beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Something tells me we are about to encounter invisible planes again...Jazzz said:Hell I'm not sure it even took off!
Something tells me we are about to encounter invisible planes again...Jazzz said:Hell I'm not sure it even took off!
The ones with the missiles...beesonthewhatnow said:Something tells me we are about to encounter invisible planes again...
Crispy said:But if they took out the basement first, why didn't the tower collapse from the bottom, instead of from the impact point?
Hey! Homer is my hero and my icon!detective-boy said:
Jazzz, pictured after reading that post ...
Jazzz said:If that is the case then how do you explain the requirements of the 1968 NYC Building Code which state that members and assemblies had to be able to take 250% of live and dead loads (albeit with deformation)?
As for the 64 times bit - well there was nothing to fall on the core but itself. If it was going to go, why were there not large movements as heated steel got to the point where it could no longer hold? And one by one columns fail, the building lurching? The point is, we don't have an explanation for the dynamics of the collapse at all, and it's certainly not explained by 'the top section fell on the bottom and there you go'.
The perimeter had more than enough capacity to take the entire weight of the WTC also - especially as it was so lightly loaded on the morning of 9/11. However, it is only speculation that this is what occurred.Crispy said:But if they took out the basement first, why didn't the tower collapse from the bottom, instead of from the impact point?
TheArchitect said:...
But one of my favourites is the fact that you didn't seem to know that the lower core somehow managed to survive for 15 to 20 seconds AFTER the main collapse until we showed you the pictures!!! AND now it's being put forward as part of your theory!!
Jazzz said:The perimeter had more than enough capacity to take the entire weight of the WTC also.
MikeMcc said:This would be the core that had the foundations demolished, wouldn't it...
Missed that one in there, so now the perimeter could support the entire stucture rather than the 'massively over-engineered core'...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzz
The perimeter had more than enough capacity to take the entire weight of the WTC also.
MikeMcc said:Missed that one in there, so now the perimeter could support the entire stucture rather than the 'massively over-engineered core'...
Jazzz said:I don't know where the plane is. That includes the area around the Pentagon. Hell I'm not sure it even took off!
I am accusing the US Government of killing 3,000 of its own men, women, and children but to be honest I can't actually explain my theory in any sort of cogent way or post evidence. Nor do I know the difference between yield point and tensile strength.
TheArchitect said:So lets get this straight....
1. The core was designed to take the entire weight of the structure
2. The outer envelope was designed to take the entire weight of the structure
3. The safety factor (haha) was anywhere between 300 and 600%, based on Jazz's figures.
Boy, the original architect and engineer really wasted a stack of cash, eh? Presumably their client was reaaally happy at seeing all his money wasted on such massively redundant structures!
MikeMcc said:That would mean that these two towers would withstand a fairly close nuke without major structural damage, damn, must be CD (mini-nukes in the basement?), but then how would the rescue services manage to walk about in there which the woo-woo sites are so keen to show us.
TheArchitect said:So how do you explain the DCR calculations?
How do you know that the design complied with the regulations?
How do you know that modelling was sufficiently accurate 30 odd years ago?
For the third or fourth time, with a continous loading, the yield point IS the capacity!Jazzz said:There is nothing that needs explaining about the DCR calculations! You thought that capacity represented the yield point of the members - it didn't.
I know that the design satisfied the requirements of the 1968 NYC Building Code where load bearing was concerned because that is precisely what NIST tells us, and that's as a result of their modelling, not any done 30 years ago.
It's not the capacity that is referred to in the DCR ratios. Pay attention MikeMcc!MikeMcc said:For the third or fourth time, with a continous loading, the yield point IS the capacity!
Jazzz said:As you say editor. I fully accept that I cannot provide you with answers that you will personally find satisfactory.
And...Jazzz said:It's not the capacity that is referred to in the DCR ratios. Pay attention MikeMcc!
Allow me to repeat for your (and TA's) benefit:
"5.2 Calculation of Demand/Capacity Ratios
The DCRs were calculated by dividing component demands by component capacities, taken at unfactored (working) loads and at working stresses, not at ultimate loads or yield stresses... The component capacities were based on the nominal steel strength as specified in the original design documents..."
NISTNCSTAR1-2A
Understand? Or do I need to elaborate on this further?
That's not a fair interpretation of the above quote. Others may not agree with me, and that's fine. it's their business. Thing is though, I won't endlessly interrogate them and demand that they come up with an answer that I find satisfactory - that's how threads go around in circles, and become totally pointless.Lock&Light said:Jazzz, I really wish you would stop pretending that the editor is the only one dissatisfied with your 'answers'.
They go round in circles because one person, in this case you, keeps disputing the evidence that completely blows your ideas.Jazzz said:That's not a fair interpretation of the above quote. Others may not agree with me, and that's fine. it's their business. Thing is though, I won't endlessly interrogate them and demand that they come up with an answer that I find satisfactory - that's how threads go around in circles, and become totally pointless.
We're now into analysis of the collapse itself which is a different question.MikeMcc said:And...
The DCRs say that there was an extra loading possible above the design loadings and TA has already shown they could not allow for the impact loads that were 64 times greater than the design loadings. What dont you believe about that staement and why?
NO IT'S NOT! IT'S THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT!!!!Jazzz said:We're now into analysis of the collapse itself which is a different question.