Twofers claim failed Turkish demolition proves WTC 7 was CD

[njslim]

The twofers are at it again - the failed implosion of the Turkish building where
it toppled over rolled has been claimed by the twofers as "proof" that WTC7
was brought down by CD

Turkish failed demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozfzr3kkp_4

Twofers claim that since the Turkish building could not be brought down by
explosives how are we to believe that "a few fires" could cause WTC7 to
"collapse in own footprint in 7 seconds"

I bring you to the forum of the UK SUN - which has been invaded by
twofers spewing usual brand of idiocy....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/Botched_Building_Demolition_Reinforces_WTC_7_Lie~4 6~-211425.page

[dtugg]

Twoofers are stupid.

[Grizzly Bear]

Honestly I'm just waiting for AE911 to pick this up... the whole topple over thing... sounds exactly like something they'd target in utterly true fashion...

[Astute Perspicuous]

What the heck is a twofer?

U we todd ed or what?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I love toofer logic.

A building demolition gone awry to the point where it made international news (as opposed to the many that just look cool) shows that WTC 7 couldn't, after burning for 8+ hours collapse on its own?

Hoo boy.

[eirik]

Amazing vid!! (hope no one got hurt)

Amazing but predictable twooferinterpretation.

[cyclonic]

What the heck is a twofer?


A twoofer with only 1 available orifice.

[jaydeehess]

Hmmm, where I live a two-four is a case of 24 beer. (often pronounced 'twofer' or tu-fur by those who don't need another one)

The rolling over without coming apart is a testament to Turkish engineering. That building was probably originally designed as earthquake resistant.

[Quad4_72]

I can't believe it held together. That was one seriously tough building.

[Good Lt]

The twofers are at it again - the failed implosion of the Turkish building where
it toppled over rolled has been claimed by the twofers as "proof" that WTC7
was brought down by CD

Turkish failed demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozfzr3kkp_4

Twofers claim that since the Turkish building could not be brought down by
explosives how are we to believe that "a few fires" could cause WTC7 to
"collapse in own footprint in 7 seconds"

I bring you to the forum of the UK SUN - which has been invaded by
twofers spewing usual brand of idiocy....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/Botched_Building_Demolition_Reinforces_WTC_7_Lie~4 6~-211425.page (http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/Botched_Building_Demolition_Reinforces_WTC_7_Lie%7 E46%7E-211425.page)
Nobody would have seen this coming.

I love how Troofers think that the controlled demolitions of other buildings is somehow "direct evidence" for their imaginary demolition of the WTC.

That's like saying that if I got in a car accident in a Pinto and totaled it, that my new Ford Ranger is required to have the same damage in the same circumstance.

"Logic."

:rolleyes:

[fitzgibbon]

Flour factory apparently. Anything having to do with grain is overbuilt because of the potential for explosion with the dust and ground flour floating about. Grain silos are the same way

[Justin39640]

Flour factory apparently. Anything having to do with grain is overbuilt because of the potential for explosion with the dust and ground flour floating about. Grain silos are the same way

when i was in HS i worked at a vitamin factory
they didnt keep the exhaust and filtration system up to snuff and the manufacturing section had a lot of dust in the air
one overnight shift that ignited
blew the building apart there was almost nothing left about 30000 sq feet

[BasqueArch]

The rolling over without coming apart is a testament to Turkish engineering. That building was probably originally designed as earthquake resistant.

What we know from the visual evidence:

Some steel structures by fire or by earthquakes do not partially collapse
Some steel structures by fire or by earthquakes partially collapse.
Some steel structures by fire or by earthquakes completely collapse
No completely concrete structured buildings have collapsed due to fire.
Most CD’d structures, steel or concrete collapse completely
Some CD’d structures, steel or concrete do not collapse completely.
All steel structures struck by 130 ton airplanes collapse completely.

[psikeyhackr]

ROFLMAO!!!

That is funny as Hell!

But everybody knows Turkish steel is so much better than American steel.

psik

[A W Smith]

ROFLMAO!!!

That is funny as Hell!

But everybody knows Turkish steel is so much better than American steel.

psik


perhaps you can point out via screen capture the structural steel in that Turkish flour factory.

g7z-FQUrfhc&NR

[jaydeehess]

ROFLMAO!!!

That is funny as Hell!

But everybody knows Turkish steel is so much better than American steel.

psik

When you see a demolition of a Turkish steel bldg be sure to let us know.

