What Happened to the Core Columns?

[BigBird]

Alrighty, I understand the logistics of the collapse in just about every way EXCEPT what happened to the core columns...

I understand the weakening of the supports, how the floors below obviously couldn't handle the dynamic load of the collapsing concrete, so on and so forth.. I am trying to get a mental picture in my head of what happened to the core columns while the floors were collapsing around them...

When the upper floors and support structure started to collapse, did the middle columns get crushed, compressed vertically, bent sideways, broken in pieces, all of the above? The first thing that comes to mind is the actual height of each of the big columns in the building.. I'll admit that my first mental picture of the structure includes a collection of beams that run from the lobby to the top, but I HIGHLY doubt that is even close to how it was constructed... How many pieces made up a column from top to botton, and if I have the right idea, did they break at those connections as the collapse took place?

I'm obviously no expert on the subject, just hoping to get a better idea about what happened...

[dtugg]

I would guess that the connections between them got broken up during the collapse. Some of the columns were still standing for a short while after the rest of the buildings collapsed but without lateral support from the floors, they weren't able to stand on their own, and fell over.

[BigBird]

I would guess that the connections between them got broken up during the collapse. Some of the columns were still standing for a short while after the rest of the buildings collapsed but without lateral support from the floors, they weren't able to stand on their own, and fell over.

Until recently, I had not seen any of those videos showing the columns standing post collapse, but I definitely know what you mean and that helps..

When you say 'connections' I'm assuming you mean the connections between the vertical beams above and below each other?

[dtugg]

When you say 'connections' I'm assuming you mean the connections between the vertical beams above and below each other?

Yes, that's what I mean. I think they were bolted together.

[JoeyDonuts]

You should probably clarify which building you're talking about.

The core columns in WTC7 were different from WTC 1 and 2 in both form and function.

[T.A.M.]

When I see those videos (of the core columns standing for a few seconds post collapse), It reminds me of the days when ACE Baker was here, and he was trying to convince us that when the columns disappeared (in reality they fell, then were lost to the video behind the dust cloud), it was because they had been "dustified" by Judy Wood's proposed energy beam weapons.

Ahh those were the days...good laughs then.

TAM:)

[sylvan8798]

Alrighty, I understand the logistics of the collapse in just about every way EXCEPT what happened to the core columns...

I understand the weakening of the supports, how the floors below obviously couldn't handle the dynamic load of the collapsing concrete, so on and so forth.. I am trying to get a mental picture in my head of what happened to the core columns while the floors were collapsing around them...

When the upper floors and support structure started to collapse, did the middle columns get crushed, compressed vertically, bent sideways, broken in pieces, all of the above? The first thing that comes to mind is the actual height of each of the big columns in the building.. I'll admit that my first mental picture of the structure includes a collection of beams that run from the lobby to the top, but I HIGHLY doubt that is even close to how it was constructed... How many pieces made up a column from top to botton, and if I have the right idea, did they break at those connections as the collapse took place?

I'm obviously no expert on the subject, just hoping to get a better idea about what happened...

If you watch the videos which show the core columns standing briefly after the collapse, and you see them falling about to one side or another, you can imagine this happening during the part of the collapse where you cannot see them as well.

They would not really have been "crushed" or compressed vertically to any degree. They would have been knocked about by the falling debris. As they fell sideways, they would be most likely to break at the places where they were connected together, which I think was around every 30 feet(?). Although they would have staggered the connections from floor to floor as they did with the exterior panels.

[Generally BTW, structural engineers refer to vertical elements as "columns" and horizontal elements as "beams".]

[lapman]

If you watch the videos which show the core columns standing briefly after the collapse, and you see them falling about to one side or another, you can imagine this happening during the part of the collapse where you cannot see them as well.

They would not really have been "crushed" or compressed vertically to any degree. They would have been knocked about by the falling debris. As they fell sideways, they would be most likely to break at the places where they were connected together, which I think was around every 30 feet(?). Although they would have staggered the connections from floor to floor as they did with the exterior panels.

[Generally BTW, structural engineers refer to vertical elements as "columns" and horizontal elements as "beams".]
Also in the video that shows the remaining columns, the whole spire actually moves laterally what looks like 4 to 5 feet just prior to it's collapse. Add to that the fact that the internal columns were design to only be weight bearing and not to handle sustained lateral loads. So when the floors collapsed the lateral load on the internal columns was way above design capability. IMHO, as the floors bowed under the weight of the mass that slammed into it, it pulled on the columns. When the bolts sheared, the spring back of the column was too much for it to handle so the connections to the lower column section sheared as well. I'm not a structural or mechanical engineer, so I could be wrong.

[BigBird]

When I see those videos (of the core columns standing for a few seconds post collapse), It reminds me of the days when ACE Baker was here, and he was trying to convince us that when the columns disappeared (in reality they fell, then were lost to the video behind the dust cloud), it was because they had been "dustified" by Judy Wood's proposed energy beam weapons.

Ahh those were the days...good laughs then.

TAM:)

There are a bunch of goonies over at my other forum that are still peddling the dustified steel BS... LOL

[BigBird]

If you watch the videos which show the core columns standing briefly after the collapse, and you see them falling about to one side or another, you can imagine this happening during the part of the collapse where you cannot see them as well.

They would not really have been "crushed" or compressed vertically to any degree. They would have been knocked about by the falling debris. As they fell sideways, they would be most likely to break at the places where they were connected together, which I think was around every 30 feet(?). Although they would have staggered the connections from floor to floor as they did with the exterior panels.

That was just the info I was looking for.. Thanks!!!

[Generally BTW, structural engineers refer to vertical elements as "columns" and horizontal elements as "beams".]

Brain Fart.... :o

[bill smith]

That was just the info I was looking for.. Thanks!!!



Brain Fart.... :o

This was an interesting clip (WTC2). How do you imagine hat the core still collapsed after surviving the main collapse in such good shape? Have a look at the animation to get an idea of the size of the core columns. As near as I can tell only the much heavier outer columns were crushed down leaving what we see in the video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 WTC2 Core

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ&eurl= Animated flythough

[beachnut]

This was an interesting clip (WTC2). How do you imagine hat the core still collapsed after surviving the main collapse in such good shape? Have a look at the animation to get an idea of the size of the core columns. As near as I can tell only the much heavier outer columns were crushed down leaving what we see in the video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 WTC2 Core

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ&eurl= Animated flythough
The core cannot stand by itself. The lateral strength comes with the shell (the entire system). Poor Bill can't figure out where the core columns went. She makes up delusional ideas based on faulty logic and zero knowledge.

The core cannot stand on it's own if you studied the WTC tower structure and paid attention you would not be a person spreading lies all over the Internet on 911 due to your own ignorance on 911.

[leftysergeant]

This was an interesting clip (WTC2). How do you imagine hat the core still collapsed after surviving the main collapse in such good shape? Have a look at the animation to get an idea of the size of the core columns. As near as I can tell only the much heavier outer columns were crushed down leaving what we see in the video.

Hogwash. There were no columns, core or perimeter, that were crushed down outside of the point of failure. The perimeter columns were simply ripped apart and forced outward by the over-pressurization caused by floors full of debris being dumped inside the box. Some of that dbris found its way into the cores.

The initial failure would also have compromised the connections between columns at the point of failure. The core columns were never meant to stand alone, but depended on the floors and perimmeter columns for a lot of their upright support.

There would also have been mechanical resonances in the cores. You can see this to some degree in real-time ivdeos of the spires after the dust settles a bit. That has to be hard on joints.

[bill smith]

The core cannot stand by itself. The lateral strength comes with the shell (the entire system). Poor Bill can't figure out where the core columns went. She makes up delusional ideas based on faulty logic and zero knowledge.

The core cannot stand on it's own if you studied the WTC tower structure and paid attention you would not be a person spreading lies all over the Internet on 911 due to your own ignorance on 911.

What ?...So it fell over then I suppose ? That would obviously be the way to go. Like the weight is too much and the core bases buckle and over she goes. Surely you are not going to tell me it collapsed straight down through its own body ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Core WTC2

[bill smith]

I find he behaviour of the core remnant at the end of this short clip of the collapse of WTC1 absolutely fascinating.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en WTC1 Core

[leftysergeant]

What ?...So it fell over then I suppose ? That would obviously be the way to go. Like the weight is too much and the core bases buckle and over she goes. Surely you are not going to tell me it collapsed straight down through its own body ?

Of course not. It split apart down the center, some pieces falling in each of the four compass points and began to break up at the bottom as the accumulating debris started banging on it really hard. That's why the one tall spire in the shot past the water tank seems to be walking away from the rest.

[bill smith]

Of course not. It split apart down the center, some pieces falling in each of the four compass points and began to break up at the bottom as the accumulating debris started banging on it really hard. That's why the one tall spire in the shot past the water tank seems to be walking away from the rest.

Sarge...remember our little conversation yestrday about your insane reasoning ? You're doing it again.

[lapman]

Sarge...remember our little conversation yestrday about your insane reasoning ? You're doing it again.
:id:

[leftysergeant]

Sarge...remember our little conversation yestrday about your insane reasoning ? You're doing it again.

I tend to dismiss most of your assessments of other people's sanity, rather like I would dismiss such a diagnosis by Stubblebines guanophrenic slut wife.

[Grizzly Bear]

Also in the video that shows the remaining columns, the whole spire actually moves laterally what looks like 4 to 5 feet just prior to it's collapse. Add to that the fact that the internal columns were design to only be weight bearing and not to handle sustained lateral loads. So when the floors collapsed the lateral load on the internal columns was way above design capability. <snip> I'm not a structural or mechanical engineer, so I could be wrong.

What I bolded would be about right :)
To explain it further they refer to this in structures as the slenderness ratio (http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/intro.cfm). Essentially the effective length of a column assembly versus the least radius of gyration. There are three classifications:

Short columns which fail via crushing

Long Columns which are fail via buckling

And Intermediate which fail in a combination of the above two mechanisms.

When I took structures courses we usually determined the classification based on the maximum unbraced length of the weak axis of the column. In the case of the twin towers the floors and perimeter columns had failed removing all of the lateral bracing, effectively leaving the core columns with large slenderness ratio values and buckled as a result.

That's not the only mechanism involved but it would be one of the primary factors in the core remnants collapsing as well.

And lets not forget dtugg who was well in the ballpark with his answer. This should satisfy the answer you're looking for bigbird...

[FineWine]

Sarge...remember our little conversation yestrday about your insane reasoning ? You're doing it again.


You were wrong yesterday, you are wrong today, you will be wrong tomorrow.

Something to look forward to in the absence of an actual life, huh?

[bill smith]

Yeah Bigbird. Look really critically at what Grizzly says and see if it stands the test. Remember the +/- 800 foot intact core stucture in he attached video of WTC2 and remember what he said about long columns buckling.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[BigBird]

What I bolded would be about right :)
To explain it further they refer to this in structures as the slenderness ratio (http://www.efunda.com/formulae/solid_mechanics/columns/intro.cfm). Essentially the effective length of a column assembly versus the least radius of gyration. There are three classifications:

Short columns which fail via crushing

Long Columns which are fail via buckling

And Intermediate which fail in a combination of the above two mechanisms.

