FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC - The Tower Collapses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 14, 15, 16  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a friend who is sort of 'secular' on 9-11, i.e. he 'gets it' but is not an 'activist', sent me this one statement, from another friend:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

I guess people are picking up on this here and there, people who are not "truthers".

Quote:
Surviving Evidence of the World Trade Center Attack
The blueprints to the Twin Towers and Building 7 remained off-limits to the public for more than five years after the attack, despite the fact that the buildings were built with public money and that the engineering drawings of public buildings are supposed to be public information. 1 Incredibly, the team of engineers from the ASCE that conducted the only investigation of the building "collapses" before Ground Zero had been cleaned up lacked access to the buildings' blueprints -- at least until they signed waivers that they would not use the evidence in a lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2

Whistleblower Releases Blueprints
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower.

Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction

Portion of photograph in the collection of the Skyscraper Museum
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.


You guys know this, but apparently a portion of it is new information.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtccons2.html
These photos are pretty amazing. I can understand how jet fuel could melt or soften this. Not.


By the way, I just forced myself to watch part 1-1 of 911 Mysteries, since a friend from World Can't Wait liked it so much. It seemed to be pretty good and straightforward for the most part ... except for being a commercial for Eric Hufschmid. Aye, there's the rub.
Back to top
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:44 pm    Post subject: Good eye witness video Reply with quote

Describes 3 huge explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpTcpCOwBwY&NR=1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
malcolm kirkman



Joined: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 11
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2007 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The first thing to go, was the core.
This pulled the floor in on the south tower and caused the tilt.
This is shown, if you watch the north tower go down - you can see the mast go first = the core is on the way down.

_________________
Fraoch Eilean - The Heathery Isle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have skimmed some of this thread and searched it for tons and potential energy since I regard those as highly relevant to the collapse.

I have had occasion to dispute this potential energy business before.

This is an exchange about the grammar school physics of the collapse.

Apparently the experts can get away with really dumb mistakes.
=========================================================

Lurid Larry wrote:
IMaybe with psikeyhacker and "many others" but not with engineers.

When you care enough to read the very best.

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

By F. R. Greening

www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Lurid Larry


=========================================================

Greenings report is here:

www.nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf

On page 3 it says this:

Quote:
For the general case of n floors collapsing we define a collapsing mass Me:

Me = n m(f) ............................(1)

where m(f) is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the entire mass of an entire WTC tower, namely m(f) = (510,000,000 / 110)kg = 4,636,000 kg.


Now the World Trade Center was 116 stories tall. The foundation was sunk into bedrock which was necessary for a building that tall and massive and there were 6 sub-basements. So when people quote figures for the mass of the building are those levels included or not? Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above. Do you really believe the fourth floor weighed the same amount as the 99th floor? Didn't the fourth floor have to hold a little bit more weight than the 99th floor? If you check the NIST report you will find that 14 grades of steel were specified for the columns of the outer perimeter of the building though only 12 were used. The steel got thinner as you went up the building.

So the bottom of the building must have been much heavier than the top and assuming an even distribution is total nonsense. This is why I keep demanding a specification for the quantity of steel and concrete for every floor including the sub-basements.

Why don't you check out the NIST reports yourself Lurid Larry.

Some people need experts ... to tell them what to think.

psik

=========================================================

Lurid Larry wrote:
If you have a problem with the data, I suggest you do some research.

Lurid Larry


I had already done it, but I think about the research I do not just believe it. Here are some thoughts about yours, maybe you can handle blocks. Very Happy Very Happy

Suppose we do some simplified collapse calculations with 3 sets of blocks to get some basic principles settled. The blocks are all 1 unit on the side. Two stacks of blocks are made with sequentially wieghted cubes that weigh 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 pounds each. One stack is built with the heaviest toward the bottom and the other with the heaviest toward the top. These stacks weigh 66 pounds so the average is 6 pounds therefore the third stack is built with 11, 6 pound blocks.

Code:

            Weights
Fall distance     Btm Hvy       Top Hvy     Avg
   10            1        11         6
    9            2        10         6
    8            3         9         6
    7            4         8         6
    6            5         7         6
    5            6         6         6
    4            7         5         6
    3            8         4         6
    2            9         3         6
    1           10         2         6
    0           11         1         6
                220       440      330


Multiplying the distance fallen times the weight of the block and adding that for all of the blocks in the stack yields 220 for the bottom heavy stack. The top heavy stack is double that amount and the average is right in the middle as expected. But what tall building is going to be built top heavy? And the average stack is 50% higher than the bottom heavy arrangement. Would you want to go into a building designed by supposed engineer that tolerated a 50% error?