ETA: This could be another case of someone posting two separate thoughts in the same post and us reading them as conflated. Perhaps psky meant that the video was funny, but on another note and unrelated to this video, Turkish steel is better than American steel.

,,, but I doubt it.

[psikeyhackr]

perhaps you can point out via screen capture the structural steel in that Turkish flour factory.

g7z-FQUrfhc&NR
.
Oh, you mean Turkish concrete is better than American steel. :D :D

psik

[T.A.M.]

I am waiting for the testosterone driven,

"Turkish Wood is better than American Wood!"

TAM:)

[TruthersLie]

I am waiting for him to ask the amount of concrete used in the building in turkey.

[Grizzly Bear]

.
Oh, you mean Turkish concrete is better than American steel. :D :D

psik

That's discrimination son!!! [/sarcasm]

Reinforced concrete is actually stronger and better suited against fire because of concrete's thermal properties (it doesn't start to sag like a wet noodle). But the weight it adds to the structure adds significantly to the construction costs...

[A W Smith]

.
Oh, you mean Turkish concrete is better than American steel. :D :D

psik


Your ignorance of developing construction technology is evident psikeyhackr.

The Burg Dubai, worlds tallest building. Steel or concrete psikeyhackr.?

WTF7_Z_G3d0

The Petronas towers? Steel or concrete psikeyhackr.?

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0219/building_1-2.html

[eromitlab]

Is it sad that when I first saw this clip (last Thursday I think) that my first thought (after a joking "they should've used thermite") was "how long until twoofers try to use this to prove their WTC claims somehow". I only had to wait until what, Monday? Thanks, twoofers... as a whole, you are so predictably, reliably stupid.

[T.A.M.]

Is it sad that when I first saw this clip (last Thursday I think) that my first thought (after a joking "they should've used thermite") was "how long until twoofers try to use this to prove their WTC claims somehow". I only had to wait until what, Monday? Thanks, twoofers... as a whole, you are so predictably, reliably stupid.

Wait until they see the space based laser weapons Jim and I put up in orbit last week under NWO operation "Judy".

TAM:D

[beachnut]

What the heck is a twofer?

U we todd ed or what?

It is some of that "or what". Henry Orwatt and the twofers.


The failed CD effort is indicative of 911TruthLies efforts at presenting facts and evidence.

[leftysergeant]

The idea when you shoot a concrete structure, is supposed to be that the upper parts sits down on the bottom and both get crushed. That notch they cut in the factor made it tip over like that. What the hell were they thinking?

Did you know that you can build humonuous cargo ships out of steel-reinforced concrete? They hold up nicely to the battering of a North Atlantic storm.

No real surprise that, having landed on intact surfaces, the top survived.

[nicepants]

The twofers are at it again - the failed implosion of the Turkish building where
it toppled over rolled has been claimed by the twofers as "proof" that WTC7
was brought down by CD

Turkish failed demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozfzr3kkp_4

Twofers claim that since the Turkish building could not be brought down by
explosives how are we to believe that "a few fires" could cause WTC7 to
"collapse in own footprint in 7 seconds"


So their logic is:

Explosives didn't successfully bring down a building in Turkey.

Therefore

fire couldn't successfully have brought down building 7.

Truther logic at its finest!

[Horatius]

That notch they cut in the factor made it tip over like that. What the hell were they thinking?




I'd be surprised if the notch was their intention. This looks to me like someone screwed up, and the detonations failed on one side. Bad wiring/detcord, maybe?

[psikeyhackr]

That's discrimination son!!! [/sarcasm]

Reinforced concrete is actually stronger and better suited against fire because of concrete's thermal properties (it doesn't start to sag like a wet noodle). But the weight it adds to the structure adds significantly to the construction costs...
.
The Turkish building rolling over and the collapse of WTC1 are not about fire. Supposedly fire started the collapse but after that it is supposedly falling mass crushing mass below while accelerating of course. ROFL But then we aren't told the distribution of steel.

The collapse ain't about fire. It must be that crappy American steel. :D

psik

[BigAl]

.
The Turkish building rolling over and the collapse of WTC1 are not about fire. Supposedly fire started the collapse but after that it is supposedly falling mass crushing mass below while accelerating of course. ROFL But then we aren't told the distribution of steel.