When I took structures courses we usually determined the classification based on the maximum unbraced length of the weak axis of the column. In the case of the twin towers the floors and perimeter columns had failed removing all of the lateral bracing, effectively leaving the core columns with large slenderness ratio values and buckled as a result.

That's not the only mechanism involved but it would be one of the primary factors in the core remnants collapsing as well.

And lets not forget dtugg who was well in the ballpark with his answer. This should satisfy the answer you're looking for bigbird...

I am very satisfied... Thanks all for the information.... It's so weird to actually get rational answers on the internet for a change... Thanks! :D

[Grizzly Bear]

I am very satisfied... Thanks all for the information.... It's so weird to actually get rational answers on the internet for a change... Thanks! :D

I also still have some of my structures notes archived as PPT files from the course I took. If you want I can probably upload the one on steel design somewhere for you or email them to you... whichever you want. :)

[BigBird]

I also still have some of my structures notes archived as PPT files from the course I took. If you want I can probably upload the one on steel design somewhere for you or email them to you... whichever you want. :)

I don't have PPT on my computer.... :(

[Grizzly Bear]

I don't have PPT on my computer.... :(

Powerpoint or one of the openoffice applications should be able to open it. Otherwise I can convert it to a PDF file and PM you the link

[Justin39640]

Powerpoint or one of the openoffice applications should be able to open it. Otherwise I can convert it to a PDF file and PM you the link

ppt viewers are free
just dl one

other than that openoffice rules

[sylvan8798]

There would also have been mechanical resonances in the cores. You can see this to some degree in real-time ivdeos of the spires after the dust settles a bit. That has to be hard on joints.

I'm sure you're just using a term I haven't heard applied in this way before, but can you be more specific about what you mean by "mechanical resonances"?

[sylvan8798]

Yeah Bigbird. Look really critically at what Grizzly says and see if it stands the test. Remember the +/- 800 foot intact core stucture in he attached video of WTC2 and remember what he said about long columns buckling.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

It's impossible to determine from the video how "intact" the core structure is. Once the lateral bracing is largely removed, the columns would be way to heavy to stand on their own. As soon as they began to lean, they would fail at the joints from the top towards the bottom. They would probably not fail from the bottom unless the top were braced but there were a large section further down that was unbraced. (sorry for the grammar, no room left in brain storage for that)

[bill smith]

It's impossible to determine from the video how "intact" the core structure is. Once the lateral bracing is largely removed, the columns would be way to heavy to stand on their own. As soon as they began to lean, they would fail at the joints from the top towards the bottom. They would probably not fail from the bottom unless the top were braced but there were a large section further down that was unbraced. (sorry for the grammar, no room left in brain storage for that)



100% of the lateral bracing at the front and side f the 800 foot core that we can see in the video is intact. There is no reason for the bracing on he interior to be gone. In any case the 100% intact lateral bracng we can see is more than enough to keep the structure sound. There is terefore no qustion of this surviving core having collapsed sraight fown through the path of most resistance by any natural means.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[FineWine]

100% of the lateral bracing at the front and side f the 800 foot core that we can see in the video is intact. There is no reason for the bracing on he interior to be gone. In any case the 100% intact lateral bracng we can see is more than enough to keep the structure sound. There is terefore no qustion of this surviving core having collapsed sraight fown through the path of most resistance by any natural means.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778


There were no explosives anywhere in the WTC complex--none! Your conspiracy does not exist. Evidence for your agenda-driven nonsense is nonexistent. Get a life, Bill.

[beachnut]

100% of the lateral bracing at the front and side ...
You have no clue what you are talking about. The core cannot stand without the floors and shell.

What do you consider lateral bracing? Please show photos and explain.

[Grizzly Bear]

100% of the lateral bracing at the front and side f the 800 foot core that we can see in the video is intact. There is no reason for the bracing on he interior to be gone. In any case the 100% intact lateral bracng we can see is more than enough to keep the structure sound. There is terefore no qustion of this surviving core having collapsed sraight fown through the path of most resistance by any natural means.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

To put the response in a more friendly tone, without the floors acting as a diaphragm between the core and the perimeter columns, the assemblies' stability was basically gone. When the major components fail it tends to be very unhealthy for the structural assembly as a whole.

[psikeyhackr]

I'll admit that my first mental picture of the structure includes a collection of beams that run from the lobby to the top, but I HIGHLY doubt that is even close to how it was constructed... How many pieces made up a column from top to botton, and if I have the right idea, did they break at those connections as the collapse took place?

I'm obviously no expert on the subject, just hoping to get a better idea about what happened...
.
Your mental picture needs to go down about another 60 feet. There were 6 basement levels. They had to dig down to bedrock and mount all of the support columns from there. Almost no on talks about the TOTAL MASS of the building including the the six basement levels and we do not have data distinguishing above and below ground mass.

Your mental visualization of the south tower collapse must include this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

Since that happened 50 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from the impact and the impact only deflected the building by 14 inches. It is certainly curious that it looks like that broken section moved about 20 feet.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

How many pieces made up a column from top to botton,
.
Sorry, forgot this:

I usually just assume the sections were 36 feet.

1360/36 = 37.8

Check out Lon Waters' site for more details:

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/system:list-all-pages

psik

[triforcharity]

The columns got their lateral (N-S-E-W) from the floors. The floors got their support from the vertical support from the columns. Remove one or the other, it all falls down.

For instance, a radio tower. Without the GUY wires (I hope thats the word I am looking for) it couldn't stand on its own. Remove the guy wires, the thing falls, remove the tower, the guy wires fall. Not an exact representation, but you SHOULD get the jist of it.

[psikeyhackr]

The columns got their lateral (N-S-E-W) from the floors. The floors got their support from the vertical support from the columns. Remove one or the other, it all falls down.

For instance, a radio tower. Without the GUY wires (I hope thats the word I am looking for) it couldn't stand on its own. Remove the guy wires, the thing falls, remove the tower, the guy wires fall. Not an exact representation, but you SHOULD get the jist of it.
.
There were beams connecting the core columns. Look at that Purdue video of the north tower impact. It has a section on the core.

SEVEN YEARS and people still haven't figured out the obvious misinformation. JEEZ!

psik

[Justin39640]

.
Your mental picture needs to go down about another 60 feet. There were 6 basement levels. They had to dig down to bedrock and mount all of the support columns from there. Almost no on talks about the TOTAL MASS of the building including the the six basement levels and we do not have data distinguishing above and below ground mass.

Your mental visualization of the south tower collapse must include this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

Since that happened 50 minutes after the building stopped oscillating from the impact and the impact only deflected the building by 14 inches. It is certainly curious that it looks like that broken section moved about 20 feet.

psik

hold the presses
i got good news for you bro
someone figured it out
Tony Szamboti - in his paper apparently it gives the numbers your lil heart has been craving

Did you miss this questions Tony?

You said this:


On page 7 of your paper you say this:
The mass above the 98th floor, from the mass analysis, is 68,295,000 lbs.,

Is 68,295,000 lbs. not more that 29 million lbs.?

from: this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4883521#post4883521)

i guess that helps you out a lot
and its confirmed by another truther
WIN WIN!!
HOORAYYYYYY!!!!! :D

[Z]

OK, I have a question for y'all:

If it was so easy to smuggle in sufficient amounts of explosives into the towers to demolish them, and to plant them without anyone seeing or noticing anything - and, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't, but let's go with the hypothetical for a moment - then why use planes at all?

OK, here's my reasoning:

1) It would have been relatively just as easy for terrorists to smuggle in explosives as it would have been for American agents to do so. Obviously, the security forces on-hand weren't 'in the know' since many of them died in the attack, so anyone smuggling in explosives would undergo the same problems.

2) Since it would have been easier to do than, say, hijacking a number of planes filled with fuel and steering them into buildings, terrorists would be as likely to just do this instead - better chance of success, and fewer needing to lose their own lives (could go on to do more terrorist attacks elsewhere).

3) The spontaneous explosion of the towers would have been just as shocking and devastating as hitting them with planes, and would have been more certain, as well. The use of planes ran the risk of having too many variables go wrong.

4) If the American Agents wanted to frame Islamic terrorists, it would have been more practical to destroy the tower with smuggled-in explosives, and then reported on discovering the body - or reporting the capture - of an Islamic extremist who confessed to taking part in the deed. Then all the mysterious residues from explosives would be abundant, and supported by the theory that terrorist bombers did the deed, instead of leaving all this ambivalent pseudoevidence that troothers cling to, that really don't say anything about terrorists.

But see, here's the catch: it ISN'T easy to smuggle in sufficient explosives to destroy even a small building. Not in the Middle East, not here. After all, terrorists use car bombs, truck bombs, etc. to attack buildings, and then usually don't do sufficient damage to total the structure. The use of airplanes filled with fuel was a stroke of genius in one way, but in another, it was a natural extension of the car bomb idea, scaled up to the level of the two tallest buildings in the world.

See, part of the problem is that you can't just set the explosives down inside a room or elevator and expect it to do a large amount of structural damage. In order to truly devastate the frame of a building, you need the explosives to be up against the structural steel, and shaped in such a way that the majority of the blast goes into the steel itself. Drop a suitcase-bomb in a hallway, and you might do some damage to the hallway and maybe an office, but the structural framework isn't going to take more than token damage.

So just smuggling in some explosives isn't enough by far. They'd have had to smuggle it in, get into the core columns themselves, strip away all sorts of coatings and protections, and plant the devices up against the steel - and they'd have to do this on a fairly large scale.

Very impractical, and very improbable.

But if it were really possible, terrorists wouldn't use vehicle-bombs.

[bill smith]

To put the response in a more friendly tone, without the floors acting as a diaphragm between the core and the perimeter columns, the assemblies' stability was basically gone. When the major components fail it tends to be very unhealthy for the structural assembly as a whole.

To move past you blindly defending the government story come what may why not look at the collapse of the core of WTC2 that we see in the video in an engineering light.

As far as we can see and extrapolate the 800 feet of core that we can see has all it's vertical components and all it's lateral components intact and the whole structure is solidly anchored 60 feet deep in the ground. Considering that all the lateral bracing that we can see is 100% intact we can assume that at least a reasonable proportion of tthe internal core bracing is also intact. Given that we have the vertical component, the lateral component and the base well anchored would you say that all the majpr criteria for a stable structure are established ? (see video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[psikeyhackr]

hold the presses
i got good news for you bro
someone figured it out
Tony Szamboti - in his paper apparently it gives the numbers your lil heart has been craving
.
I guess you aren't paying close attention.

I have been in communication with Tony. He admits we don't have the data on the perimeter panels or the beams in the core.

I consider doing lots of calculations based on GUESSTIMATED data about a MAN MADE OBJECT to be totally absurd. The EXPERTS should have been demanding accurate data back in 2002. The real purpose of our educational system is to produce people that will think and do what AUTHORITY says.