Now since I am using 11 blocks and the WTC was 110 stories then 1 of my blocks is representative of 10 floors of the WTC. Your engineer talks about the mass of the top 30 stories so that must mean the south tower and equivalent to my top 3 blocks. The top 3 in the bottom heavy case have a total mass of 6, but the top 3 in the averaged case have a total mass of 18. So if the WTC was in fact bottom heavy then the data your engineer is working with could be way off even if his equations for collapse energy are correct because he is assuming too much mass toward the top.

So what about the bottom heavy case with basements.
Code:

         Weight
Fall distance     Btm Hvy
   10            1   
    9            2   
    8            3   
    7            4   
    6            5   
    5            6   
    4            7   
    3            8   
    2            9   
    1           10   
    0           11   
    0           12   underground sub-basements
                220   


If you dig a hole and and put in a 12 pound block and stack the 66 pounds of blocks on top then the total mass is 78. 78 divided by 12 is 6.5 but 78 divided by 11 is 7.1. So if the sub-basements are included in the total mass of the building but you only divide by the floors above ground level then the mass of the top 30 floors are exaggerated even more. If that was the engineer's intent then what he did made sense. So the people that "want" to believe that conclusion get their confirmation from AUTHORITY with correct mathematics that looks impressive but based on fundamentally FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS.

At this government link on PDF page 84:

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

you will find "3.3 PERIMETER COLUMNS AND SPANDRELS".

The following paragraph specifies the company that made the perimeter columns and the various "ksi" specs for those columns. That "ksi" means 1,000 pounds per square inch. The columns ranged from 36 to 100 ksi and 12 different grades were used in the WTC. Don't you think a 100 ksi column weighed more than a 35 ksi column? Don't you think the heavier columns were used toward the bottom of the building?

So what is the story with this "very best" engineer using the average of all of the above ground floors on a 110 story building and ignoring the sub-basements and not saying the the building had to be bottom heavy and using that average to calculate collapse energy?

Now I am just using these blocks to demonstrate how a bottom heavy mass distribution changes the results. Why can't the EXPERTS tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete one each floor of a building designed in the 1960's six years after its collapse? Now this is some very simple physics presented without all of the mathematical complexity that Mr. Greening seems to be prone to but that is usually the type of style one has to use to be taken seriously by fellow professionals. But how can he possibly make mistakes that dumb? Is he being payed to produce an obfuscating smoke screen? I don't care. This is simple physics and it shouldn't be difficult for most people to see the distribution of mass must be important to the solution. How can the country that put men on the moon be discombobulated by this trivial junk?

I think we should have had a table specifying the tons of steel, tons of concrete, the estimated load, and the maximum design load for every level of the building including the sub-basements. How they expected to analyze this without that information is beyond me. I don't understand what is going on with the structural engineers and the engineering schools in this country. Of course you have to wonder about people with the power and willingness to kill of the people that pulled this off.

I emailed Greening months ago but got no response.

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:52 pm    Post subject: Flying Mass Reply with quote

Here is a little more related to mass distribution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

Ran across a couple of interesting tidbits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hblla0DYmZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

What kind of science are they doing at MIT?

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

Quote:
Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above.


Not true, each floor was basically identical and designed to support only the load on that floor. It was the CORE COLUMNS and OUTER FRAME MEMBERS that were stronger as you went down the towers. Their connections to each floor were identical and were designed only to hold each floor, not all of the floors above them. All vertical loads were transfered from each floor, through it's connections to the core and outer frame.

Like shelves in a bookcase, the individual shelves only support the books that are on them, the frame of the bookshelf supports all the individual shelves.

Quote:
Do you really believe the fourth floor weighed the same amount as the 99th floor?


I don't believe it, I know it to be true. It was the frame and core that were heavier, not the floors.

Quote:
Didn't the fourth floor have to hold a little bit more weight than the 99th floor?


Nope.

Quote:
If you check the NIST report you will find that 14 grades of steel were specified for the columns of the outer perimeter of the building though only 12 were used. The steel got thinner as you went up the building.


Precisely my point, it was the thicker steel of the bottom that was designed to take the increased load, not the floors themselves, nor their connections to the frame and core.

Quote:
So the bottom of the building must have been much heavier than the top and assuming an even distribution is total nonsense. This is why I keep demanding a specification for the quantity of steel and concrete for every floor including the sub-basements.


All the floors above ground level(except three equipment floors) were identical, just as NIST said, only the thickness and type of steel in the frame and core changed, which NIST also said.

Quote:
If you dig a hole and and put in a 12 pound block and stack the 66 pounds of blocks on top then the total mass is 78. 78 divided by 12 is 6.5 but 78 divided by 11 is 7.1. So if the sub-basements are included in the total mass of the building but you only divide by the floors above ground level then the mass of the top 30 floors are exaggerated even more. If that was the engineer's intent then what he did made sense. So the people that "want" to believe that conclusion get their confirmation from AUTHORITY with correct mathematics that looks impressive but based on fundamentally FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS.

