simple question for the WTC collapse

[eots]

there was no giant block of building crashing through the rest..there was no pancaking..there was in secs nothing but a giant dust cloud be projected outward from the structure underneath it as it crumbled

no shit dopey. It turned to a jumbling mass of debris due to impacting the lower section and being sheared/torn apart.

yet lost no energy

 

[eots]

this means that the engineers had to calculate how many and how much of each support component in the lower structure would succumb and fail due to the downward, gravity driven descent of the upper section.

Let that sink in. This means that there is a maximum level of stress a component can take before shearing. The maximum level of stress is reduced as the amount of the component is taken away.

Connections are the weakest link. Think about the perimeter column floor trusses of the towers. There is a limit as to what each floor and it's corresponding trusses around that floor can support. That's static and live loads.

How much more of a difference between the loads of what an individual floor was designed to handle on a day to day basis and the load generated from the upper section hitting said floor?

Do you understand how loads work and are transferred through a structural system? Obviously not or you wouldn't be spouting such crap.

Loads "travel" through the various components, including the connections, to the columns and down to the footers. If a component in the load transferring network cannot handle the load passing through it, it fails. Hence the following picture of how a structure transfers loads. People, desk, chairs, computers, etc. To the floor. The floor (and underlying trusses) trough the connections to the columns to the columns themselves. The columns to the footers. The footers to the bedrock.


which is why i always ask this. Were all of the floor truss connections of one floor (circled in red below), attached to the perimeter columns and core columns, designed for the load of day to day work on that floor...


...supposed to take the load generated by this falling onto it?


tell you what "chump".

Provide the math for how much one floor was designed to support and then provide the math for how much of a load was created by the 12 story and 28 story upper sections. Don't forget to add in the tons of elevator motors, the hat trusses, the elevator electrical panels, etc.

why is there no link to this photo..

what does not having a link have to do with answering my questions or refuting my logic?

If you doubt any photos, go look them up for yourself. You will see many photos and drawings proving what the floor truss connections. You will see many photos and videos of the upper section descending. You can find many photos, and explanations on how loads are distributed in a structure.

What do you have a problem with?

why are you afraid the post the source of the picture ?





/

 

[Derideo_Te]

so you think the pre-cut the steel and used hydraulics to bring down the towers ?

Kindly refrain from imposing your own delusions on others. I have already supplied you with the plausible and rational explanations of how the sequence of events from the impacts to the fires to the collapses took place WITHOUT the need for any other factors being involved. The onus remains on you to PROVE your allegations.

No you did not as this requires the mechanical removal of all supports simultaneously with hydraulics or cables and requires pre-cutting of the structure

The onus remains on YOU to PROVE that this is a requirement. But we already know that you lack the skills and knowledge necessary to provide this proof.

The math doesn't lie. The math says that when you exceed the FOS the structure will fail. The FOS was exceeded when the grossly overburdened floor carrying the excessive additional weight of the wreckage from the 140 ton 767 was heated to the point where it slipped off it's supports and crashed onto the floor below. This is entirely consistent with the NIST report on the WTC 7 failure when the heat from the substation fire caused one of the cantilever bridge supports to slip off it's support.

 

[Derideo_Te]

there was no giant block of building crashing through the rest..there was no pancaking..there was in secs nothing but a giant dust cloud be projected outward from the structure underneath it as it crumbled

no shit dopey. It turned to a jumbling mass of debris due to impacting the lower section and being sheared/torn apart.

yet lost no energy

The lower sections contained their own potential energy that was turned into kinetic energy with the impact of the tens of thousands of tons of debris impacting on it.

 

[eots]

no shit dopey. It turned to a jumbling mass of debris due to impacting the lower section and being sheared/torn apart.

yet lost no energy

the lower sections contained their own potential energy that was turned into kinetic energy with the impact of the tens of thousands of tons of debris impacting on it.

how long did it take one floor to fall and completly destroy the floor below it ?...nist offers no numbers on this...I wonder why

 

[eots]

there was no debris ejection! It was all held nicely together as it "pancaked"! ..LOL

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLFmkGseZ-8]South tower collapse slow motion HD - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Gamolon]

there was no giant block of building crashing through the rest..there was no pancaking..there was in secs nothing but a giant dust cloud be projected outward from the structure underneath it as it crumbled

no shit dopey. It turned to a jumbling mass of debris due to impacting the lower section and being sheared/torn apart.

yet lost no energy

And the building in my video I posted at 3:22 did?