After nearly EIGHT YEARS of this our engineering schools have made a hopeless joke of themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/Unscientific-America-Scientific-Illiteracy-Threatens/dp/0465013058/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

Simple things must be made complicated to keep the ignorant confused.

psik

[leftysergeant]

As far as we can see and extrapolate the 800 feet of core that we can see has all it's vertical components and all it's lateral components intact and the whole structure is solidly anchored 60 feet deep in the ground. Considering that all the lateral bracing that we can see is 100% intact we can assume that at least a reasonable proportion of tthe internal core bracing is also intact.

Bullflops. There are gaps in the matrix of the cores in any video I have seen. At least a few of trhe beams would have been damaged by the impact alone, then some were heated and caused to expand, throwing them out of alignment.

This tends to compromise the integrity of structures.

[twinstead]

Simple things must be made complicated to keep the ignorant confused.


My irony meter just exploded. You owe me one new irony meter, thank you.

[sylvan8798]

no qustion of this surviving core having collapsed sraight fown through the path of most resistance by any natural means.



Lol, this always slays me. :covereyes

[Grizzly Bear]

As far as we can see and extrapolate the 800 feet of core that we can see has all it's vertical components and all it's lateral components intact and the whole structure is solidly anchored 60 feet deep in the ground. Considering that all the lateral bracing that we can see is 100% intact we can assume that at least a reasonable proportion of tthe internal core bracing is also intact.
You're not getting it. The floors were what gave the towers their overall rigidity. Neither the core nor the exterior columns were ever intended to stand independently of one another.

To move past you blindly defending the government story
It's always blind faith according your ilk when someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of what should have happened. If you have a more plausible scenario than the observed events, then you're responsible for demonstrating it within the known engineering and architectural concepts. Until then you appeal is rejected

[triforcharity]

.
There were beams connecting the core columns. Look at that Purdue video of the north tower impact. It has a section on the core.

SEVEN YEARS and people still haven't figured out the obvious misinformation. JEEZ!

psik

No, its a fact. Sorry, but your little movement couldn't make toast. Because to make toast, you have to understand the concept of a toaster.

[twinstead]

How the hell can coming to a conclusion based on the available evidence be called blind faith? Come on bill. Do you REALLY think people here just listened to the government tell them what happened with NO corroborating evidence or independent verification? Where have you been the last 8 years?

[bill smith]

You're not getting it. The floors were what gave the towers their overall rigidity. Neither the core nor the exterior columns were ever intended to stand independently of one another.


It's always blind faith according your ilk when someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of what should have happened. If you have a more plausible scenario than the observed events, then you're responsible for demonstrating it within the known engineering and architectural concepts. Until then you appeal is rejected

'' The floors were what gave the towers their overall rigidity. Neither the core nor the exterior columns were ever intended to stand independently of one another.''

The 800 foot intact core was well able to stand on its own. The ratio between the reduced height (down from 1,350 feet to 800 feet ) and the original base crossection was even more conducive to it temaining standing. The fact that all vertical and lateral columns appeared to be intact and the fact that the structure was solidly anchored 60 feet deep in the ground further reinforce this notion. Gravity alone could never bring this structure straight down through its own body which was of course the path of greatest resistence.(see video below)

Even if it had collapsed it would have buckled around ground level and the entire 800 feet would have stretched it's length on the ground. This didn't happen. It collapsed straight down. This was not by the action of gravity alone. Therefore......it was brought down.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[Grizzly Bear]

The 800 foot intact core was well able to stand on its own.
For about 15 to 30 seconds.... That tells you it most likely wasn't designed to act independently of the perimeter and floor system.


The ratio between the reduced height (down from 1,350 feet to 800 feet ) and the original base crossection was even more conducive to it temaining standing. The fact that all vertical and lateral columns appeared to be intact and the fact that the structure was solidly anchored 60 feet deep in the ground further reinforce this notion.

Whether or not the foundation was burrowed 60 feet into the ground is irrelevant.

The core was only cross-braced near the base for lateral forces in the region where the perimeter columns were less concentrated.

The slenderness ratio of a column or assembly of columns is determined by incorporating the columns' longest unbraced length along its weak axis.


Gravity alone could never bring this structure straight down through its own body which was of course the path of greatest resistence.(see video below)
The buckling of long columns often takes place well under the design strength of the assembly. Which incidentally is why losing all the floors was a bad thing.

[Z]

'' The floors were what gave the towers their overall rigidity. Neither the core nor the exterior columns were ever intended to stand independently of one another.''

The 800 foot intact core was well able to stand on its own. The ratio between the reduced height (down from 1,350 feet to 800 feet ) and the original base crossection was even more conducive to it temaining standing. The fact that all vertical and lateral columns appeared to be intact and the fact that the structure was solidly anchored 60 feet deep in the ground further reinforce this notion. Gravity alone could never bring this structure straight down through its own body which was of course the path of greatest resistence.(see video below)

Even if it had collapsed it would have buckled around ground level and the entire 800 feet would have stretched iit's length on the ground. This didn't happen. It collapsed straight down. This was not by the action of gravity alone. Therefore......it was brought down.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

What a moron.

First, the vertical and lateral columns do not appear to be intact. At a glance, from a distance, they give some illusion of being intact; but the fact is, we're talking about a structure made of smaller elements - what was the measurement? 37 feet or something like that? - which were already damaged from falling debris, intense fires, shockwaves from the impact and collapse, etc. Furthermore, the structure that appears is not the entire structure; hence, they were not, in fact, intact.

Second, the building was designed to stand erect as a whole, in its entirety. Otherwise, why bother with complicated frameworks, and completing other parts of the building before continuing upward to work on the core? Why not just build the entire core, then go back and fill in the floors and walls and such? Because it couldn't stand on its own. There's no way of getting around this simple fact - the core could not stand on its own, even if it hadn't been affected by impacts, the collapse of the surrounding structure, and intense fires. It couldn't do it during construction, and it certainly couldn't do it after destruction.

The thing you are desperately attempting to ignore, Bill, is that the floors form an integral part of the structural support of the columns. The columns hold the floors up; the floors keep the columns upright. The walls kept the whole thing contained (and actually provided a great deal of the support for the entire structure). The roof tied the whole thing together. Engineering-wise, it's amazing they were able to erect the entire thing (twice, no less) without it collapsing during construction.

Third, 'solidly anchored' doesn't mean what you seem to think it means here. If those columns were one solid piece, sixty feet below ground and another 800 feet above, they MIGHT be considered 'solidly anchored'; however, that's not very likely. Consider something as tiny as a telephone pole. When we stick telephone poles into the ground, and pour concrete around the base to anchor it solidly, we then procede to run guy lines to give the pole further stability. Why? Because even the most solid in-ground anchoring can give way under unusual conditions, and the guy lines offer extra support for keeping the entire pole upright.

But here we're not talking about a pole; we're talking about a constructed object consisting of many smaller elements - a compound pole. All the anchoring in the world won't prevent these smaller elements from falling apart under stress. And without any horizontal support, these elements would begin to sway and buckle at their joints.

Gravity is more than enough to cause the structure to collapse, and from a distance, it would appear to collapse straight down. Wind alone would provide enough sway in the structure to weaken and destroy the joints; all that would have to happen then is for one element within the structure to shift enough to slide off of the one beneath it, and it would begin to fall straight down - probably even sliding for a moment or two directly along the side of the element beneath it. And once one starts to fall, the rest would shortly follow. The falling alone would be enough in many cases to destroy the remaining connections.

Fourth, the idea that it would have buckled at its base and fallen over like a tree is laughable and ludicrous. It only shows the level of sheer willful ignorance you are employing. It would have buckled wherever the forces at the joints were most extreme. At the base, the sway would have been fairly minimal, and the sheer weight at each joint would prevent too much play in the elements; but as you go up the structure, the sway would be more severe, and with less weight securing the elements to their supporters. The most obvious buckle points would be near the upper part - and probably at several locations simultaneously.

I take it you've never tried to build a tall, thin structure out of many smaller elements. I have, using a variety of methods - as a kid, even. LEGO blocks. Lincoln Logs. Erector sets. And one thing becomes really obvious, really quickly: the taller you build something, the less stable the structure becomes. And when it collapses - assuming it doesn't simply topple over from NOT being anchored at all - it generally falls completely apart into a pile near its base. This is more true as the elements used become taller and the joints used become less integral (several LEGO towers I had fell over sideways from a buckle point, but the connections between LEGO elements tend to be much more secure, proportionally, than steel welds). Try building an eight foot tower out of thin, four-inch long, one inch diameter wooden elements, glued together with wood glue, and see how the thing falls.

The structure collapsed through the path of least resistance - each element, as it separated from the ones beneath it, fell straight down through the spaces between elements. This is the only way it could have fallen, really. To assume any other way for it to fall would have required either a) the entire structure to remain rigid and whole during the entire fall, or b) some outside force causing the structure to lean significantly in one direction (which would still have required the entire structure to remain rigid and whole).

Do you really not see that this structure was not a singular, rigid, unified piece of steel? Do you really not understand that such a structure could NOT, under ANY circumstance, have fallen over like a tree? It would not have been possible - even with controlled demolition, but especially not with simple gravity - for the entire structure to fall over and lay on the ground in its whole 800-foot length.

Besides - with the rest of the building already destroyed, why bother destroying the remaining support columns? And how could it have been 'brought down' with no sounds of demolitions and no flash-booms as evidence?

I mean it, Bill - this post of yours I've quoted is the work of a moron.

[bill smith]

What a moron.

First, the vertical and lateral columns do not appear to be intact. At a glance, from a distance, they give some illusion of being intact; but the fact is, we're talking about a structure made of smaller elements - what was the measurement? 37 feet or something like that? - which were already damaged from falling debris, intense fires, shockwaves from the impact and collapse, etc. Furthermore, the structure that appears is not the entire structure; hence, they were not, in fact, intact.

Second, the building was designed to stand erect as a whole, in its entirety. Otherwise, why bother with complicated frameworks, and completing other parts of the building before continuing upward to work on the core? Why not just build the entire core, then go back and fill in the floors and walls and such? Because it couldn't stand on its own. There's no way of getting around this simple fact - the core could not stand on its own, even if it hadn't been affected by impacts, the collapse of the surrounding structure, and intense fires. It couldn't do it during construction, and it certainly couldn't do it after destruction.

The thing you are desperately attempting to ignore, Bill, is that the floors form an integral part of the structural support of the columns. The columns hold the floors up; the floors keep the columns upright. The walls kept the whole thing contained (and actually provided a great deal of the support for the entire structure). The roof tied the whole thing together. Engineering-wise, it's amazing they were able to erect the entire thing (twice, no less) without it collapsing during construction.

Third, 'solidly anchored' doesn't mean what you seem to think it means here. If those columns were one solid piece, sixty feet below ground and another 800 feet above, they MIGHT be considered 'solidly anchored'; however, that's not very likely. Consider something as tiny as a telephone pole. When we stick telephone poles into the ground, and pour concrete around the base to anchor it solidly, we then procede to run guy lines to give the pole further stability. Why? Because even the most solid in-ground anchoring can give way under unusual conditions, and the guy lines offer extra support for keeping the entire pole upright.

But here we're not talking about a pole; we're talking about a constructed object consisting of many smaller elements - a compound pole. All the anchoring in the world won't prevent these smaller elements from falling apart under stress. And without any horizontal support, these elements would begin to sway and buckle at their joints.

