quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

I guess he's talking to me...but I've given him this info before.  He doesn't believe it.  Go to the FEMA engineering analysis; in chapter 2 there are pictures of debris.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf
(btw, here's the analysis of WTC7 http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
Stop it with this game of silly beggars, you is wrong!

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

RealOne-

What draws me to these conspiracy theories is the idea that anyone's ideas are equal to the experts; the claim that the professional experts who have studied this building are not trustworthy.
Even though I have a smattering of knowledge, I never claim to be an engineer- instead, I consult with and trust in the opinions of professional engineers, exactly like the ones that analyzed this building.

Why do I put so much faith and trust in the engineers?
Because every prediction they make has come true. For instance, when my engineer tells me a beam must be such and such a size to hold up the building, it proves to be accurate; when he tells me I can alter it this way or that and still be safe, it never fails.
except in the WTC of course

Whenever you drive over a bridge, ride an elevator, walk into a building, you are trusting your life to the engineers that you so strenuously attack; Yet their theories and models and calculations of building behavior have always worked, in my experience.

no they dont.

Your opinion isn't equal to theirs; your expertise and reputation and qualifications aren't equal to theirs. I would rather put my faith in them than you, and all the pictures of grey smoke or black smoke or arrows pointing to blobs aren't going to convince anyone that you know better than them.

like I said you cannot teach someone what an explosion looks like if they never seen one.  Not my fault you live in the woderful world of OZ.

I am not trying to conivnce you to embrace the theories put forward by the professional engineers; but to explain to you why I have faith in them and not you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Just because I am in a good mood and had a few beers and kicked back and relaxed and all that shit I will take the time to explain a few things to you.

The title I assigned to this little lesson was physics for retards 101.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Just because I am in a good mood and had a few beers and kicked back and relaxed and all that shit I will take the time to explain a few things to you.

The title I assigned to this little lesson was physics for retards 101.

Really?  I've had physics (including modern physics), statics, dynamics, and some classes and experience with materials. Those docs would be typical of a statics class with some of the materials science thrown in; I'm an EE but still could follow the discussions.

Like Animus says, why do you put a massive FAIL on the engineering work of the analysis teams, but trust the folks that design and build your bridges, buildings, water systems, etc.?

If you knew this type of engineering material, you wouldn't be here arguing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I find it funny that we are expected to believe the claims of one individual without question while not getting the same consideration.

So far an architect has been attacked and others.

So much for intelligent debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



people are afraid for their lives.

in america

is that what we call freedom?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually real, I was talking about you. You are insulting, refuse to accept anything other than your own point of view.

thats a farce
maybe when someone comes out here and actually makes a verifiable or at least substantial claim to the contrary I will listen to what you people have to say.

Look at thornwhatever his name is claiming EE status and cant even talk with me on point about something I know well enough that I can explain it in language simple enough that a child can understand it.  as of yet has not rebutted it and I dont expect he will because he knows or should know what my next line will be.  I did make it quite obvious.
Talking off point only shows you and others cannot refute the issues.

An honest debate requires an open mind, which you obviously dont have.

Oh I have an open mind but your definition means drill a hole in my head and empty out 1/2 my brains for you.  No thank you.

I have read, watched, and researched the "9/11 Conspiracy" for a long time, and the claim that every live feed was faked, especially when you consider that at least one of them was from a foreign news agency (actually there was a number of foreign news agency live feeds that day) is beyond reason.

No not every as in not one was real is hardly the intended point.   when planes become invincible and can fly through buildings unscathed, and when wtc 7 is reported "collapsed" 20 minutes before it happened by CNN, BBC and one other I cant remember off hand you got a problem with your reasoning dont you.

That is the problem.  Blaming me for your shortcomings in reasoning has the sole purpose of throwing people off the scent aint that right :)    You wanna come out here and debate me it better be straight up because aint to much shit you will pull without my exposing it for what it is.

It falls back to the "Whistleblowers - how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators" flaw in your argument, not to mention the Logic is further flawed.

Not to many....  I already explained that to you in detail do you have memory lapse issues as well?

one guy orders "stuff".  He knows.
the next manufactures it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next hauls is it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next un;oads it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next stores it in the wtc.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next in the case of paintable thermate paints it on.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
all the fucking people watching see a box marked PAINT.  THEY DO NOT KNOW.