At this government link on PDF page 84:

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

you will find "3.3 PERIMETER COLUMNS AND SPANDRELS".

The following paragraph specifies the company that made the perimeter columns and the various "ksi" specs for those columns. That "ksi" means 1,000 pounds per square inch. The columns ranged from 36 to 100 ksi and 12 different grades were used in the WTC. Don't you think a 100 ksi column weighed more than a 35 ksi column? Don't you think the heavier columns were used toward the bottom of the building?

So what is the story with this "very best" engineer using the average of all of the above ground floors on a 110 story building and ignoring the sub-basements and not saying the the building had to be bottom heavy and using that average to calculate collapse energy?

Now I am just using these blocks to demonstrate how a bottom heavy mass distribution changes the results. Why can't the EXPERTS tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete one each floor of a building designed in the 1960's six years after its collapse? Now this is some very simple physics presented without all of the mathematical complexity that Mr. Greening seems to be prone to but that is usually the type of style one has to use to be taken seriously by fellow professionals. But how can he possibly make mistakes that dumb? Is he being payed to produce an obfuscating smoke screen? I don't care. This is simple physics and it shouldn't be difficult for most people to see the distribution of mass must be important to the solution. How can the country that put men on the moon be discombobulated by this trivial junk?

I think we should have had a table specifying the tons of steel, tons of concrete, the estimated load, and the maximum design load for every level of the building including the sub-basements. How they expected to analyze this without that information is beyond me. I don't understand what is going on with the structural engineers and the engineering schools in this country. Of course you have to wonder about people with the power and willingness to kill of the people that pulled this off.


But it is not Greening or the engineers who have a basic misunderstanding of the facts, it is you. The frames support the increased vertical loads, not the floors, which only support the load of that floor. The mass distribution is nearly equal for each floor, only the weight/thickness of the steel frames changed, and this is a small fraction of the total weight of a floor. Once you have the mass of steel and concrete for a single floor multiply by 107 and add in the concrete and steel of the three equipment floors and you have the mass of steel and concrete above ground for each tower.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Quote:
Every floor of that building had to be strong enough to hold the weight of all the floors above.
Not true, each floor was basically identical and designed to support only the load on that floor. It was the CORE COLUMNS and OUTER FRAME MEMBERS that were stronger as you went down the towers.


I am not interested in playing word games with the word "floor". I wasn't talking about the floor slab holding the weight above. I am sure you knew that. The core columns and perimeter columns were supporting the weight of the building. But what was the total mass of steel and concrete on each level, i.e. flor, of the building.

psik

PS - The only argument you have got is trivial and stupid bullshit.

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

Quote:
But what was the total mass of steel and concrete on each level, i.e. flor, of the building.


Don't know(off the top of my head), don't care enough to look it up(relevance???).

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
noplacebo



Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 162

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah grumpy whats the weight of a stick once covered in shit, away you go, and go round and round like the rest of it, you f***ing stink anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr



Joined: 13 Oct 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:05 am    Post subject: TONS? WHERE? Reply with quote

Quote:
Don't know(off the top of my head), don't care enough to look it up(relevance???).


Didn't the fire have to heat up the steel enough to weaken it to cause the collapse? Shouldn't it take more energy and time to heat 100 tons of steel than 50 tons of steel? Shouldn't it take more energy and time to heat 200 tons of steel than 100 tons of steel?

Don't skyscraper designers have to figure out the weight that each level of a building has to hold and how much that will weigh because it has to be supported by the levels beneath? So the WTC designers had to do all of that back in the 60's.

So why don't we have that info readily available on the WTC? Why aren't structural engineers at every engineering school in the country demanding that info? Why should we trust experts when they won't even address obvious questions that grammar school kids should be able to understand?

psik

_________________
Kill an economist for KKK
Karl, Kenneth & Keynes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

psikeyhackr

The info you seek is in the NIST report, which does not allow cut and paste, why don't you do your own homework, if you care about those facts? The reports go into great detail as to the temps reached, where and at what time, it is much too complicated to summarize, you'll have to read them yourself, if truth is what you are interested in.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hombre



Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh please how transparent can you be? They've gone to great lengths to scrub every bit of info associated with the construction of the towers from the internet. Even edited the other sites like the Sears tower calling them constructed of 9 " HOLLOW TUBES "Hollow I say with no mention of the material used to build these hollow tubes. lol~

I can tell you my friend that they are indeed steel and concrete re-enforced tubes, just like the ones in the WTC towers.

A play on words: HOLLOW leaving the ill informed to continue to walk around in a fog. Laughing Funny!

Hombre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 14, 15, 16  Next
Page 15 of 16

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.