Gravity is more than enough to cause the structure to collapse, and from a distance, it would appear to collapse straight down. Wind alone would provide enough sway in the structure to weaken and destroy the joints; all that would have to happen then is for one element within the structure to shift enough to slide off of the one beneath it, and it would begin to fall straight down - probably even sliding for a moment or two directly along the side of the element beneath it. And once one starts to fall, the rest would shortly follow. The falling alone would be enough in many cases to destroy the remaining connections.

Fourth, the idea that it would have buckled at its base and fallen over like a tree is laughable and ludicrous. It only shows the level of sheer willful ignorance you are employing. It would have buckled wherever the forces at the joints were most extreme. At the base, the sway would have been fairly minimal, and the sheer weight at each joint would prevent too much play in the elements; but as you go up the structure, the sway would be more severe, and with less weight securing the elements to their supporters. The most obvious buckle points would be near the upper part - and probably at several locations simultaneously.

I take it you've never tried to build a tall, thin structure out of many smaller elements. I have, using a variety of methods - as a kid, even. LEGO blocks. Lincoln Logs. Erector sets. And one thing becomes really obvious, really quickly: the taller you build something, the less stable the structure becomes. And when it collapses - assuming it doesn't simply topple over from NOT being anchored at all - it generally falls completely apart into a pile near its base. This is more true as the elements used become taller and the joints used become less integral (several LEGO towers I had fell over sideways from a buckle point, but the connections between LEGO elements tend to be much more secure, proportionally, than steel welds). Try building an eight foot tower out of thin, four-inch long, one inch diameter wooden elements, glued together with wood glue, and see how the thing falls.

The structure collapsed through the path of least resistance - each element, as it separated from the ones beneath it, fell straight down through the spaces between elements. This is the only way it could have fallen, really. To assume any other way for it to fall would have required either a) the entire structure to remain rigid and whole during the entire fall, or b) some outside force causing the structure to lean significantly in one direction (which would still have required the entire structure to remain rigid and whole).

Do you really not see that this structure was not a singular, rigid, unified piece of steel? Do you really not understand that such a structure could NOT, under ANY circumstance, have fallen over like a tree? It would not have been possible - even with controlled demolition, but especially not with simple gravity - for the entire structure to fall over and lay on the ground in its whole 800-foot length.

Besides - with the rest of the building already destroyed, why bother destroying the remaining support columns? And how could it have been 'brought down' with no sounds of demolitions and no flash-booms as evidence?

I mean it, Bill - this post of yours I've quoted is the work of a moron.

Now that's what I call a symbiotic relatationaship. lol

1. ''The columns hold the floors up''
2. ''the floors form an integral part of the structural support of the columns''

[Newtons Bit]

Now that's what I call a symbiotic relatationaship. lol

1. ''The columns hold the floors up''
2. ''the floors form an integral part of the structural support of the columns''

Do you understand that one cannot survive without the other?

[rwguinn]

Do you understand that one cannot survive without the other?

Please. A system is just a bunch of stuff tied together, like a computer. There is no interdependency! I mean, if you unplug the speakers, the computer still works! [/troofer mode]

[bill smith]

Do you understand that one cannot survive without the other?

Of course I understand. An 800 foot intact frame anchored deep in the ground will stand alone. Especially considering that it appears to be fully intact with all vertical columns and horizontal bracing elements still in place. And considering that this intact frame is not much more than half it's original height, yes I would expect it to remain standing strongly.

Remember, gravity is a constant. Broken elements will fall immediately. There is no roadrunner type delay whle it decides whether or not to fall. So when we saw the intact core that is what it was- an INTACT core.

[Newtons Bit]

Of course I understand. An 800 foot intact frame anchored deep in the ground will stand alone. Especially considering that it appears to be fully intact with all vertical and horizontal bracing elements still in place. And considering that this intact frame is not much more than half it's original height, yes I would expect it to remain standing strongly.

Remember, gravity is a constant. Broken elements will fall immediately. There is no roadrunner type delay whle it decides whether or not to fall. So when we saw the intact core that is what it was- an INTACT core.

The horizontal bracing was the floor. No floor, no bracing. No bracing means exceptionally high unbraced lengths and no compression strength.

If you don't believe me, go call a local engineering office. Ask them if a 1000ft tower could survive with the majority of it's floors gone.

[Justin39640]

The horizontal bracing was the floor. No floor, no bracing. No bracing means exceptionally high unbraced lengths and no compression strength.

If you don't believe me, go call a local engineering office. Ask them if a 1000ft tower could survive with the majority of it's floors gone.

to think that the core perfectly survived the chaos of all those floors ripping away and piling up at the bottom is just ludicrous

chaos is a good way (IMO) to think about the tower collapses
an idea that seems to escape most truthers but is ever present in real world scenarios

[Newtons Bit]

to think that the core perfectly survived the chaos of all those floors ripping away and piling up at the bottom is just ludicrous

chaos is a good way (IMO) to think about the tower collapses
an idea that seems to escape most truthers but is ever present in real world scenarios

Parts of the columns did survive, briefly.

[dtugg]

Of course I understand. An 800 foot intact frame anchored deep in the ground will stand alone. Especially considering that it appears to be fully intact with all vertical columns and horizontal bracing elements still in place. And considering that this intact frame is not much more than half it's original height, yes I would expect it to remain standing strongly.

Remember, gravity is a constant. Broken elements will fall immediately. There is no roadrunner type delay whle it decides whether or not to fall. So when we saw the intact core that is what it was- an INTACT core.

bill, you really should stop acting as if you know what you're talking about because it is completely obvious that you haven't a clue.

[bill smith]

The horizontal bracing was the floor. No floor, no bracing. No bracing means exceptionally high unbraced lengths and no compression strength.

If you don't believe me, go call a local engineering office. Ask them if a 1000ft tower could survive with the majority of it's floors gone.

So then the whole assembly buckled at the bottom and the core laid it's 800 foot length on the floor did it ?
And considering that the bracing was 100% intact between the outer vertical columns of the fame the chances are extremely high that a high proportion of the internal bracing was also intact. Or maybe you can tell me why the bracing we can see is 100% intact and the internal bracing (that we can't see)is 100% gone according to you ?

[phunk]

Especially considering that it appears to be fully intact with all vertical columns and horizontal bracing elements still in place.

How can you possibly know that? Please, show us a pic of the whole thing.

[bill smith]

How can you possibly know that? Please, show us a pic of the whole thing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[bill smith]

Core animation to look for crossbracing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ&eurl=

Two faces actually. Extrapolate my boy, extrapolate...

[phunk]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

I only see a small part of one face of the core.

[Grizzly Bear]

Or maybe you can tell me why the bracing we can see is 100% intact and the internal bracing (that we can't see)is 100% gone according to you ?
Post 45 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4894478&postcount=45)
Post 52 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4894670&postcount=52)

[Newtons Bit]

So then the whole assembly buckled at the bottom and the core laid it's 800 foot length on the floor did it ?
And considering that the bracing was 100% intact between the outer vertical columns of the fame the chances are extremely high that a high proportion of the internal bracing was also intact. Or maybe you can tell me why the bracing we can see is 100% intact and the internal bracing (that we can't see)is 100% gone according to you ?

What are you trying to argue, exactly? I can't make sense of your post.

[phunk]

Core animation to look for crossbracing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ&eurl=

Two faces actually. Extrapolate my boy, extrapolate...

Don't be stupid. You can't extrapolate from an image showing a few percent of the core that the whole thing is 100% intact.

[bill smith]

Parts of the columns did survive, briefly.

Yes...have a look at the core remnant of wtc1 here. Can you explain btw how the massive core columns have the shape of a burnt match and also how come the top section of the tallest piece appears to be so thin relative to the rest. You may notice other things yourself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en

[bill smith]

Don't be stupid. You can't extrapolate from an image showing a few percent of the core that the whole thing is 100% intact.

If concerned citizens reading along think that you are telling the truth about the 'few percent of the core ' I suggest that they watch the attached short video and write your name down in their little book for future reference as to your credibility.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[FineWine]

.
I guess you aren't paying close attention.

I have been in communication with Tony. He admits we don't have the data on the perimeter panels or the beams in the core.

I consider doing lots of calculations based on GUESSTIMATED data about a MAN MADE OBJECT to be totally absurd. The EXPERTS should have been demanding accurate data back in 2002. The real purpose of our educational system is to produce people that will think and do what AUTHORITY says.

After nearly EIGHT YEARS of this our engineering schools have made a hopeless joke of themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/Unscientific-America-Scientific-Illiteracy-Threatens/dp/0465013058/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_1

Simple things must be made complicated to keep the ignorant confused.

psik


Why do the experts regard you as a loud know-nothing? What do you know that they don't?

Someday you might take a crack at these often-repeated questions.

[FineWine]

What are you trying to argue, exactly? I can't make sense of your post.


He hasn't the slightest idea. He is merely braying, hoping that something will resonate with somebody.

[tsig]

If concerned citizens reading along think that you are telling the truth about the 'few percent of the core ' I suggest that they watch the attached short video and write your name down in their little book for future reference as to your credibility.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

That sounds like a threat.:mad:

[Newtons Bit]

Yes...have a look at the core remnant of wtc1 here. Can you explain btw how the massive core columns have the shape of a burnt match and also how come the top section of the tallest piece appears to be so thin relative to the rest. You may notice other things yourself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6005900343263850613&hl=en

Huh? I don't follow.

[parky76]

This was an interesting clip (WTC2). How do you imagine hat the core still collapsed after surviving the main collapse in such good shape?

the core was not built to stand on its own.

duhh!!

[Blender Head]

Brilliance

Wow, that was nothing short of greatness. Sadly, all bill smith could do was chuckle at it, and hand-wave it away.

[sylvan8798]

Gravity alone could never bring this structure straight down through its own body which was of course the path of greatest resistence.


Bwa:covereyesakk!! There he goes again!

[Grizzly Bear]

Wow, that was nothing short of greatness. Sadly, all bill smith could do was chuckle at it, and hand-wave it away.

Then regurgitate no more than two posts later

[Z]

Now that's what I call a symbiotic relatationaship. lol

1. ''The columns hold the floors up''
2. ''the floors form an integral part of the structural support of the columns''

Yes, now you seem to understand. It is very much a symbiotic relationship.

[FineWine]

Yes, now you seem to understand. It is very much a symbiotic relationship.

He is not capable of understanding anything.

[Z]

Of course I understand. An 800 foot intact frame anchored deep in the ground will stand alone.

Wrong.

An 800 foot frame composed of 30-40 foot elements welded together, lacking its integral floor bracing, will not stand alone.

Please read my post, the one I thought for a second you had read and understood.

[Z]

So then the whole assembly buckled at the bottom and the core laid it's 800 foot length on the floor did it ?

Of course it didn't; there's no way it could.

That's not how a structural collapse works. Honestly, do you think structures are the same as trees?

Fool.

[Z]

Wow, that was nothing short of greatness. Sadly, all bill smith could do was chuckle at it, and hand-wave it away.