The collapse ain't about fire. It must be that crappy American steel. :D

psik

Ask Henry;

Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report From Ground Zero
http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)

[dropzone]

The collapse ain't about fire. It must be that crappy American steel. :DOnce upon a time there was a valid (negative) comparison between Damascus (then a part of--okay, actually several centuries BEFORE--the Ottoman Empire) and American steel, at least as far as sword blades were concerned. By the 20th century...wait a tic, with whom am I arguing? So that wasn't supposed to be a joke? Dude, it shows what happens when a short, reinforced-concrete building has 1/4 of its guts blown out. There is little comparison between it and the WTC unless one has only the most-rudimentary knowledge of how tall buildings can--and they all differ--be built. It doesn't support your tip-down hypothesis at all.

[Justin39640]

Once upon a time there was a valid (negative) comparison between Damascus (then a part of--okay, actually several centuries BEFORE--the Ottoman Empire) and American steel, at least as far as sword blades were concerned. By the 20th century...wait a tic, with whom am I arguing? So that wasn't supposed to be a joke? Dude, it shows what happens when a short, reinforced-concrete building has 1/4 of its guts blown out. There is little comparison between it and the WTC unless one has only the most-rudimentary knowledge of how tall buildings can--and they all differ--be built. It doesn't support your tip-down hypothesis at all.

just the difference in height and relation of the collapse zone to the ground would make the 2 scenarios completely irrelevant to each other IMO

[jaydeehess]

.
The comparison between theTurkish building rolling over, and the collapse of WTC1 are not about fire. Supposedly fire started the collapse but after that it is supposedly falling mass crushing mass below while accelerating of course. ROFL But then we aren't told the distribution of steel.

The collapse ain't about fire. It must be that crappy American steel. :D

psik

Fixed that for you psikey.
However, although you begin this thought you actually never complete it. If the comparison is not about fire, then what is it about?
The comparison is between a relativle short, concrete structure, and a very tall(even the section above initial collapse in both WTC towers was taller than this Turkish structure, if my eyes don't deceive me, not to mention that the base of the towers was much larger than the Turkish structure which obviously makes it much bigger) steel structure.

Next, your characterization of the upper falling mass crushing the lower part of the building is highly misleading and essentially wrong.
The falling mass impacted the floor space, not the columns(which are the normal vector for carrying vertical loads) and the floors are, of course, designed to carry the load that one floor could be expected to carry and not the static load equivalent of several floors let alone the dynamic load of that mass on the move.

You ignore, or are completely ignorant of, the way the towers functioned.

The outer perimeter columns and the inner core braced each other against buckling by being attached to each other via the floor trusses(or the beams on mechanical floors, 4 in total). Without that bracing neither perimeter column system nor core column system could survive on their own. Thus when the mass was falling through the floors and tearing away the floor trusses it was removing, violently, the very system required to keep the building upright. The perimeter columns peeled away outward for the most part, while the core , battered, rocked and twisted by the violent tearing away of the floor(including the floor space between core columns) succumbed to a combination of this violent pummeling and its inherent instability having been robbed of the bracing it required.

[A W Smith]

with all his ROFLfing I think psikeyhackr has bad posture (http://www.toytowngermany.com/wiki/Rolfing)

[psikeyhackr]

Fixed that for you psikey.
However, although you begin this thought you actually never complete it. If the comparison is not about fire, then what is it about?

Next, your characterization of the upper falling mass crushing the lower part of the building is highly misleading and essentially wrong.
The falling mass impacted the floor space, not the columns(which are the normal vector for carrying vertical loads) and the floors are, of course, designed to carry the load that one floor could be expected to carry and not the static load equivalent of several floors let alone the dynamic load of that mass on the move.
.
How did the core of the top of the north tower not hit the core of the lower portion? There were columns in the core, 47 of them.

Like I'm misleading! :D :D

psik

[A W Smith]

.
How did the core of the top of the north tower not hit the core of the lower portion? There were columns in the core, 47 of them.

Like I'm misleading! :D :D

psik


Since the 47 core columns only take up a small area of the cores 87 foot by 137 foot footprint. the core columns missed each other.

[Myriad]

And here, all these years, I've been arguing that the 9/11 tower collapses couldn't be controlled demolition, because of they way they rolled over onto their roofs, since buildings being demolished never roll over onto their roofs. And now we see that buildings being demolished can roll over onto their roofs! So I was wrong all along!

Just point me again to those videos of the WTC towers and WTC 7 rolling over onto their roofs on 9/11, and I'll apologize for how wrong I was.