Are you starting to get the picture how fucked up your logic is?

all that and only 1 guy knows!!

Reason unfortunately only extends to the extent of your knowledge!

The WTC towers were designed to handle the impact of a 707, not a much larger 767.

More bullshit.  You never bothered to look it up.  Nothing like coming to a gun fight with no knife at all.

The structure was strained beyond its capacity by the initial impact,

then it would have fallen right away eh.  Oh wait all that invisible fire heated it into failure.

and further weakened by the resulting fire.

I knew it!

So lets start with building number 2. show us all that fire!!  You know all that fire that will cause "GLOBAL COLLAPSE" and throw 60 tone chunks of iron 100+ yards!

This has been addressed in the report filed by the Engineering firm that was involved in the original construction of the twin towers, FEMA report, and at least nine independent reports generated by various groups trying to disprove the original reports. No credible engineering firm, engineering school, or independent agency has disagreed with the original reports, again coming back to the argument that too many people would have to be involved in the ongoing conspiracy to hide the truth.

Well lets take a looksee at all those reports you talk about. 

At least a few hundred thousand people would have to be involved in the initial conspiracy, as well as the continued conspiracy to cover up the original conspiracy.

Nah not at all.  There is no law against being stoopid and if an engineering firm puts out bullshit what are you going to sue for?  Not a damn thing.  Like I said its simply not MY conspiracy but you people cant seem to grasp that.

Logic dictates that the number of people are too great to keep the secret for any length of time.

There you go with your logic again and as I have already demonstrated that YOUR logic only extends to the extet of your knowledge.

Every conspiracy that has come to light and proved to be valid have resulted in someone talking.

Yeh well what was it anyway?  Was it 19 or 12 hijackers?  I forget?  They cant even keep their own conspiracies straight.

From the Bay of Pigs to Watergate to Iran Contra someone got tired of the lies and talked. Those few examples were controlled by small groups of people, less than a hundred in most cases, and yet someone blew the whistle. It is beyond reason to believe that someone who knows the truth has not talked in the years since 9/11.

I just put up april hwo openly talks about no plane in the pentagon, but whos not listening? eh?

I put other vids of new reporters claiming bombs, explosions et al but whos not listening? eh?

Firefighters the same but whos not listening? eh?

Well its been fun playing.

As pointed out in another thread, there are a series of flaws that debunk most conspiracy theories. These are,

* Occam's razor - does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence?
* Logic - do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ fallacies of logic?
* Methodology - are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
* Whistleblowers - how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators?
* Falsifiability - is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are false, or are they "unfalsifiable"?


The 9/11 conspiracy theory that no aircraft hit the buildings fall under Logic, Whistleblowers, AND Falsifiability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Personally, I'm afraid of people like you, not the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Actually real, I was talking about you. You are insulting, refuse to accept anything other than your own point of view.

thats a farce
maybe when someone comes out here and actually makes a verifiable or at least substantial claim to the contrary I will listen to what you people have to say.

Look at thornwhatever his name is claiming EE status and cant even talk with me on point about something I know well enough that I can explain it in language simple enough that a child can understand it.  as of yet has not rebutted it and I dont expect he will because he knows or should know what my next line will be.  I did make it quite obvious.
Talking off point only shows you and others cannot refute the issues.

An honest debate requires an open mind, which you obviously dont have.

Oh I have an open mind but your definition means drill a hole in my head and empty out 1/2 my brains for you.  No thank you.

I have read, watched, and researched the "9/11 Conspiracy" for a long time, and the claim that every live feed was faked, especially when you consider that at least one of them was from a foreign news agency (actually there was a number of foreign news agency live feeds that day) is beyond reason.

No not every as in not one was real is hardly the intended point.   when planes become invincible and can fly through buildings unscathed, and when wtc 7 is reported "collapsed" 20 minutes before it happened by CNN, BBC and one other I cant remember off hand you got a problem with your reasoning dont you.