Well, fortunately, I don't post for morons like Bill Smith. I post for the intelligent passers-by who might happen upon the thread. All Smith seems to have is a few paltry google-videos; no facts, no common sense, no engineering knowledge whatsoever... a typical village idiot with a cause.

Luckily, the world tends to ignore and forget the bill smiths of the world.

[sylvan8798]

What a moron.



The structure collapsed through the path of least resistance - each element, as it separated from the ones beneath it, fell straight down through the spaces between elements. This is the only way it could have fallen, really. To assume any other way for it to fall would have required either a) the entire structure to remain rigid and whole during the entire fall, or b) some outside force causing the structure to lean significantly in one direction (which would still have required the entire structure to remain rigid and whole).



You're doing great Z, don't fall into his trap. Things move in the direction of the net Force acting on them, or rotate in the direction of the net Torque. They can't go moving off in some other direction without any force applied in that direction. This "path of least resistance (or greatest resistance)" carp is a misrepresentation and can't be separated from the physics it implies.

[Z]

You're doing great Z, don't fall into his trap. Things move in the direction of the net Force acting on them, or rotate in the direction of the net Torque. They can't go moving off in some other direction without any force applied in that direction. This "path of least resistance (or greatest resistance)" carp is a misrepresentation and can't be separated from the physics it implies.

It seems to me one of the big misconceptions Bill Smith is working under is that the core columns should be treated as a singular rigid structure; the idea that it could break up into its component pieces under stress seems to elude him/her. That, and a complete failure to understand the support matrix of the twin towers - how every part was integral to the entire structure. Remove a piece, and the whole cannot stand. If I understand correctly, the terrorists could have also simply sheared off the roof of the towers, and the whole structure would inevitably collapse from lack of support. But I may be wrong there.

So right about the net force, though. It's easy to talk about 'path of least resistance' as if the structure were a liquid.

[phunk]

If concerned citizens reading along think that you are telling the truth about the 'few percent of the core ' I suggest that they watch the attached short video and write your name down in their little book for future reference as to your credibility.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

I can barely make out 4 columns in this. Can you see more?

http://phunkadelic.org/core.jpg

[bill smith]

Huh? I don't follow.

Don't you mean 'Duh? I don't follow ?

[bill smith]

I can barely make out 4 columns in this. Can you see more?

http://phunkadelic.org/core.jpg

Well I've seen the video actually and it shows a vastly improved mage over the one you are showing. In fact it shows an comletely intact core in a resolution that Google should be proud of.
I just happen to have a copy with me.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[Newtons Bit]

Don't you mean 'Duh? I don't follow ?

I said that part of the core columns survived, briefly, and then you posted a video of this very thing.

What are you trying to even argue?

[bill smith]

I said that part of the core columns survived, briefly, and then you posted a video of this very thing.

What are you trying to even argue?

Do ypu think the 'even' shpuld have come before the 'trying' or after ?

[parky76]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

what is your signature trying to suggest?

[bill smith]

what is your signature trying to suggest?

That many people n this forum know globally in their bones what really happened m 9/1 but they can never subcribe to it for their own reasons hat have been inculcated into them by others.

[phunk]

Well I've seen the video actually and it shows a vastly improved mage over the one you are showing. In fact it shows an comletely intact core in a resolution that Google should be proud of.
I just happen to have a copy with me.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

Are you referring to the graphics they overlayed on the video because the actual core was hard to see?

http://phunkadelic.org/core2.jpg

[Z]

Are you referring to the graphics they overlayed on the video because the actual core was hard to see?

Probably. The core that is actually there is hard to make out. You can see it is standing, and at least partially in-tact; however, you only barely see one, possibly two sides, and not all of either side.

Once the overlay is put on the video, paradeloia (??) sets in and you think you've seen the whole core.

[parky76]

That many people n this forum know globally in their bones what really happened m 9/1 but they can never subcribe to it for their own reasons hat have been inculcated into them by others.

ah...so most of us KNOW that 9-11 was an inside job..but we are afraid to say so?

:p

I, on the other hand, believe that many truthers KNOW that 9-11 was not an inside job, but have a deep emotional reason for not saying so.

[BigAl]

That many people n this forum know globally in their bones what really happened m 9/1 but they can never subcribe to it for their own reasons hat have been inculcated into them by others.

As an eyewitness to some of WTC on and after 9/11, I know in "my bones" what didn't happen; there was no man-made explosives or molten steel at WTC.

[parky76]

As an eyewitness to some of WTC on and after 9/11, I know in "my bones" what didn't happen; there was no man-made explosives or molten steel at WTC.

why are you afraid to tell the truth?

who do you work for?

how much is the NWO paying you?

:p

[psikeyhackr]

Why do the experts regard you as a loud know-nothing? What do you know that they don't?

Someday you might take a crack at these often-repeated questions.
.
Why don't you ask those EXPERTS to just tell you the quantity and weights of the perimeter wall panels?

If they can't then why do you regard them as experts?

Do you doubt that skyscrapers must hold up their own weight and the designers had to figure out and DOCUMENT all of that for the buildings to be constructed? The EXPERTS at NIST admit there were 12 types. Specifying the quantity and weights would just be 24 numbers. Why is that so difficult? Wouldn't they fit in the 10,000 pages?

psik

[FineWine]

That many people n this forum know globally in their bones what really happened m 9/1 but they can never subcribe to it for their own reasons hat have been inculcated into them by others.


Yes, anyone who is not a drooling moron knows that Islamist terrorists perpetrated the most spectacular in an escalating series of attacks on American interests that extended back almost a decade. Inconveniently for deranged conspiracists, the Islamists remain defiantly proud of their victory.

[FineWine]

.
Why don't you ask those EXPERTS to just tell you the quantity and weights of the perimeter wall panels?

If they can't then why do you regard them as experts?

Do you doubt that skyscrapers must hold up their own weight and the designers had to figure out and DOCUMENT all of that for the buildings to be constructed? The EXPERTS at NIST admit there were 12 types. Specifying the quantity and weights would just be 24 numbers. Why is that so difficult? Wouldn't they fit in the 10,000 pages?

psik


The experts have told you repeatedly that the information you pretend to want is insignificant. Why are they wrong, and what do you know that they don't?

What happened when you called Mike Newman of NIST? Oh, you say you couldn't be bothered making a phone call? Why not?

[dropzone]

The experts have told you repeatedly that the information you pretend to want is insignificant. Why are they wrong, and what do you know that they don't?

What happened when you called Mike Newman of NIST? Oh, you say you couldn't be bothered making a phone call? Why not?Ignore him. He's practically a tr*ll, a poster who is so convinced of the value of his little idea that he will neither make the effort to learn for himself what he wants to know nor listen to others when they tell him it's not that valuable.

Yet again, psikeyhackr, all the information is at your fingertips if you use public documents, the same tables the designers used which are found for free online, and a simple four-function calculator, which is only a buck at the dollar store. And you should count yourself lucky for owning that calculator because the guys who designed the building were stuck with slide rules.

[Architect]

Let me just add my agreement to NB's various technical comments.

[tfk]

Well I've seen the video actually and it shows a vastly improved mage over the one you are showing. In fact it shows an comletely intact core in a resolution that Google should be proud of.
I just happen to have a copy with me.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778
.
Tell me that you think that video actually looks into the building and shows the core columns, as opposed to being an artificial graphic overlay.

Could you be that clueless...??

tk

[bill smith]

.
Tell me that you think that video actually looks into the building and shows the core columns, as opposed to being an artificial graphic overlay.

Could you be that clueless...??

tk

I suppose you have some evidence for that ? If not we will have to go with the video as is.

[Z]

I suppose you have some evidence for that ? If not we will have to go with the video as is.

:jaw-dropp

You have GOT to be kidding. I know I referred to you as a moron before, but you'd have to be short-bus class to not realize that was a graphical overlay, to outline where they thought the columns were seen. Please, please, please tell me you were joking just then. Even an idiot can see that was a graphic superimposed on the video.

Do you take 'special' classes?

:confused::confused:

[Southwind17]

This was an interesting clip (WTC2). How do you imagine hat the core still collapsed after surviving the main collapse in such good shape? Have a look at the animation to get an idea of the size of the core columns. As near as I can tell only the much heavier outer columns were crushed down leaving what we see in the video.

Bill - I believe you're inferring that demolition explosives were used in the WTC2 (and, presumably WTC1 and 7) collapse. If so, and given that it's pretty obvious that no engineering explanation posted here is likely to reconcile the different opinions (and yes, as presented here, they cannot be described as more than opinions, not only yours but all the others), then why don't you pay due respect to Z's Post #39 and answer what can surely only be described as straight forward, logical questions (they must be - I've pondered them myself!). And if you're tempted to dismiss Z's line of enquiry, for whatever reason, then please respond at my behest - save re-posting them under my monica!

After all, if it can be concluded that the proper and necessary placing of sufficient explosives is impossible, or at worst improbable, then the engineering explanation of the collapse becomes academic.

[bill smith]

:jaw-dropp

You have GOT to be kidding. I know I referred to you as a moron before, but you'd have to be short-bus class to not realize that was a graphical overlay, to outline where they thought the columns were seen. Please, please, please tell me you were joking just then. Even an idiot can see that was a graphic superimposed on the video.

Do you take 'special' classes?

:confused::confused:

Well then you should have no trouble in proving it. So off you go then...But remember if you can't prove it then the video stands.

This video btw for any interested observers out there. These guys are saying the intact core is a graphic overlay. See what you think and wait for Z's proof. Don't hold your breath though.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

[Z]

Oh, come on.

The video pauses; the graphical overlay is applied for a second or two, then removed, and the video resumed.

Can you not tell that? Are you blind?

More proof is not required, because this picture:
http://phunkadelic.org/core2.jpg

is obviously and self-evidentially a graphical overlay.

That's what we were commenting about. The actual appearance of the core is too obscured to tell for sure what condition it is. This clean, clear, crisp pic is the graphic overlay, and that should be obvious to anyone with the ability to see.

Look closely, Bill. The video pauses before the clear picture appears. The clear picture disappears before the video resumes.

Or do you think the dust clouds just froze in place for a second or two so you could see the in-tact core???

[Southwind17]

Well then you should have no trouble in proving it. So off you go then...But remember if you can't prove it then the video stands.

This video btw for any interested observers out there. These guys are saying the intact core is a graphic overlay. See what you think and wait for Z's proof. Don't hold your breath though.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

Well, a graphic overlay certainly appears momentarily, but only for the purpose of clarifying the existence of the core, which is most certainly visible.

[Sam.I.Am]

Here's a much better picture of the south core. I'd post it directly but I don't have enough posts yet so add the html and dots as needed.

img66 imageshack us/img66/2199/5712rr9 jpg

[Z]

That is definitely not a 'solid and intact' structure... it's in pretty bad shape.

Can someone blow up the core section in that photo so we can see the core detail a little easier?

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/2199/5712rr9.jpg

[sylvan8798]

Well then you should have no trouble in proving it. So off you go then...But remember if you can't prove it then the video stands.