Respectfully,
Myriad

PS: On second thought, I'm not sure this evidence is convincing. How do we know that the demolition crew in Turkey didn't secretly set fire to the building? I doubt that any fire-sniffing dogs were on duty. A commando crew of arsonists could have easily smuggled fire past security.

[Dave Rogers]

And here, all these years, I've been arguing that the 9/11 tower collapses couldn't be controlled demolition, because of they way they rolled over onto their roofs, since buildings being demolished never roll over onto their roofs. And now we see that buildings being demolished can roll over onto their roofs! So I was wrong all along!

Of course, you'd have spotted the mistake if you'd realised that the WTC towers had concrete cores reinforced with C4 coated 3" rebar on 4' centres, just like that Turkish building must have been.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

.
How did the core of the top of the north tower not hit the core of the lower portion? There were columns in the core, 47 of them.

Like I'm misleading! :D :D

psik
You forgot the part where I said
However, although you begin this thought you actually never complete it. If the comparison is not about fire, then what is it about?

OK, given this newest post of yours, I retract my stating that you were being misleading and revise my estimation of you. You probably don't want to know what the new estimation is though.(there's a hint in my last sentence in this post though)

When the initial collapse began and the columns snapped or bent or sagged out of line where would the falling mass hit? It certainly would not be impacting the tops of the lower portion's columns other than that small part of flooring from the falling level that would hit those columns. No, instead its all travelling next to those columns.

NOTHING LINES UP PROPERLY ANY MORE - IS THAT A HARD CONCEPT TO CONTEMPLATE?
Think real real hard psky, if it causes your nose to bleed take a rest and start again later

[jaydeehess]

Of course, you'd have spotted the mistake if you'd realised that the WTC towers had concrete cores reinforced with C4 coated 3" rebar on 4' centres, just like that Turkish building must have been.

Dave

<<sighs>> I am having a 'discussion' with a ,,,person,,, who believes in the C4 coated rebar and a concrete core,, seriously,, they apparently do exist.

He balks and protests being called a truther since he believes that the TM is a liberal psy-op. Him being a right wing nutbar as opposed to a left wing moonbat.

[AZCat]

At least the truthers can't claim this building fell in its own footprint.

[psikeyhackr]

When the initial collapse began and the columns snapped or bent or sagged out of line where would the falling mass hit? It certainly would not be impacting the tops of the lower portion's columns other than that small part of flooring from the falling level that would hit those columns. No, instead its all travelling next to those columns.
.
And you are saying the BEAMS connecting all of those columns went WHERE?

If you watch the Purdue video you will see a section on the Core and it shows the beams connecting the columns.

psik

[boloboffin]

Hey, something occurred to me. I wonder if the center of gravity in this building went just about as far as the center of gravity in the WTC upper sections went, distance-wise?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Hey fraud!
Let's see if you can accomplish the same result with your lemons and pizza boxes!

[jaydeehess]

.
And you are saying the BEAMS connecting all of those columns went WHERE?

If you watch the Purdue video you will see a section on the Core and it shows the beams connecting the columns.

psik

BEAMS on only 4 mechanical floors above ground level connected the perimeter to the core columns. Trusses on all other floors.
Core columns had intercolumn beams only within the core.

Engineering 101 for you;
The load on a floorspace is held by the floor beams or trusses which in turn are attached to the vertical columns. That connection transfers the load to the columns. The COLUMNS are designed to hold the combined load of all the structure above any particular floor,,,BUT,,, the floors and the seats of the beams or trusses only need to handle the load of ONE FLOOR. Again, is this such a very hard concept to hold in one's head psky?

If the load on a floor truss or beam exceeds the ability of the seats they sit on at the columns then that seat will fail and the truss/beam will fall. If in addition to a vastly greater static load it is accompanied by a very large dynamic load then the trusses and/or beams and/or seats will fail very quickly. Like jumping on a pop can causes it to fail quickly, whereas slowly stepping on it more gently one can have it support one's weight.


I suppose now you will come back with something like "well the core had beams", which you will notice that I have stated was fact. One can see that a portion of the core still is upright as the collapse zone proceeds further down. AGAIN this simply illustrates that he floors were being torn away. The core was also being battered, including the floor space between core columns(I already stated that) and it was losing inter column beams or at the very least having them damaged. Those beams are the only bracing between core columns but as I have said many times; it is very unlikely that the core could have stood on its own even if it was in pristine condition having had the perimeter and floors magically and gently removed suddenly. The core, by itself, would be inherently unstable and would buckle , twist and fail. Add in the fact that the floors had been violently ripped away and that thousands of tons of dense debris was pummeling the entire structure , weakening or destroying the inter column beams in the core, and I find it amazing that anyone would expect it to stay upright.