That is the problem.  Blaming me for your shortcomings in reasoning has the sole purpose of throwing people off the scent aint that right :)    You wanna come out here and debate me it better be straight up because aint to much shit you will pull without my exposing it for what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

It falls back to the "Whistleblowers - how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators" flaw in your argument, not to mention the Logic is further flawed.

Not to many....  I already explained that to you in detail do you have memory lapse issues as well?

one guy orders "stuff".  He knows.
the next manufactures it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next hauls is it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next un;oads it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next stores it in the wtc.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next in the case of paintable thermate paints it on.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
all the fucking people watching see a box marked PAINT.  THEY DO NOT KNOW.

Are you starting to get the picture how fucked up your logic is?

all that and only 1 guy knows!!

Reason unfortunately only extends to the extent of your knowledge!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

The WTC towers were designed to handle the impact of a 707, not a much larger 767.

More bullshit.  You never bothered to look it up.  Nothing like coming to a gun fight with no knife at all.

quote:

Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts

The structural engineers working on the World Trade Center considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building. During the design of the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers, personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner—a Boeing 707 -- which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport, but Robertson provided no documentation for this assertion.

NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200 page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7. In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." In its investigation, NIST found reason to believe that they lacked the ability to properly model the effect of such impacts on the structures, especially the effects of the fires, though NIST offers no evidence for this belief.[

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The structure was strained beyond its capacity by the initial impact,

then it would have fallen right away eh.  Oh wait all that invisible fire heated it into failure.

and further weakened by the resulting fire.

I knew it!

So lets start with building number 2. show us all that fire!!  You know all that fire that will cause "GLOBAL COLLAPSE" and throw 60 tone chunks of iron 100+ yards!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
This has been addressed in the report filed by the Engineering firm that was involved in the original construction of the twin towers, FEMA report, and at least nine independent reports generated by various groups trying to disprove the original reports. No credible engineering firm, engineering school, or independent agency has disagreed with the original reports, again coming back to the argument that too many people would have to be involved in the ongoing conspiracy to hide the truth.

Well lets take a looksee at all those reports you talk about. 

quote:

The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

At least a few hundred thousand people would have to be involved in the initial conspiracy, as well as the continued conspiracy to cover up the original conspiracy.

Nah not at all.  There is no law against being stoopid and if an engineering firm puts out bullshit what are you going to sue for?  Not a damn thing.  Like I said its simply not MY conspiracy but you people cant seem to grasp that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Logic dictates that the number of people are too great to keep the secret for any length of time.

There you go with your logic again and as I have already demonstrated that YOUR logic only extends to the extet of your knowledge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Every conspiracy that has come to light and proved to be valid have resulted in someone talking.

Yeh well what was it anyway?  Was it 19 or 12 hijackers?  I forget?  They cant even keep their own conspiracies straight.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

From the Bay of Pigs to Watergate to Iran Contra someone got tired of the lies and talked. Those few examples were controlled by small groups of people, less than a hundred in most cases, and yet someone blew the whistle. It is beyond reason to believe that someone who knows the truth has not talked in the years since 9/11.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Firefighters the same but whos not listening? eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Well its been fun playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
As pointed out in another thread, there are a series of flaws that debunk most conspiracy theories. These are,

* Occam's razor - does the alternative story explain more of the evidence than the mainstream story, or is it just a more complicated and therefore less useful explanation of the same evidence?
* Logic - do the proofs offered follow the rules of logic, or do they employ fallacies of logic?
* Methodology - are the proofs offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
* Whistleblowers - how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators?
* Falsifiability - is it possible to demonstrate that specific claims of the theory are false, or are they "unfalsifiable"?


The 9/11 conspiracy theory that no aircraft hit the buildings fall under Logic, Whistleblowers, AND Falsifiability.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne



once again just because there is a theory does not mean you are remotely correctly applying it.

All that shit depends on your personal knowledge as I have demonstrated how pathetically easy it is to stomp your theories in the ground.

Here need to see it again?
--------
It falls back to the "Whistleblowers - how many people – and what kind – have to be loyal conspirators" flaw in your argument, not to mention the Logic is further flawed.

Not to many....  I already explained that to you in detail do you have memory lapse issues as well?

one guy orders "stuff".  He knows.
the next manufactures it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next hauls is it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next un;oads it.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next stores it in the wtc.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
the next in the case of paintable thermate paints it on.  HE DOES NOT KNOW.
all the fucking people watching see a box marked PAINT.  THEY DO NOT KNOW.