This video btw for any interested observers out there. These guys are saying the intact core is a graphic overlay. See what you think and wait for Z's proof. Don't hold your breath though.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778

This compilation contains either the same video or at least several views taken from the same perspective. They start at around 5 minutes in. Be forewarned that some of them contain a lot of screaming. No sign of this "intact core" shot of yours, Bill. Some of us would find this "proof" enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

[Z]

Well, here's my inexpert picture close-up:

14594

It could be jpg artifact, but I'm guessing that's a lot of badly damaged and buckling steel, right there.

[Z]

This compilation contains either the same video or at least several views taken from the same perspective. They start at around 5 minutes in. Be forewarned that some of them contain a lot of screaming. No sign of this "intact core" shot of yours, Bill. Some of us would find this "proof" enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Well, to be fair, most of those video clips didn't focus long enough in the right area to even have a chance to see any remaining core.

One thing that caught my attention, though: between 5:00 and 6:00, you can see to the right side a huge chunk of the building flow way out from the main collapse. So much for the building falling 'neatly in its own footprint' or 'straight down through its own mass'.

I believe that was remnents of the side structure, which seems in some spots to have fared better than the core elements.

[sylvan8798]

If I understand correctly, the terrorists could have also simply sheared off the roof of the towers, and the whole structure would inevitably collapse from lack of support. But I may be wrong there.

So right about the net force, though. It's easy to talk about 'path of least resistance' as if the structure were a liquid.

I tend to think it would not have fallen from the roof being off, but if the hat trusses (which went from 107 to the roof) had been sheared off, then the exterior walls would not have been able to adequately transfer the wind load to the central core section, and, if not repaired, sooner or later there would have been unacceptable deformation of the building from some high wind loading. Would it have fallen over altogether? I doubt it, but as it was, the building swayed enough in high wind to make some people uncomfortable.

There is no formal physics concept called "the path of least resistance" or anything like it. I have a bookcase of physics and engineering texts covering every major subject area, and not one of them uses this phrase or anything similar to it anywhere. CT's want to sound like they know something about physics and try to bandy some smart-sounding phrases around, but they often end up just showing their ignorance.:boggled:

[Sam.I.Am]

It could be jpg artifact, but I'm guessing that's a lot of badly damaged and buckling steel, right there.

That was my conclusion as well.

[Sam.I.Am]

This compilation contains either the same video or at least several views taken from the same perspective. They start at around 5 minutes in. Be forewarned that some of them contain a lot of screaming. No sign of this "intact core" shot of yours, Bill. Some of us would find this "proof" enough.

At 6:28 there's a shot that appears to show the core and just before it cuts away it looks like it might have just started to collapse.

[Southwind17]

One thing that caught my attention, though: between 5:00 and 6:00, you can see to the right side a huge chunk of the building flow way out from the main collapse. So much for the building falling 'neatly in its own footprint' or 'straight down through its own mass'.

Good point. IMO I think it's highly disingenuous to the controlled demolition industry even to suggest the collapses were orchestrated with planted explosive. Looking at the collateral damage I doubt that any CD expert, under other circumstances, would put his name to these collapses!

And on that note, given the top-down nature of the collapse, even in a CD scenario we wouldn't be simply talking piling a load of explosives around the base columns, we'd be talking discrete placement floor-by-floor, starting with those floors around where the planes hit - not above; not below; but exactly those floors. Now (Bill, in particular, if you're still here), would somebody care to try to explain logistically how that could be executed undetected?

[tfk]

I suppose you have some evidence for that ? If not we will have to go with the video as is.
.
First thing: you keep saying "we". You speak for nobody but your own ignorant self.

I had written out an absolute, unequivocal proof that the video was a graphic overlay. But then I erased it.

It is much more fun to watch you claim that it is a real image.

It's fun to watch other people laugh at you too.

T

[Z]

Bll doesn't seem to have a response. Probably busy asking fellow twoofers how to approach the fact that she made a huge bloody mistake. Gotta wonder if other twoofers are having a snicker over that gaff, too... or if they look at 'graphical overlay' and see 'clear image of in-tact core framework in pristine condition'.

[Checkmite]

As far as we can see and extrapolate the 800 feet of core that we can see has all it's vertical components and all it's lateral components intact and the whole structure is solidly anchored 60 feet deep in the ground.

No it isn't. You contend that there are six floors below ground level and that the core extends at least that far down below ground level as well. But extending below ground level doesn't equate to "solidly anchored in the ground". Since it's the building that collapsed, and the six subterranean floors were part of the building, the collapse wouldn't have "stopped" when it reached ground level, but continued down to the very bottom of the structure, all 6 floors of it. Once that happened, the core wasn't "solidly anchored" to anything, it was simply standing amongst a bunch of loose debris, surrounded by a huge hole in the ground.

[Southwind17]

No it isn't. You contend that there are six floors below ground level and that the core extends at least that far down below ground level as well. But extending below ground level doesn't equate to "solidly anchored in the ground". Since it's the building that collapsed, and the six subterranean floors were part of the building, the collapse wouldn't have "stopped" when it reached ground level, but continued down to the very bottom of the structure, all 6 floors of it. Once that happened, the core wasn't "solidly anchored" to anything, it was simply standing amongst a bunch of loose debris, surrounded by a huge hole in the ground.

... and even if it was "solidly anchored in the ground", presumably that doesn't necessarily preclude the core from collapsing does it? I've seen a world-class yacht's titanium main sail mast "solidly anchored through the hull into the keel" suddenly go from supporting the sail that's propelling the yacht to lying flat across the deck after completely fracturing close to the base. What's that all about then?!

[sylvan8798]

No it isn't. You contend that there are six floors below ground level and that the core extends at least that far down below ground level as well. But extending below ground level doesn't equate to "solidly anchored in the ground". Since it's the building that collapsed, and the six subterranean floors were part of the building, the collapse wouldn't have "stopped" when it reached ground level, but continued down to the very bottom of the structure, all 6 floors of it. Once that happened, the core wasn't "solidly anchored" to anything, it was simply standing amongst a bunch of loose debris, surrounded by a huge hole in the ground.

Actually, I believe the columns were anchored to the bedrock with rock anchors of some type. So they really WERE anchored in the ground. Irrelevant to whether they would collapse without their lateral bracing, however.

[Checkmite]

True enough, I suppose - my bad. Perhaps I should stick to debunking Von Daniken.

Although it does seem rather obvious to me that columns which are supposed to have a huge building around them helping to hold them up likely wouldn't be anchored tremendously deep in the ground in the manner that, say, a 90' flagpole or other freestanding thing would. It seems as if the controversy of the "missing freestanding core" was invented by people who think the WTC towers were draped over the center columns, like a curtain or something, and that only the curtain should've fallen off. I find the analogy to a radio tower and the guy lines that hold it up to be a rather apt description of the reality, if simplistic.

[sylvan8798]

True enough, I suppose - my bad. Perhaps I should stick to debunking Von Daniken.

Although it does seem rather obvious to me that columns which are supposed to have a huge building around them helping to hold them up likely wouldn't be anchored tremendously deep in the ground in the manner that, say, a 90' flagpole or other freestanding thing would. It seems as if the controversy of the "missing freestanding core" was invented by people who think the WTC towers were draped over the center columns, like a curtain or something, and that only the curtain should've fallen off. I find the analogy to a radio tower and the guy lines that hold it up to be a rather apt description of the reality, if simplistic.

Well you have to remember that the wind forces on the building would want to overturn the building like a tree with shallow roots. (Having lost several large trees with shallow roots, I have personal experience with the force of a big wind storm.) Big buildings are anchored down rather industriously.

Interesting aside, for the Terminal Tower in Cleveland, built in 1929, they had to HAND DIG the 16 caissons to bedrock 200 FEET. At the bottom, they were the size of rooms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_Tower

It took TWO years of hand calculations on slide rules to do the structural analysis of the frame, which would probably spit out an jet plane like a watermelon seed, lol.:p

[Southwind17]

Actually, I believe the columns were anchored to the bedrock with rock anchors of some type. So they really WERE anchored in the ground. Irrelevant to whether they would collapse without their lateral bracing, however.

Precisely.

Interesting aside, for the Terminal Tower in Cleveland, built in 1929, they had to HAND DIG the 16 caissons to bedrock 200 FEET. At the bottom, they were the size of rooms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_Tower

Remembering, of course, that the need for depth and size (footprint) is largely to address the matter of ground-bearing capacity to avoid the building over-settling, or worse subsiding, not "anchorage", although anchorage is clearly an aspect.

[sylvan8798]

Precisely.



Remembering, of course, that the need for depth and size (footprint) is largely to address the matter of ground-bearing capacity to avoid the building over-settling, or worse subsiding, not "anchorage", although anchorage is clearly an aspect.

CT's would probably be surprised to learn how much goes into the design and construction of a building (of ANY size).

[alienentity]

To put the response in a more friendly tone, without the floors acting as a diaphragm between the core and the perimeter columns, the assemblies' stability was basically gone. When the major components fail it tends to be very unhealthy for the structural assembly as a whole.


It doesn't matter how well reasoned or knowledgeable your post is, bill isn't interested in learning from you. He is emotionally obligated to oppose or deflect anything important you write.

Mark my words.

[Architect]

CT's would probably be surprised to learn how much goes into the design and construction of a building (of ANY size).

Indeedy.

[Grizzly Bear]

It doesn't matter how well reasoned or knowledgeable your post is, bill isn't interested in learning from you. He is emotionally obligated to oppose or deflect anything important you write.

Mark my words.
I try, but tragically, that seems to be the case with most of these people... they find an authority, and think the content is automatically right on that basis. A pity the world isn't so simple.

[Justin39640]

CT's would probably be surprised to learn how much goes into the design and construction of a building (of ANY size).

they choose to ignore it
the way the simplify things is just stupid

[ElMondoHummus]

It doesn't matter how well reasoned or knowledgeable your post is, bill isn't interested in learning from you. He is emotionally obligated to oppose or deflect anything important you write.

Mark my words.

It's true that he doesn't, but that merely means he gets relegated to the status of "object lesson". Until laymen dive into a forum such as this one, many of them don't understand just how far people are willing to take conspiratorial or pseudoscientific delusions. And you gotta admit that, for someone with no prior experience to deep delusion, a layman might be tempted to think "Well, maybe there's something there. I mean, he/she/they put so much work into it...". But there's not; it just means that some folks really put yeoman-like effort into going nowhere. Bill Smith's one example, sort of a Christopher7 lite, so to speak. We can show folks that, even given all the effort truthers like him put into delusions, what they output are still delusions. There's no there that's really there at all. So there's some minimal value to be uncovered in responding, as long as responses aren't 1. Feeding trolls, 2. Prolonging mere fights, and 3. Substantive.

[alienentity]

It's true that he doesn't, but that merely means he gets relegated to the status of "object lesson". Until laymen dive into a forum such as this one, many of them don't understand just how far people are willing to take conspiratorial or pseudoscientific delusions. And you gotta admit that, for someone with no prior experience to deep delusion, a layman might be tempted to think "Well, maybe there's something there. I mean, he/she/they put so much work into it...". But there's not; it just means that some folks really put yeoman-like effort into going nowhere. Bill Smith's one example, sort of a Christopher7 lite, so to speak. We can show folks that, even given all the effort truthers like him put into delusions, what they output are still delusions. There's no there that's really there at all. So there's some minimal value to be uncovered in responding, as long as responses aren't 1. Feeding trolls, 2. Prolonging mere fights, and 3. Substantive.