[jaydeehess]

Hey, something occurred to me. I wonder if the center of gravity in this building went just about as far as the center of gravity in the WTC upper sections went, distance-wise?

I think it exceeded the WTC tilt within a second or two, and when it roled over it was a distance away from the 'footprint' of the original building's position, equal to or exceeding the height of the original building.

Short answer,,, no.

[Galileo]

The twofers are at it again - the failed implosion of the Turkish building where
it toppled over rolled has been claimed by the twofers as "proof" that WTC7
was brought down by CD

Turkish failed demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozfzr3kkp_4

Twofers claim that since the Turkish building could not be brought down by
explosives how are we to believe that "a few fires" could cause WTC7 to
"collapse in own footprint in 7 seconds"

I bring you to the forum of the UK SUN - which has been invaded by
twofers spewing usual brand of idiocy....

http://www.thesun.co.uk/discussions/posts/list/Botched_Building_Demolition_Reinforces_WTC_7_Lie~4 6~-211425.page

funny how careful placement of demolition charges fails to bring down a 100 year old Turkish building, but a few random fires and a couple nicks takes the WTC right down into its own footprint.

Only an idiot would think otherwise.

[Gorgonian]

careful placement of demolition charges
fail

few random fires

fail

couple nicks

fail


into its own footprint.

fail

Is this some sort of record? Ah, probably not. I don't think it even beats his own personal record.

[psikeyhackr]

Core columns had intercolumn beams only within the core.
.
That is what I was talking about. When the core of the top falling portion came down on the lower stationary portion of the core those beams had to impact. It is not like the columns could just go between each other.

Engineering 101 for you;
The load on a floorspace is held by the floor beams or trusses which in turn are attached to the vertical columns. That connection transfers the load to the columns. The COLUMNS are designed to hold the combined load of all the structure above any particular floor,,,BUT,,, the floors and the seats of the beams or trusses only need to handle the load of ONE FLOOR. Again, is this such a very hard concept to hold in one's head psky?
.
NIST has already said that pancaking didn't happen.

Is that too hard for you too understand?

I was not talking about something coming down on a floor. I was talking about core on core impact.

psik

[tsig]

.
That is what I was talking about. When the core of the top falling portion came down on the lower stationary portion of the core those beams had to impact. It is not like the columns could just go between each other.

psik

Did you miss that this was a controlled demolition?

[Grizzly Bear]

.
NIST has already said that pancaking didn't happen.

Is that too hard for you too understand?
Collapse initiation only. Do you understand this?


I was talking about core on core impact.

psik

Collapse was not so ideal.

[Sam.I.Am]

NIST has already said that pancaking didn't happen.


No, what NIST said was that collapse initiation was not caused by pancaking. They have made it quite clear that after the collapse started that the lower floors had no chance of holding the weight of the falling upper floors in neither static or dynamic loading conditions.

[psikeyhackr]

Collapse initiation only. Do you understand this?
.
Yeah, it's their mealy mouthed crap for saying they can't explain it.

Collapse was not so ideal.
.
Are you trying to say the top portion could come straight down without the upper core hitting the lower core?

psik

[Grizzly Bear]

.Yeah, it's their mealy mouthed crap
Don't blame them for your inability to read properly. As such I have no need to address the rest of this sentence.

Are you trying to say the top portion could come straight down without the upper core hitting the lower core?
It may be news to you, but when the WTC collapses initiated the columns were no longer vertically aligned. Once the first column connections snapped it was done being "column to column," regardless of which there's little comparison to be drawn between the towers and this flour facotry collapse to begin with.

EDIT: Ah forget... psikeyhackr'a like one of those automated bots... post the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over..........................................

[jaydeehess]

.
That is what I was talking about. When the core of the top falling portion came down on the lower stationary portion of the core those beams had to impact. It is not like the columns could just go between each other.


.
NIST has already said that pancaking didn't happen.

Is that too hard for you too understand?

I was not talking about something coming down on a floor. I was talking about core on core impact.

psik

Please illustrate to me how the upper core could impact on the lower core such that the impact will be efficiently transfered to the columns. The BEAMS are simply not and never are designed to withstand such an impact and mass loading. PERIOD.
For instance, given that the upper section's columns are all bent or sagged off center just exactly how do they again line up after falling next to each other for 10 feet? Inother words, in reference to this;
It is not like the columns could just go between each other

Why not?