Are you starting to get the picture how fucked up your logic is?

all that and only 1 guy knows!!

Reason unfortunately only extends to the extent of your knowledge!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
First of all, I am not blaming you for my shortcomings, I am blaming you for your blatant attacks on the credibility of people who are members of this forum and hold qualifications which you seem to have fun attacking. Try again.

Well why do anything that aint fun?  :)

Sorry, but you have repeatedly claimed that the live news feeds of the airplane crash into tower two was faked. For this to be true, then every network feed would have had to have people that were part of the conspiracy to be involved. Your contention is flawed.

what are you talking about?  apparently you do not have any concept of how the news feeds work.

This goes back to your contention that not a single plane impacted the towers, which I have already addressed. There were two amateur videos of the first impact and then the second impact was filmed from various angles by BBC, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, FNC, etc.

really?  for years there was only the herzerkoni version.  the one with the disappearing wings and the building that heals itself.

What then is all that footage of smoke coming from the two towers, oh yeah, I forgot you maintain it was faked. BULLSHIT

well the fact you would say that pretty much makes a statement you do not knwo what you are talking about.

Just because there is smoke does not mean there is fire, even though that is usually the case.


Actually, my logic extends to researching both sides of the argument, I have yet to see an engineering report by a credible group of professional structural engineers who have studied both the original blueprints, engineering specs and done a credible report.

By your standards that agrees with the official story.

Several people have created credible reports.

Oh wait thats right you are a labeller!  anyone who is not a calculator engineer does not know how to use one!

Bwwhahahahaa

I have seen a number of groups trying to disprove the reports that have been done without references, sources (except other conspiracy pages) which has no valid information other than more theory with no evidence.

again your opinion which you have shown extends to the sole knowledge of others and none of your own.

19 hijackers, which is reported in every valid report on the incident

yep there we go again valid according to your version of valid.

And already addressed. You have forgotten your claim that ALL the live video of the second airplane impact was faked.

yeh it was, everything I have seen so far. yeppers.

As for the only one guy knows, you also seem to forget that whoever packaged the item knows what it was, he also knows where it was shipped. 1+1 does not equal 1. Plus whoever told the first guy to start the process knows, etc.

Holy shitoney!  Up to 3 people now getting up to the thousands fast arent we?  LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!



Actually, you have done nothing to prove anything EXCEPT that you conveniently forget your own statements concerning parts of your own theory.

Not, you conventiently post as if you are some kind of authority and have nothing ot show but cut and paste shit.

quote:

The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter.

yup thats PART of it aint it

Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

and inwards and sideways and it keeps them from falling over on the building next door too!  But whos getting picky! LOL!

After the initial plane impacts,

Huh?  what initial plane attacks?  I have see no evidence to that effect.

it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

Yeh bombs do that too!  Now who would think of that?

It appears likely <- you can always tell a FACT, they are LIKELY!

(appears likely that) the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns (appears likely that) on several floors of the building, (appears likely that) severely weakening the entire system.

(appears likely that) Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

(appears likely that) However, as fire raged <--Great drama word aint it?  damn! RAGING FUCKING INFERNOTIZATION OF THE WTC!  So how many times do I need to post that same fucking pic that shows no damn fire?

(appears likely that) in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material.

(appears likely that) As the planes had only recently taken off,

(appears likely that) the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel,

which (appears likely that) then ignited any combustible material in the building.

While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops),

(appears likely that) increasing deflections.

quote:

  Safety concerns regarding aircraft impacts

The structural engineers working on the World Trade Center considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building. During the design of the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers, personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airliner—a Boeing 707 -- which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport, but Robertson provided no documentation for this assertion.

well the planes did not knock the towers down did they? Otherwise the towers would have fallen right away

NIST found (found?????? whats this found shit?  Oh I forgot government every time they open their mouths its a liel  Found sure plausible deniability!  You were so busy with fair and balanced you did not catch that I bet!) LOL   Ok carry on:   NIST found a three-page white paper that mentioned another aircraft-impact analysis, involving impact of a Boeing 707 at 600 miles per hour (970 km/h), but the original documentation of the study, which was part of the building's 1,200 page structural analysis, was lost when the Port Authority offices were destroyed in the collapse of the WTC 1; the copy was lost in WTC 7.

what an unfortunate coincidence huh?