Agreed.

[alienentity]

<snip>

There is no formal physics concept called "the path of least resistance" or anything like it. I have a bookcase of physics and engineering texts covering every major subject area, and not one of them uses this phrase or anything similar to it anywhere. CT's want to sound like they know something about physics and try to bandy some smart-sounding phrases around, but they often end up just showing their ignorance.:boggled:

I thought it was an electrical engineering term - electrical resistance and grounding.. Maybe that explains why it isn't in physics texts.

[Southwind17]

I thought it was an electrical engineering term - electrical resistance and grounding.. Maybe that explains why it isn't in physics texts.

It's a term with an extremely wide context, but usually boils down to physics. For example, it explains why a car goes around a bend rather than straight on (unless you're driving on ice, or too fast in the wet, in which case it then explains why the car goes straight on!). It's quite a useful term, in fact!

[sylvan8798]

I thought it was an electrical engineering term - electrical resistance and grounding.. Maybe that explains why it isn't in physics texts.

One hears people use the phrase with respect to electricity, however it is not technically correct. Electricity takes every available path, but in inverse proportion to the resistance of the path - that is, more will go on the path with the lesser resistance. But the other available paths will still get their proportionate share.

BTW, physicists study electricity and magnetism as well, the classical graduate textbook being John David Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, in which I spent 2 painful semesters. Just say his name to a physicist and you are likely to get a pained grimace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Jackson

[tfk]

One hears people use the phrase with respect to electricity, however it is not technically correct. Electricity takes every available path, but in inverse proportion to the resistance of the path - that is, more will go on the path with the lesser resistance. But the other available paths will still get their proportionate share.

BTW, physicists study electricity and magnetism as well, the classical graduate textbook being John David Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, in which I spent 2 painful semesters. Just say his name to a physicist and you are likely to get a pained grimace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._D._Jackson
Well, it is a phrase that would describe the path that water would take when flowing down the side of a hill.

And your correct comment ("electricity takes all paths") illustrates one of the places where the "flowing water" analogy for electric current fails.

Vizualize a reservoir of water being released at the top of a ravine. The water will take the path of least resistance (i.e. highest gradient) and follow the path of the ravine.

The side walls of the ravine (below the source, but above the low point of the ravine) will get no water flow, but would get electrical current flow. This is the first out-and-out failure of that analogy that I know of.

Tom

[phunk]

I've only ever hear the water analogy described as water pushed through pipes of different diameter, not water flowing downhill. That indeed would be a bad analogy.

[BigAl]

I've only ever hear the water analogy described as water pushed through pipes of different diameter, not water flowing downhill. That indeed would be a bad analogy.

I think of it in terms of current flow across a sheet of metal from connections on opposite sides. If the sheet isn't homogeneous it makes the calculations harder but doesn't change the fundamentals.

[tfk]

I've only ever hear the water analogy described as water pushed through pipes of different diameter, not water flowing downhill. That indeed would be a bad analogy.
.
You can model lots of electronic components with water flow. It's a good way to introduce kids to electrical circuits.

Capacitors are water storage tanks. Their volume is capacitance. Their voltage is their height above the rest of the circuit. Internal resistance is a nozzle inside that limits flow.

Inductors can be tubes that have a dense liquid flowing thru, where you consider the momentum of the liquid. It's flowing & the momentum of the fluid resists changes in flow rate.

Diodes as check valves.

Transistors as hydraulic valves with controls.

With regard to current flowing thru a bulk substance, I've done a lot of work in cardiac ablation (i.e., "cooking of heart tissue") to cure arrhythmia. In that case, you put a large electrode up against the inner wall of the heart & pump current in. The tissue heats up (by IR heating) in the immediate area around the single electrode (monopolar, with a large area return pad on the buttocks) or double electrodes (bipolar). The heating is proportinal to current density, the cooling is controlled by blood flow (convection) and conduction thru the tissue.

Killing a small area of heart tissue cures the arrhythmia. You're good as new. Magic.

Tom

[newton3376]

[soapbox mode]

I freaking HATE the water analogy for current...I think it creates much confusion among undergrad EE's and physics students...

So much confusion over things like induced charge, conduction electrons, back EMF, etc are partially caused IMO by this analogy.

And then once you get to capacitors or inductors....good luck trying to understand what is going on....it turns into a damn mess.

Now of course one can get really deep here and start going into how we can think of magnetism as a reativistic effect or get into the description from quantum of the electron "cloud".....but I'm talking even before all that stuff.

A poor understanding of electrostatics and charge usually leads to a poor understanding of electrodynamics....even forgetting that some of the math can get nasty all on its own....

A really really great book is the one by Ruth Chabay and Bruce Sherwood...they actually touch on surface charge as it relates to current in a circuit!!! Freaking awesome...

http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interactions-II-Electric-Magnetic/dp/0470108312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247806237&sr=1-1#

They do a great job on induced charge and the fields associated with them.....my god I need to go read through that book again!!!

[/soapbox mode]

Sorry...I kind of went off there...:D

[Justin39640]

[soapbox mode]

I freaking HATE the water analogy for current...I think it creates much confusion among undergrad EE's and physics students...

So much confusion over things like induced charge, conduction electrons, back EMF, etc are partially caused IMO by this analogy.

And then once you get to capacitors or inductors....good luck trying to understand what is going on....it turns into a damn mess.

Now of course one can get really deep here and start going into how we can think of magnetism as a reativistic effect or get into the description from quantum of the electron "cloud".....but I'm talking even before all that stuff.

A poor understanding of electrostatics and charge usually leads to a poor understanding of electrodynamics....even forgetting that some of the math can get nasty all on its own....

A really really great book is the one by Ruth Chabay and Bruce Sherwood...they actually touch on surface charge as it relates to current in a circuit!!! Freaking awesome...

http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interactions-II-Electric-Magnetic/dp/0470108312/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247806237&sr=1-1#

They do a great job on induced charge and the fields associated with them.....my god I need to go read through that book again!!!

[/soapbox mode]

Sorry...I kind of went off there...:D

hence why you dont have a snubber circuit on your radiator at home? lol

i work in a field that is heavy into electronics and hydraulics
there are some similarities but treating them as the same thing is suicide

forgetting about things like magnetic cutting (across coils charging and discharging) can ruin a techs day, and a lot of costly equipment

[Dave Rogers]

I've done a lot of work in cardiac ablation (i.e., "cooking of heart tissue") to cure arrhythmia. In that case, you put a large electrode up against the inner wall of the heart & pump current in. The tissue heats up (by IR heating) in the immediate area around the single electrode (monopolar, with a large area return pad on the buttocks) or double electrodes (bipolar). The heating is proportinal to current density, the cooling is controlled by blood flow (convection) and conduction thru the tissue.

Yuk. I'll stick with my arrhythmia, thanks.

Dave

[newton3376]

hence why you dont have a snubber circuit on your radiator at home? lol

i work in a field that is heavy into electronics and hydraulics
there are some similarities but treating them as the same thing is suicide

forgetting about things like magnetic cutting (across coils charging and discharging) can ruin a techs day, and a lot of costly equipment

Heavy into hydraulics and electronics? Interesting combo there....off the top of my head I can't think of what field that might be.....

Now you have me curious...what field are you in exactly that has both of these components?

If you don't want to answer I understand.....

[Disbelief]

Heavy into hydraulics and electronics? Interesting combo there....off the top of my head I can't think of what field that might be.....

Now you have me curious...what field are you in exactly that has both of these components?

If you don't want to answer I understand.....

Could be manufacturing of some sort.

[Justin39640]

Heavy into hydraulics and electronics? Interesting combo there....off the top of my head I can't think of what field that might be.....

Now you have me curious...what field are you in exactly that has both of these components?

If you don't want to answer I understand.....

i own a small business where i repair mainly forklifts
a lot of forklifts are 100% electric and later models use PWM motor control and logics for safety and accessory control (resistor motor control was the oldschool, SCR, IGBT and lately DC to 3 phase AC inverter control)
they also use canbus and other com protocols to link the controls together as well as for diagnostics

a lot of these machines use EMF to assist in braking (regenerative brakes like a prius "look it charged!")

my digital multimeter is my best friend (it also makes me a lot of money lol)

but even the internal combustion machines are now emissions or computer controlled and finding computers with over a hundred 22 ga wires in their connectors isnt uncommon

some machines are driven by hydraulic drive motors (hydrostatic transmission) aside from their lifting capabilities

i am actually heading out now to fix a machine thats dropping negative on a solenoid for the hydraulic accessories (looks like a resistance issue in the circuit, ill do voltage drop tests until i pinpoint the issue)

[newton3376]

i own a small business where i repair mainly forklifts

Oh okay...cool thanks :)
a lot of forklifts are 100% electric and later models use PWM motor control and logics for safety and accessory control (resistor motor control was the oldschool, SCR, IGBT and lately DC to 3 phase AC inverter control)
they also use canbus and other com protocols to link the controls together as well as for diagnostics

I really did not know that...very interesting

a lot of these machines use EMF to assist in braking (regenerative brakes like a prius "look it charged!")

I didn't know they were using that on forklifts...apparently the new forklifts are much more advanced then I assumed....

my digital multimeter is my best friend (it also makes me a lot of money lol)

Yes, those things are invaluabe for troubleshooting....it's amazing how many problems can be identified with a decent DMM (although I don't do too much hands on currently....)

but even the internal combustion machines are now emissions or computer controlled and finding computers with over a hundred 22 ga wires in their connectors isnt uncommon

Over a hundred? Sheesh....I'm showing my lack of knowledge about engines and motors here...:cool:

some machines are driven by hydraulic drive motors (hydrostatic transmission) aside from their lifting capabilities

LOL I'm not sure I know what a "hydrostatic transmission" even is.....:o

i am actually heading out now to fix a machine thats dropping negative on a solenoid for the hydraulic accessories (looks like a resistance issue in the circuit, ill do voltage drop tests until i pinpoint the issue)

Resistance issue? That sounds like a good candidate for the voltage drop you describe....good luck locating the issue. Iv'e had my share of "weird" problems over the years...

[Justin39640]

Oh okay...cool thanks :)


I really did not know that...very interesting



I didn't know they were using that on forklifts...apparently the new forklifts are much more advanced then I assumed....



Yes, those things are invaluabe for troubleshooting....it's amazing how many problems can be identified with a decent DMM (although I don't do too much hands on currently....)