IIRC NIST said that it was not a complete pancaking or that pancaking was only part of the collapse. Perhaps you'd like to show the original NIST quote?

[jaydeehess]

ROFLMAO!!!

That is funny as Hell!

But everybody knows Turkish steel is so much better than American steel.

psik
.
The Turkish building rolling over and the collapse of WTC1 are not about fire. Supposedly fire started the collapse but after that it is supposedly falling mass crushing mass below while accelerating of course. ROFL But then we aren't told the distribution of steel.

The collapse ain't about fire. It must be that crappy American steel. :D

psik

How about getting back to the OP.

How is it that this Turkish botched demolition supports the TM view of the towers again there psky?

One, a shorter narrower concrete structure, the other, the tallest steel office building on earth at the time.

[Justin39640]

.

Are you trying to say the top portion could come straight down without the upper core hitting the lower core?

psik

nope it looks like it cant
http://bigrosebang.com/site1074.jpg
looks like something hit the core pretty good at the top there

im sure some of what did that damage was parts of the upper core

[psikeyhackr]

How about getting back to the OP.

How is it that this Turkish botched demolition supports the TM view of the towers again there psky?

One, a shorter narrower concrete structure, the other, the tallest steel office building on earth at the time.
.
It shows how strong and rigid properly designed buildings are and how ridiculous it is to think the top 10% of the north tower could come straight down and crush the rest in less than 18 seconds. And that is why not being told the distribution of steel and concrete is also utterly ridiculous.

psik

[DGM]

.
It shows how strong and rigid properly designed buildings are and how ridiculous it is to think the top 10% of the north tower could come straight down and crush the rest in less than 18 seconds.

And if you had a clue you would know that is not what happened.
And that is why not being told the distribution of steel and concrete is also utterly ridiculous.

psik

And why would you think that this information is being withheld?

[twinstead]

.
It shows how strong and rigid properly designed buildings are and how ridiculous it is to think the top 10% of the north tower could come straight down and crush the rest in less than 18 seconds. And that is why not being told the distribution of steel and concrete is also utterly ridiculous.

psik


Do you honestly not understand that buildings are built in different ways and may fail in different ways?

[psikeyhackr]

Do you honestly not understand that buildings are built in different ways and may fail in different ways?
.
Do you honestly not understand that when mass A hits Mass B that the resulting velocity is affected by the quantities of the both masses? So shouldn't we know how the mass was distributed all of the way down the tower? 100,000 tons of that mass was steel which had to get stronger and therefore heavier all of the way down. The falling portion had to be just as crushable as what was below so how could 14 stories from above crush 95 lower stories of the north tower in less than 18 seconds?

Sure, if you just BELIEVE IT then you don't need data. Like the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels.

psik

[beachnut]

.
Do you honestly not understand that when mass A hits Mass B that the resulting velocity is affected by the quantities of the both masses? So shouldn't we know how the mass was distributed all of the way down the tower? 100,000 tons of that mass was steel which had to get stronger and therefore heavier all of the way down. The falling portion had to be just as crushable as what was below so how could 14 stories from above crush 95 lower stories of the north tower in less than 18 seconds?

Sure, if you just BELIEVE IT then you don't need data. Like the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels.

psik

This is funny stuff! You can do the masses anyway you want and the fall times are still in the ball park which is why you have no clue what a model is or how to use models; proof is your toothpick washer failure video. At least you publish your failures because you have no clue your model failed.

Failure in physics due to failure to do the physics.

Take an average mass per floor, the same for 110 floors, and run the collapse time you get 12.081 seconds.

Take a weight of each floor from the bottom at 4,751,000 linearly decreasing to 500,000 at the top and you get 13.93 seconds.

Crushing the tower in less than 18 seconds no matter how the mass is reasonably distributed. Got physics?

The Turkish building was totaled and very small compared to the WTC so there is nothing to compare.

[TruthersLie]

. (snip)

Sure, if you just BELIEVE IT then you don't need data. psik

Thank you for outlining the basic premise of the twoof movement.

Which is why you all believe in no planes, thermite, cd explosions, no jet at the pentagon, no jet at shanksville (pick and choose you own woo).