In 1993, John Skilling, lead structural engineer for the WTC, recalled doing the analysis, and remarked, "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." In its investigation, NIST found reason to believe that they lacked the ability to properly model the effect of such impacts on the structures, especially the effects of the fires, though NIST offers no evidence for this belief. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
nothing you said was on point. you dont even know the difference between sheathing and loading.

While what you said is great copy and paste now all you need to do is go get some schooling under your belt to understand what it all means and how it does not apply to my point eh...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
In laymans terms:
When an expanse of steel in this case is heated the metal expands up the point it losses its structural strength due to heating and begins to sag.
The sagging takes place because it cannot support the load placed upon it.
The column held the load prior to heating then majically became overloaded.
Where did the additional load come from and what gave it increased strength to pull in the columns that it could not before the fire? Heavy fire maybe?
The floor sagged because it lost its strength but majically has more strength than it originally had in that it pulled the columns inward!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
nothing you said was on point. you dont even know the difference between sheathing and loading.

While what you said is great copy and paste now all you need to do is go get some schooling under your belt to understand what it all means and how it does not apply to my point eh...

Perhaps you can do a Google search using quotation marks to show the exact page where I 'copied and pasted' it from. I refuse to debate the topic with you any further because your knowledge of structures is imbecilic compared to the average person on the street let alone someone that has a degree where structural mechanics is a taught course.


Like you of course!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
In laymans terms:
When an expanse of steel in this case is heated the metal expands up the point it losses its structural strength due to heating and begins to sag.
The sagging takes place because it cannot support the load placed upon it.
The column held the load prior to heating then majically became overloaded.
Where did the additional load come from and what gave it increased strength to pull in the columns that it could not before the fire? Heavy fire maybe?
The floor sagged because it lost its strength but majically has more strength than it originally had in that it pulled the columns inward!

Oh I can’t resist.  Your first mistake :)
This statement is so moronic, please tell me how the weight of steel reduces as it loses structural strength?

It does not, and my point was that neither does it increase taking your theory of bulging or caving in columns to its logical conclusion.  I said that several times. You failed to make the connection.

Please tell me how a column can span any height without being restrained laterally by say a floor beam.

No wind?  you can build one up to the moon if you wanted.  Of course you would not be able to hold it down cuz it would be thrown into outer space with centrifical force.

Please tell me how the joint at the column doesn't rotate regardless of the level of deflection?

See now you are putting extreme conditions to compare my simple explaination for the those with a childs education in physics out here.

but to answer your question you shot yourself in the foot again.

You can look at your drawing and see the ones that are called "bridge truss".

I know you are the one self proclaimed one with the higher ejumacation n all but yas see they keep the trus from twisting. clear?

Even in a fire the sagging will cause joint rotation,

They will rotate without joints if it hot enough and one can always measure some level of rotation on any yield failure regardless fire or not.

the steel doesn't just drip and stretch towards the floor in the way you characterise, especially if held up by the slab.

Now I never talked or implied that we were talking about molten steel now did I?  That is frankly a retarded path to go with this.

However after the yeild is exceeded there is not longer the compression side of bending and yes it does stretch almost precisely like the picture in your link shows.

You know the link you provided to shoot yourself in the foot with.


http://www.vulcan-solutions.com/cardington.html

The way you are thinking of 'taffy' steel at high temperatures is completely unrealistic note that in the corner bay test above the max deflection is around 300mm at 700 degrees C. Beyond that point the slab alone is supporting the weight of the floor loading, now ask yourself how long that is going to last before immediate collapse? The beam isn’t stretching to touch the floor because it is supported by the slab until the slab ultimately gives way.

Now are we talking failure or not?  I was talking failure and unless you have stressed slabs they crack and the whole thing sags slowly.  Not gets how and has a global failure like the wtc.


