Originally posted by xmarksthespot
How about an actual civil engineer's assessment instead of the incredulous statements of bored teenagers? 🙂
Tim Wilkinson. BSc BE (Hons) MA PhD. Lecturer in Civil Engineering, University of Sydney.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 wasn't fatal because the building swayed which was what I have been trying to say forever.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotIt 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.
Thank you for proving my point.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
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..
The only way the fire could weaken the steel was if it warped the metal, and jet fuel is not hot enough to do that.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotagain when has fire weakened steel to the point of colapse?
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.
World Trade Center collapse
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.
He confirms that the building had fire retardent giders.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire.
😆 the smoke billowing out of the building was a dull grey indicating it was a cool fire.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.
Again he indicates the girders were fire proof
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
So lack of resistance equals no resistance, what a shallow explanation.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarA 10 year has better reading comprehension than you do which is really inexcusable unless you are in fact a 9 year old.
It wasn't fatal because the building swayed which was what I have been trying to say forever.Thank you for proving my point.
The only way the fire could weaken the steel was if it warped the metal, and jet fuel is not hot enough to do that.
again when has fire weakened steel to the point of colapse?
He confirms that the building had fire retardent giders.
😆 the smoke billowing out of the building was a dull grey indicating it was a cool fire.
Again he indicates the girders were fire proof
Amazing, 4 pages of Ashtar repeating:
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
since when has fire weakened steel to the point of collapse?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I've explained this, in full, twice now. For the love of all that is sensible, read me properly this time.
Welcome to my personal little hell. They refuse common sense and knowledge in pursuit of their conspiracies.
As for Deano, posting another source who is quickly shot down are you? It's embarrassing really Deano. When I post information, I try to research it myself, when I post a person's findings, I generally try to find out if they have a clue or are insane. You should learn to take those same steps.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
like the common sense which tells you buildings do not free fall,and fires can't melt steel unless they exceed 2400 degrees Fahrenheit.
No, the common sense like Ush had tried to shown you by repeating the same answers ad nauseum that you seem incapable of grasping.
Also like the common sense Ush has shown in discontinuing his conversation with you as you sem incapable of processing information that is simplistically laid out for you but rather to choose the side of speculation, heresay, and scientific data and observations made by a few people who are ignored in their field by their peers as a result of their insanity or incompetence.
But keep crying chicken little, at least you are more entertaining than Parker.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A 10 year has better reading comprehension than you do which is really inexcusable unless you are in fact a 9 year old.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarCase in point.
Since you can't debate me, you insult my grammer (AS if I care).Typical, you lack debating skills and decide to spam with a copy and paste .
Originally posted by KharmaDog
No, the common sense like Ush had tried to shown you by repeating the same answers ad nauseum that you seem incapable of grasping.
Correction I just disagree with ush, he said that a combination of stress and heat weakened the girders causing them to fall floor by floor. the problem with this is,the building pretty much free falls in several videos. had it fallen floor to floor than it would have not fell like it had no resistance. and about the girders, they were melted!, many people witnessesed molten magma dripping from the buiding. ligically jet fuel can not be the suspect since it can not melt steal. (Ican post pictures of you don't believe)
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Also like the common sense Ush has shown in discontinuing his conversation with you as you sem incapable of processing information that is simplistically laid out for you but rather to choose the side of speculation, heresay, and scientific data and observations made by a few people who are ignored in their field by their peers as a result of their insanity or incompetence.But keep crying chicken little, at least you are more entertaining than Parker.
Because you lack sense and because you have a majority you may feel confident, but non of the facts add up, the tower fell too fast with no resistance, the girders melted, and in some videos the steel disintergrated. there exsist so much evidence I could post so. Instead of critisizing me why not come up with a rebuttal,if you can that is.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Correction I just disagree with ush, he said that a combination of stress and heat weakened the girders causing them to fall floor by floor.