[twinstead]

.
Do you honestly not understand that when mass A hits Mass B that the resulting velocity is affected by the quantities of the both masses? So shouldn't we know how the mass was distributed all of the way down the tower? 100,000 tons of that mass was steel which had to get stronger and therefore heavier all of the way down. The falling portion had to be just as crushable as what was below so how could 14 stories from above crush 95 lower stories of the north tower in less than 18 seconds?

Sure, if you just BELIEVE IT then you don't need data. Like the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels.

psik

No, I just don't believe YOU. I'll take the consensus of the world's scientific and engineering groups over just some dude on the internet, thank you. That may be good enough for you, but I'd like a second opinion.

[Grizzly Bear]

.
Do you honestly not understand that when mass A hits Mass B that the resulting velocity is affected by the quantities of the both masses?
One object was in motion, and the other was fixed to the ground. VF = 0 m/s

The falling portion had to be just as crushable as what was below so how could 14 stories from above crush 95 lower stories of the north tower
The "distribution of mass" isn't really relevant to this as much as was the eccentric loading. How can I demonstrate this? It's demonstrated by the collapse initiation:

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4719/tilt.png

Once it was off the vertical that was it.... The building had barely moved, yet when it began to buckle in one area the rotation distorted other columns and they snapped. Anyone suggesting that the same be the case for the flour factory or vice versa is out of their right mind.

[psikeyhackr]

One object was in motion, and the other was fixed to the ground. VF = 0 m/s

The "distribution of mass" isn't really relevant to this as much as was the eccentric loading. How can I demonstrate this? It's demonstrated by the collapse initiation:.
.
The distribution of mass is important because that would limit the possible downward acceleration assuming the falling mass had to crush what was below. Here is a mathematical demonstration from 64 feet.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.msg251656#msg251656

Now that picture shows a very interesting moment in this incident. Here is the video:

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

Now that is 56 minutes after impact and 52 minutes after the oscillation from impact died down. Those perimeter columns are 3' 4" center to center and it looks like the the bottom of that upper broken portion moved horizontally at least 20 feet. Now if the impact of the plane only moved it 14 inches then how did gravity and fire make it move that far horizontally that quickly? That video is some of the best evidence that something else had to be involved in the destruction of that building.

But if we don't know the distribution of mass how can we figure out how much energy it took to make the top rotate like that?

psik

[tsig]

.


But if we don't know the distribution of mass how can we figure out how much energy it took to make the top rotate like that?

psik
How did you? You must have to conclude it was impossible.

[psikeyhackr]

How did you? You must have to conclude it was impossible.
.
Because skyscrapers must get stronger toward the bottom because they must support more weight therefore more steel is required to make them stronger therefore they must be bottom heavy. So how does a lighter mass accelerate a heavier mass while breaking the supports holding up the mass. And do all of that in less than double the free fall time from the top. I didn't and still don't have the properly detailed information but that principle mus apply to all skyscrapers

The worst that should have happened was the top falling down the side.

People make a big deal of how heavy the top 14 stories of the north tower were but every 14 stories lower had to be heavier then the 14 stories above so velocity would be lost in bending and dislocating supports but also due to conservation of momentum.

So something else had to take out the supports. So as far as I am concerned the OCT believers must prove that a NORMAL AIRLINER could destroy the buildings. And knowing the distribution of steel and concrete is necessary to even start doing that.

So how did the broken portion of the south tower move 20 feet sideways 52 minutes after impact when it only moved 14 inches on impact? I have never heard of gravity and fires pulling sideways.

We could see the construction of the Sears Tower from campus when I was in college and my pledge father was an architect. So there was lots of talk about skyscrapers in the frat. The standard joke was that, "architects took funny physics and funny math."

psik

[jaydeehess]

.
It shows how strong and rigid properly designed buildings are and how ridiculous it is to think the top 10% of the north tower could come straight down and crush the rest in less than 18 seconds. And that is why not being told the distribution of steel and concrete is also utterly ridiculous.

psik

Actually it illustrates the folly of comparing two completely differently designed structures that were built for completly different uses, with completely different materials.

The Winnipeg stadium was brought down a few years ago. This CONCRETE structure also failed to break up when its charges were set off.
It was a total of 5 storeys high.

[jaydeehess]

.
Do you honestly not understand that when mass A hits Mass B that the resulting velocity is affected by the quantities of the both masses? So shouldn't we know how the mass was distributed all of the way down the tower? 100,000 tons of that mass was steel which had to get stronger and therefore heavier all of the way down. The falling portion had to be just as crushable as what was below so how could 14 stories from above crush 95 lower stories of the north tower in less than 18 seconds?