[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/86/Wtc_floor_truss_system.png/800px-Wtc_floor_truss_system.png[/image]

See those loops above the truss into the slab, well those are shear connectors into the slab meaning the beam isn't going to fail or behave independently of the slab and the slab isn't going to 'stretch like taffy towards the floor'. Instead they'll be some kind of immediate failure and the beam is going to buckle at midpoint not stretch. This means the ends of the beams will have no curvature but be straight and if the ends of the beam remain straight then some level of joint rotation must occur thus influencing the columns.

All the information is out there but you choose to follow it selectively.

Ya MORON.[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I find it funny that we are expected to believe the claims of one individual without question while not getting the same consideration.

So far an architect has been attacked and others.

So much for intelligent debate.

yeh I was wondering why rex attacked me when he doesnt even know me.  Well dont give up hope just yet.  Thorn happy claims he is an EE so he should at least have the ability to calculate things out.  I am not sure why he didnt understand the distribution/loading/failure mode point that I made though.  Dont really need to be an architect to grasp that simple concept but who knows maybe we will have a "debate" yet.  Then again no one tends to show up for the gunfight when faced with my howitzer.  

That last pic I put up is right out of his fema government link or what ever and I am not sure you will be to fast to find anyone "sane" who is willing to argue for that flawed physics when they know what I am about to do to them.  LOL



[image]local://upfiles/59055/FF316A4FA17648578B54B2205A770477.gif[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3
The way you term maximum loading at midspan is erroneous as most floor loading is most commonly in the form of a UDL (uniformly distributed load) as the name suggests the load is spread uniformly across the floor. Occasionally you may have a point load for column carried on beams etc. That would be rare in a structure of that type.

In a beam maximum bending moment occurs where the shear is zero, often centre of the beam but can be offset due to arrangement of supports. Also if the beam is continuous or simply supported plays a part in this, as for simply supported beams (not often found in realistic structures) the maximum bending moment would be at mid span.

You are going to have to stop speaking in engineering lingo- its making me horny.


RealOne-

What draws me to these conspiracy theories is the idea that anyone's ideas are equal to the experts; the claim that the professional experts who have studied this building are not trustworthy.
Even though I have a smattering of knowledge, I never claim to be an engineer- instead, I consult with and trust in the opinions of professional engineers, exactly like the ones that analyzed this building.

Why do I put so much faith and trust in the engineers?
Because every prediction they make has come true. For instance, when my engineer tells me a beam must be such and such a size to hold up the building, it proves to be accurate; when he tells me I can alter it this way or that and still be safe, it never fails.

Whenever you drive over a bridge, ride an elevator, walk into a building, you are trusting your life to the engineers that you so strenuously attack; Yet their theories and models and calculations of building behavior have always worked, in my experience.

Your opinion isn't equal to theirs; your expertise and reputation and qualifications aren't equal to theirs. I would rather put my faith in them than you, and all the pictures of grey smoke or black smoke or arrows pointing to blobs aren't going to convince anyone that you know better than them.

I am not trying to conivnce you to embrace the theories put forward by the professional engineers; but to explain to you why I have faith in them and not you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Havent looked at the replies yet, but be careful with the "always". It invites counterexamples that are then used to discredit other factual things. Eg the Tacoma Narrows Bridge will be a counterexample thats used to refute your valid points that conspiracy believers rely on non-expert opinions to validate their beliefs. (Oooh, it looks just like the movies of the controlled detonation of so and so casino, it must have been charges. Ooooh fire has never been known to melt steel. Blah blah blah.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Havent looked at the replies yet, but be careful with the "always". It invites counterexamples that are then used to discredit other factual things. Eg the Tacoma Narrows Bridge will be a counterexample thats used to refute your valid points that conspiracy believers rely on non-expert opinions to validate their beliefs. (Oooh, it looks just like the movies of the controlled detonation of so and so casino, it must have been charges. Ooooh fire has never been known to melt steel. Blah blah blah.)

why mischaracterize it?   Do you think you actually convince anyone your points have any value?  Especially when going up against someone like me who would never leave it open like that so retards can come back and say well fire is used to melt steel. DUH!

The fact is there was molten steel as in melted as pointed out in testimony and plenty of photos and the fact is that a naturally aspirated fuel fire cannot melt structual steel.

I doubt I will see the day you will honestly debate anything.