Actually he said (and please correct me if I am wrong Ush) that intense heat (intense meaning heat that doesn't need to be enough to melt steel) weakens the structural abilities of that steel to varying extents based on the heat achieved. The weakening of that steel (to even a minimal degree) combined with the impact of the crash and the isolated stresses of those impacts cause a weak point in a building that (beacuase of height) was built so that it may disperse appplied stresses. With these stresses (combined heat and impact) focused on one specific area and applied to a maximum effect a structural breaking point was reached in a confined area. The buildings' very structural natures compunded the weakened area and a cascade failure took place.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
the problem with this is,the building pretty much free falls in several videos. had it fallen floor to floor than it would have not fell like it had no resistance.
An architectural/structural cascade failure on any building, never mind a building this sizem, would be pretty immediate. When built, buildings this size are design that if they are to fail, should fall in on themselves. It is IMMEDIATE . It doesn't happen in slow motion like in movies. The designers of these buildings should be proud that the devestatin was limited as these things topled how they were designed to (in a worst case scenario).
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
and about the girders, they were melted!, many people witnessesed molten magma dripping from the buiding.
Go to a steel factory and look and see what type of heat is needed to reduce steel to molten metal. Explosives are not going to get anything that hot. You just pissed all over your own theory. Also, you are looking at the testimonies of very few people who where in a tragic situation that know little of the physics involved in the event. I'd love to see the pictures of molten metal if you have them.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
ligically jet fuel can not be the suspect since it can not melt steal.
Neither can explosives or inciderary devices, so your point is moot.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because you lack sense and because you have a majority you may feel confident, but non of the facts add up
In fact, they do.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
the tower fell too fast with no resistance, the girders melted, and in some videos the steel disintergrated.
The towers did not fall "too fast" and resistance is not an issue. Stand in front of a car doing 45 miles an hour, how much resistance do you offer? How much do you effect the speed of the car? Now multiple the weight and speed of that car by 100,000 and then some. Not much is going to resist that power.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
there exsist so much evidence I could post so.
The evidence you have posted so far has been flimsey at best.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Instead of critisizing me why not come up with a rebuttal,if you can that is.
I can and did. Also you say that the twin towers were designed to be able to sustain an impact from a plane.
That is true, however, that was back in the early sixties. They were designed to be able to sustain a hit from smaller planes, at slower speeds that were not accelerated directly into the building intentionally.
Use some common sense for cryin' out loud.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Since you can't debate me, you insult my grammer (AS if I care).Typical, you lack debating skills and decide to spam with a copy and paste .
debate with me, 😉
I'm sorry, but you havn't provided any proof, I have heard structural engineers say that it fell as it should, you have heard some who said it didn't. I'm sorry but we will never reach an agreement on this particualr comment, however I think that something is amiss here, not because of the buildings falling,not because the plane pulled off a difficult turn...but because the leader of the US who was on a scheduled visit to a school, heard about the attacks and stayed in the building, if I was him or a security advisor my first thoguht would be..."They know he was comming here, time to get him out" Thats what they did with the Vice-President I believe, he got carted off to the mountains, Mr Bush was NOT taken to a secure centre by the CIA but left in a School...
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Why would it collapse due to it's own weight, because the steel was weakened? since when has fire weakened steel to the point of collapse?
Another really interesting tidbit I learned recently.My friend told me about it.Now that he mentioend that to me,I now remember seeing it in the video Martial law is that world trade center 7 which was NOT hit by any of the debris- as it shows in the tape ALSO came toppling down.Which is really weird that it as well came toppling down since it never was hit by any debris.Whats really strange about it is if it was not hit by any debris,the building should never have had a fire but it did and when some firefighters were going into the building to put it out,the owner of that builiding,told a firefighter to take it down.Which obviously meant in bomb talk-detonate it.Thats really weird that the owner of that building tells a firefighter to take it down when its not much of a serious fire..
Originally posted by Deano
ive heard structural engineers say it didnt fall as it should. ...
Yeah Many of them have.Many independent investigaters who are experts in that field all say the same thing.Its just that mose the government experts are the ones that are saying that.Thats why we have this controversy going on.
Originally posted by Deano
ive heard structural engineers say it didnt fall as it should. ...
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
debate with me, 😉I'm sorry, but you havn't provided any proof, I have heard structural engineers say that it fell as it should, you have heard some who said it didn't.
Thanks deano, heres the difference, mine are controlled by Lizards...your are contolled by boring old goody do gooders!