, placed, installed and primed in the towers?

<rest of tedious post edited>

Don't tell me you are repeating THAT again. I think you have made this point quite literally hundreds of times over the years.

 

[Crispy]

I wasn't contesting damage leading to failure around the impact floors in my argument.

So in fact your argument is that the collapse of the whole tower could only have happened by CD? The energy contained in a falling 20-storey chunk of skyscraper is equivalent to a large amount of explosives. And regardless of whether it 'turns' to rubble, or remains intact, all that kinetic energy has to absorbed or driected somewhere - that somewhere is the remaining part of the tower, which was not designed to survive even 1/10th of those kind of loads.

 

[Crispy]

Don't tell me you are repeating THAT again. I think you have made this point quite literally hundreds of times over the years.

Cos it's a damn good one, that's why.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Don't tell me you are repeating THAT again

Tell you what, you stop posting the same old shite, and so will we

 

[Jazzz]

 

[Jazzz]

So in fact your argument is that the collapse of the whole tower could only have happened by CD? The energy contained in a falling 20-storey chunk of skyscraper is equivalent to a large amount of explosives. And regardless of whether it 'turns' to rubble, or remains intact, all that kinetic energy has to absorbed or driected somewhere - that somewhere is the remaining part of the tower, which was not designed to survive even 1/10th of those kind of loads.

Tsk Crispy. You know perfectly well that I've been restricting my objection specifically with the collapse of the central steel columns, not the whole structure. Little of the energy you refer to would be transferred to the central steels, just as little of our falling horse hits our spear. In fact I've come up with a better analogy - a grapefruit (with pins in, if you wish) fired onto a bed of nails.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Right back at you. Time and time again you post up the same conspiracy nonsense, time and time again you get shot down in flames as your "facts" and "experts" are exposed as having more holes than a swiss cheese.


So, find something new, find something credible, and then maybe, just maybe, people will stop asking the same questions of you. Hell, they may even stop taking the piss.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Bollocks

So you still haven't read the NIST report?

 

[Jazzz]

So you still haven't read the NIST report?

What, 200 odd pages since you linked to it? Tell you what, find me the section where it explains how the central steels failed below the impact floors. Should be easy, as you are no doubt so familiar with it.

Oh, and don't falsify words in my quotes please, that's pretty low posting.

 

[Jazzz]

Right back at you. Time and time again you post up the same conspiracy nonsense, time and time again you get shot down in flames as your "facts" and "experts" are exposed as having more holes than a swiss cheese.


So, find something new, find something credible, and then maybe, just maybe, people will stop asking the same questions of you. Hell, they may even stop taking the piss.

oi bees - I asked for this thread to be closed - others demanded it stayed open so they could fire questions at me. Don't blame me if I find it tedious having to deal with the same ones hundreds of times.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I find it tedious having to deal with the same ones hundreds of times.

But it's OK for us to deal with your tedious, evidence free, conspiracy shite hundreds of times?

 

[Jazzz]

I refer you to my post #435.

 

[Loki]

Jazzz, you've been banging on about this for years now. You clearly think you have a watertight case.

In your situation I would alert journalists of all the major news organisations.

Have you done this? If not why not?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What, 200 odd pages since you linked to it? Tell you what, find me the section where it explains how the central steels failed below the impact floors. Should be easy, as you are no doubt so familiar with it.

Oh, and don't falsify words in my quotes please, that's pretty low posting.

Would it be stupidity or laziness that prevents you from reading the five page simplified version? You know, the one listed in the index.

I'd go with the latter, but just in case here's how it works:

You read the simplified section, if there is anything you don't understand then you read the detailed one. If there is anything you don't understand there then you ask. If you think something is clearly lies/made up/lizardmade then please tell us.

If you want to learn you'd read page 188 of this pdf : http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05147.pdf

But i doubt you will, or you'll say that it's nothing but a whitewash. Or more likely you'll say that this doesn't disproce your current theory of choice, that the core sections below the point of impact would have resisted forces orders of magnitude higher than design tolerances.

 

[Jazzz]

How about you read this one sentence BTL:

14. The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

source

Any comment?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

How about you read this one sentence BTL:

source

Any comment?

That i'm fucking psychic:

But i doubt you will, or you'll say that it's nothing but a whitewash. Or more likely you'll say that this doesn't disproce your current theory of choice, that the core sections below the point of impact would have resisted forces orders of magnitude higher than design tolerances.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I refer you to my post #435.

So, it's OK for you to post up conspiracy nonsense, but not OK for us to question you on it?

Post up shite, expect to be pulled up on it, seems fair to me.

 

[Jazzz]

That i'm fucking psychic:

Well, I note you edited that bit in while I was finding my quote. Anyway congratulations, why did you bother with all of that? You've answered your own question. God knows how many pages, and it does absolutely nothing to address my chosen argument - as you realise now. Sorry old chap!

although of course, you are hand-waving with your 'design tolerances' bit. The NIST report has given you - far from addressing all and sundry - absolutely nothing here. You should concede the failure of your posting maneouvre like a man, not a stroppy kid.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Well, I note you edited that bit in while I was finding my quote. Anyway congratulations, why did you bother with all of that? You've answered your own question. God knows how many pages, and it does absolutely nothing to address my chosen argument - as you realise now. Sorry old chap!

You're right, i can't keep up with you. So, let's see.

First there were no hijackers, cos no one saw them (see earlier in this thread). Then the planes were disapeared somehow and cruisemissiles clad in holograms from 2025 were fired into the builing (see your own posts from various threads), carryign a massive amount of petrol to provide the impacting mass and fire needed to demolish the tower (NIST/lizard report). Once the collapse had started esplosives planted on every floor around the core were detonated for some arcane reason i'm sure you'd be pleased to provide.

Jazzz, you're fruitier than an orange grove. That you're too thick to understand basic mechanics is not my fault, that you're too lazy to try to educate yourself is not my fault either. Your sole evidence for this point is that you don't think that the central collums should have collapsed. Idiot.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

although of course, you are hand-waving with your 'design tolerances' bit. The NIST report has given you - far from addressing all and sundry - absolutely nothing here.

Wrong. So very wrong: Live load was designed to range from 40 to 100 psf for all but floor 109.

PSF = 47.88 Pascals. Ie around 48*40 to 48*100 Newtons per meter squared.

Now, let's take the highest limit, that's a stunning 4800 Newtons of mass per meter square, that's a lot. That's alot, untill you realise that's not for something hitting the floor at speed. If you're still having trouble working out why exactly the floor would have yeilded i can fill in the rest of the gaps.

Now, the central core, what do you think would have happened to it if it hadn't yeilded as easily as it did? A central spire rising almost the entire height of the tower as the floors and outer cladding were stripped? Nope, obviously it would have been snapped from horizontal forces at some point during the collapse. Result? No different from what you can see. Your theory stinks.

It's in the report, easily found for anyone with a modicum of brains. Check it.

So the two reports give the design strength the buildings were designed to take, provide the numbers that show that the colapse would have continued, they give the reasons and reasoning for the collapse itself and all without having to resort to a single missile. How's that for absolutely nothing.