 

[Gamolon]

there was no debris ejection! It was all held nicely together as it "pancaked"! ..LOL

South tower collapse slow motion HD - YouTube

Yet there was 56' high debris pile in the footprints despite the fact you claim all the debris was ejected outwards.

 

[Gamolon]

why is there no link to this photo..

what does not having a link have to do with answering my questions or refuting my logic?

If you doubt any photos, go look them up for yourself. You will see many photos and drawings proving what the floor truss connections. You will see many photos and videos of the upper section descending. You can find many photos, and explanations on how loads are distributed in a structure.

What do you have a problem with?

why are you afraid the post the source of the picture ?





/

You can find the pictures for yourself. They're all over the place. Too lazy to look obviously.

 

[Gamolon]

get your shit straight chump..The supports from three floors in the middle of the building were removed simultaneously allowing the top HALF to fall on to the bottom half that has been extensively weakened in advance with cutting torches

Are you, eots, suggesting that the laws of physics changed because the lower section of that building was weakened? Remember what TakeAStepBack says:

Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.

Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it's still somewhat intact and needs a force to finish the job and completely shear the "lower section". So based on what TakeAStepBack says above, this isn't possible. How did that "upper section" section in the video have enough energy to shear the rest of the "lower section" AND shear itself into debris?

Why do you keep avoiding this?

You're contradicting TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.

Also, what happened to the fact that buildings are designed to support MANY times their designed load capacity? Even though the "lower section" was weakened, it still supported the "upper section"just fine until that upper section was released. Why didn't the "lower section" stop the "upper section"?

What turned the "upper section" into debris?

Better yet, address the above eots.

What are you afraid of?

C'mon eots. Explain please. Teach TakeAStepBack how to properly apply the "laws of physics".

 

[Derideo_Te]

yet lost no energy

the lower sections contained their own potential energy that was turned into kinetic energy with the impact of the tens of thousands of tons of debris impacting on it.

how long did it take one floor to fall and completly destroy the floor below it ?...nist offers no numbers on this...I wonder why

NIST was not required to provide those figures. But if you are interested in finding out for yourself you can find them in any Applied Mathematics 101 textbook. As far as the destruction of each floor is concerned you can try measuring how long it would take for you to squash an empty soda can with your boot if you jumped off a 10' wall.

 

[eots]

no shit dopey. It turned to a jumbling mass of debris due to impacting the lower section and being sheared/torn apart.

yet lost no energy

and the building in my video i posted at 3:22 did?

it takes about 5 secs for this 15 story building to collapse..but 110 stories fell in 14 secs...you tell me

 

[eots]

Even at the rate of 1 sec per floor it would take the tower 110 secs to collapse

 

[Derideo_Te]

yet lost no energy

and the building in my video i posted at 3:22 did?

it takes about 5 secs for this 15 story building to collapse..but 110 stories fell in 14 secs...you tell me

Why does an avalanche gain speed as it comes down a mountain?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Even at the rate of 1 sec per floor it would take the tower 110 secs to collapse

Try milliseconds instead.

 

[eots]

and the building in my video i posted at 3:22 did?

it takes about 5 secs for this 15 story building to collapse..but 110 stories fell in 14 secs...you tell me

why does an avalanche gain speed as it comes down a mountain?

why do avalanches stop half way down a steep incline

 

[eots]

Even at the rate of 1 sec per floor it would take the tower 110 secs to collapse

Try milliseconds instead.

why did the gravity induced collapse video not descend and the rate of milliseconds per floor ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

it takes about 5 secs for this 15 story building to collapse..but 110 stories fell in 14 secs...you tell me

why does an avalanche gain speed as it comes down a mountain?

why do avalanches stop half way down a steep incline

Deflection instead of an answer says volumes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Even at the rate of 1 sec per floor it would take the tower 110 secs to collapse

Try milliseconds instead.

why did the gravity induced collapse video not descend and the rate of milliseconds per floor ?

It descended at an accelerating rate irrespective of the time measurement used until it could go no further. The time taken to collapse each floor was constantly reduced as the mass of the debris increased and accelerated under the force of gravity.

 

[eots]

try milliseconds instead.

why did the gravity induced collapse video not descend and the rate of milliseconds per floor ?

it descended at an accelerating rate irrespective of the time measurement used until it could go no further. The time taken to collapse each floor was constantly reduced as the mass of the debris increased and accelerated under the force of gravity.

so you are claiming the towers accelerated with each floor of the collapse