Over a hundred? Sheesh....I'm showing my lack of knowledge about engines and motors here...:cool:



LOL I'm not sure I know what a "hydrostatic transmission" even is.....:o



Resistance issue? That sounds like a good candidate for the voltage drop you describe....good luck locating the issue. Iv'e had my share of "weird" problems over the years...

actually regen braking is an old idea
ive seen trucks from the 60s and 70s with regen (industrial lift truck is the true name)
when you regen brake power is generated and it some of it flows back to the battery charging it (hence that prius commercial)
DC systems arent very efficient charging like this but the AC controls can add an extra 2 hours to the machines shift just from slowing down all day

DMMs are great but analog has its advantages
the real diff in DMMs when talking price is the rate at which it polls and of course its quality
any meter can read voltage

my meter polls at 60 times a second so its fairly accurate for reading voltage sweeps from potentiometers and such where the values change rapidly

a cheapo craftsman DMM poll at about 4 times a second making reading certain things tough

100+ wires for 1 computer
i have machines with 5 computers
thats a lot of harness to troubleshoot lol
usually the engine control modules (ECM) is the same youll find in cars
though the software is different for alt fuels like LPG or NG

a hydrostatic transmission is a low rpm high torque power transmission
basically you have a charge pump thats connected to the engine that feeds pressure to a control valve that feeds pressure to the wheel motors
its all fluid driven
on machine (linde) uses hydrostatic and computers to control engine RPM based on hydraulic demand
on most machines when you pull a lever of use a function youll feel the machine slow as power is consumed by the hydraulics kicking in
this machine compensates so you dont feel that
its pretty sexy as shown here WeX34f-ebV4

yup found the issue
the solenoids ground is provided through a logic called a "sequence controller"
apparently the customer doesnt like to slow down over bumps
i found about 7 cracked solders on 2 PCBs in the sequencer
a big capacitor was just flopping on the board making a poor connection and at times none at all

removed the old solder then re-solder back the board components and the machine was good to go :) hes still getting a new board next week though as
this was a temp repair, boards are 20 years old so id assume (based on experience) theyre gonna do that again at other solder points in the near future

happy customers = fat pockets lol

[tfk]

Yuk. I'll stick with my arrhythmia, thanks.

Dave

Dave,

This is actually one of the safest procedures they can do.

And they really work.

The procedure's got an amazing history. The FDA should have shut them al down at one point (thousands/year), because nobody had approval to do them. But the fact was, they were saving lives and the Morbidity & Mortality (M&Ms) that resulted were very very low.

So the FDA turned its back for a couple of years until the company I worked for got the first approval. We all thought we were gonna get rich, being first. Having (we imagined) sole access to the market for 6 - 24 months. Ah dreams. They approved about 4 other companies in a couple of months.

Do you remember old Reggie Lewis, the star player for the Boston Celtics? He'd have likely finished his career if he'd had one.

Unfortunately, his 4th or 8th episode was his last.

(That was NOT meant to spook you...)

:eye-poppi

Tom

[tfk]

[soapbox mode]

I freaking HATE the water analogy for current...I think it creates much confusion among undergrad EE's and physics students...

So much confusion over things like induced charge, conduction electrons, back EMF, etc are partially caused IMO by this analogy.

[/soapbox mode]

Sorry...I kind of went off there...:D

That's because I'm talking about OLD electricity.

Completely different stuff...

Tom

[newton3376]

actually regen braking is an old idea
ive seen trucks from the 60s and 70s with regen (industrial lift truck is the true name)
when you regen brake power is generated and it some of it flows back to the battery charging it (hence that prius commercial)
DC systems arent very efficient charging like this but the AC controls can add an extra 2 hours to the machines shift just from slowing down all day

Pretty cool...this shows how little I know about engines and the like lol

DMMs are great but analog has its advantages
the real diff in DMMs when talking price is the rate at which it polls and of course its quality
any meter can read voltage

my meter polls at 60 times a second so its fairly accurate for reading voltage sweeps from potentiometers and such where the values change rapidly

a cheapo craftsman DMM poll at about 4 times a second making reading certain things tough

60 times?....thats not too bad...

And analog does have its advantages I agree...in fact I would extend that statement to a more general one...analog in general does have certain advantages...there are certain things that will never ever be 100% digital

100+ wires for 1 computer
i have machines with 5 computers
thats a lot of harness to troubleshoot lol
usually the engine control modules (ECM) is the same youll find in cars
though the software is different for alt fuels like LPG or NG

LOL I'm glad you didn't just use the acroynm "ECM"....in my world that always stands for "Electronic Counter Measures"...I would have been thoroughly confused then...

a hydrostatic transmission is a low rpm high torque power transmission
basically you have a charge pump thats connected to the engine that feeds pressure to a control valve that feeds pressure to the wheel motors
its all fluid driven
on machine (linde) uses hydrostatic and computers to control engine RPM based on hydraulic demand
on most machines when you pull a lever of use a function youll feel the machine slow as power is consumed by the hydraulics kicking in
this machine compensates so you dont feel that
its pretty sexy as shown here WeX34f-ebV4

LOL good description....but I like the video much better ;)

yup found the issue
the solenoids ground is provided through a logic called a "sequence controller"
apparently the customer doesnt like to slow down over bumps
i found about 7 cracked solders on 2 PCBs in the sequencer
a big capacitor was just flopping on the board making a poor connection and at times none at all

removed the old solder then re-solder back the board components and the machine was good to go :) hes still getting a new board next week though as
this was a temp repair, boards are 20 years old so id assume (based on experience) theyre gonna do that again at other solder points in the near future

happy customers = fat pockets lol

A cap flopping around? Sheesh! That is generally not good! Although fat pockets are....

[newton3376]

That's because I'm talking about OLD electricity.

Completely different stuff...

Tom

Oh gotcha...OLD electricity versus the NEW stuff...heh...

I always get those two confused :cool:

[sylvan8798]

blech, you guys are so off topic, even the physicist is leaving this thread...;)

[Z]

blech, you guys are so off topic, even the physicist is leaving this thread...;)

You might as well. For once, we drove off the CTists with our facts, logic, and reason.

Kind of a weird sensation, that.

[Southwind17]

You might as well. For once, we drove off the CTists with our facts, logic, and reason.

Kind of a weird sensation, that.

Maybe so, but I'm a little disappointed nobody came back with an attempt at explaining how the CD explosives might have been placed!

[tsig]

blech, you guys are so off topic, even the physicist is leaving this thread...;)

Make sure you turn off the light.

[newton3376]

blech, you guys are so off topic, even the physicist is leaving this thread...;)

Damn physicists......always bitching and whining to the engineers...

:D:p

[sylvan8798]

Damn physicists......always bitching and whining to the engineers...

:D:p

I was an engineer, then I got a Master's in Mathematics and taught, now I'm working on a degree in physics. I just bitch and whine at myself.:o

[tfk]

I was an engineer, then I got a Master's in Mathematics and taught, now I'm working on a degree in physics. I just bitch and whine at myself.:o
.

An old joke:

A secretary, an engineer and a mathematician were asleep in their own bedroom one night.

Coincidentally a fire started in each's bedroom.

The secretary got up, grabbed a fire extinguisher, and put the fire out.

The engineer got up, started calculating exactly how much fire extinguisher he would need to put the fire out, while his house burned down.

The mathematician got up, realized that "a solution existed" and went back to sleep.

Moral: Sometimes too smart for your own britches = stupid.

Tom

[Z]

Another old joke.

Reagan (back in the day) was working on a problem, and called in his expert in mathematics.

The mathematician came in, and asked the President what he needed.

"What is two plus two?" the Pres asked.

The mathematician worked for a bit on his chalkboard and demonstrated the proof to show that two plus two, in fact, equals four.

The Pres thanked the mathematician, dismissed him, and called for his statistician.

"What is two plus two?" Reagan asked.

The statistician replies, "Well, according to our studies of third, fourth, and fifth graders, their teachers, a random sampling of people in Mulberry, Wisconsin, and some historical records, two plus two works out to an average median of about 3.9999999 and so forth, or, for all practical purposes, four."

The President thanked him, dismissed him, and called in his financial advisor. When his financial man came in, the President asked him the same question.

The advisor looked around, closed the door, shut the blinds, got very close to the President's ear, and whispered, "What do you want it to be, sir?"

[newton3376]

I was an engineer, then I got a Master's in Mathematics and taught, now I'm working on a degree in physics. I just bitch and whine at myself.:o

Cool....

I have (I think) like 8 more classes until I get my Masters degree in EE....but a lot of the guys I work with are physicists....in fact a lot of the people I work with have Masters or PhDs...

I'm one of the younger guys and all I have is a BS (for now)....it sucks being in the minority LOL

[newton3376]

.

An old joke:

A secretary, an engineer and a mathematician were asleep in their own bedroom one night.

Coincidentally a fire started in each's bedroom.

The secretary got up, grabbed a fire extinguisher, and put the fire out.

The engineer got up, started calculating exactly how much fire extinguisher he would need to put the fire out, while his house burned down.

The mathematician got up, realized that "a solution existed" and went back to sleep.

Moral: Sometimes too smart for your own britches = stupid.

Tom

"A solution existed"

lol nice

[sylvan8798]

Cool....

I have (I think) like 8 more classes until I get my Masters degree in EE....but a lot of the guys I work with are physicists....in fact a lot of the people I work with have Masters or PhDs...

I'm one of the younger guys and all I have is a BS (for now)....it sucks being in the minority LOL

Great going! EE's the hardest, engineeringwise. Overall, mathematics is the master bitch of a major.

[Z]

Well, Bill (in the other thread) at least admitted a mistake, and that the 'core' he/she was seeing was just the graphical overlay.

That's a rare enough admission... MAYBE there's hope for truthers yet? :D

[Justin39640]

Well, Bill (in the other thread) at least admitted a mistake, and that the 'core' he/she was seeing was just the graphical overlay.

That's a rare enough admission... MAYBE there's hope for truthers yet? :D
maybe its telling about the TM in general that he/she was actually convinced that the video was unedited for so long

[Southwind17]

Maybe so, but I'm a little disappointed nobody came back with an attempt at explaining how the CD explosives might have been placed!
... and still no attempt! Non-truther explanation, anybody? ... or would that be an unpalatable admission the the physical collapse debate is superfluous?! ;)

[newton3376]

Great going! EE's the hardest, engineeringwise. Overall, mathematics is the master bitch of a major.

The funny thing is I have a friend who double majored in mathematics and computer science...

I was surprised how many people I met in college (I went to Penn State) who were math, physics, various engineering, or chemistry majors who thought that EE was one of the two hardest majors.....chem E being the other one.

Surprisingly most of them listed EE as the hardest followed by chem E and then physics and math....

I'm not sure that I agree with that rating system...I think all of those majors have difficult topics in them....

[sylvan8798]

The funny thing is I have a friend who double majored in mathematics and computer science...

I was surprised how many people I met in college (I went to Penn State) who were math, physics, various engineering, or chemistry majors who thought that EE was one of the two hardest majors.....chem E being the other one.

Surprisingly most of them listed EE as the hardest followed by chem E and then physics and math....

I'm not sure that I agree with that rating system...I think all of those majors have difficult topics in them....

Some of it depends on the person as well. I found math impossible as a major (even though I got a masters degree), because all that abstract stuff is like trying to grab fog for me. I like seeing math applied to things, so physics and engineering suit me better. EE is difficult because it also has such an element of the abstract, compared to, say classical mechanics. When I was in my applied math courses for the math degree, some of the "abstract" guys found it very difficult, because they are not oriented to "applied" thinking.