Sure, if you just BELIEVE IT then you don't need data. Like the quantities and weights of the exterior wall panels.

psik
Each Floor all the way up was pretty much identical to all of the others. THE ONLY difference was the columns. The floor truses, and on a few floors, beams, and the intercore beams were all the same all the up. Of course they were since a single floor only has to transfer its own weight to the columns no matter where in the structure it is. But the whole structure's integrity relies on the core to perimeter connections of trusses/beams. The columns can only remain upright with the bracing supplied by the trusses/ beams from core to perimeter. The core itself cannot stand alone either even though it does have beams between its columns(all at right angles and horizontal - i.e. no diagonal bracing)


It does not need to CRUSH the columns or structural components of the building in order to collapse. It just needs to fail the joints, welds, bolts, truss seats.

Trying to make this a simplistic inelastic collison between two masses is simply ridiculous.

[triforcharity]

funny how careful placement of demolition charges fails to bring down a 100 year old Turkish building, but a few random fires and a couple nicks takes the WTC right down into its own footprint.

Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Lets see, 100, not quite, more like 80, but that is a moot point.

Building in Turkey=CONCRETE!! MUCH STRONGER in relation to fire than STEEL!! WTC=STEEL FRAMED BUILDING!!!

Der.

[sylvan8798]

funny how careful placement of demolition charges fails to bring down a 100 year old Turkish building, but a few random fires and a couple nicks takes the WTC right down into its own footprint.

Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Your definition of "nicks" and mine must be worlds apart.

[jaydeehess]

.
Because skyscrapers must get stronger toward the bottom because they must support more weight therefore more steel is required to make them stronger therefore they must be bottom heavy.

Once again, the columns REQUIRE the bracing supplied by the floor systems in order to resist buckling. EVERY SINGLE floor is pretty much identical in construction all the way up the building. Therefore is requires pretty much the same amount of energy to fail the floor to column seats all the way up the building and when one loses several floors in a row then one loses the structural system that keeps the columns straight.

So how does a lighter mass accelerate a heavier mass while breaking the supports holding up the mass The heavier mass accellerated? I see the lower section staying put as its lateral support is stripped away and then the columns succumbing to the inherent instability of long columns.
And do all of that in less than double the free fall time from the top. I didn't and still don't have the properly detailed information but that principle mus apply to all skyscrapers

Less that 100% more time than free fall? So tell me is that the number you pick out of,,,,um ,,,, thin air,,,, below which the collapse is to be dubbed suspicious?
The worst that should have happened was the top falling down the side.

So you believe that the columns should have remained straight as the upper section tilted, that the connections that were being stressed as the upper section tilted should have behaved as an utterly solid structure so as to allow the upper section to continue its tilt until it was horizontal. Is that a good description of what you envision?

People make a big deal of how heavy the top 14 stories of the north tower were but every 14 stories lower had to be heavier then the 14 stories above so velocity would be lost in bending and dislocating supports but also due to conservation of momentum.

The monentum transfer need only fail the truss/beam seats. The columns cannot survive on their own.

So something else had to take out the supports. So as far as I am concerned the OCT believers must prove that a NORMAL AIRLINER could destroy the buildings. And knowing the distribution of steel and concrete is necessary to even start doing that.
Concrete is easy. It formed only the floor pans and thus was nothing more than a stiffener to the floor space and, as the floors failed, dynamic weight loading on anything it hit which would mostly be the next floor down.
As I keep saying one need only understand that each floor is designed to transfer the weight and dynamic loading that would be expected to occur on ONE floor and when a dozen times (Bazant calculated 30 times) that design load is thrust on a floor then the floor fails and sends its mass, and the mass that failed it, to the floor below. The columns of the falling mass are along for the ride spearing down through the floors. Your beams between the core columns will be hit by the upper section core columns ad will also fal or be severely damaged if hit by those columns. The inrercore floorspace will also be loaded with the concrete and steel debris from above, the core structure is too slender(in engineering terms) to support itself on its own AND it has been badly damaged as well. IT FAILS quickly but lagging behind the floor collapse zone.

So how did the broken portion of the south tower move 20 feet sideways 52 minutes after impact when it only moved 14 inches on impact? I have never heard of gravity and fires pulling sideways.
It was tilting. Try reading up on Newton's laws of motion.
You tell us then, were rocket motors strapped on the building to make it move sideways?
No, wait, its explosives/thermite that moved the building sideways, is that it? Pray tell how would explosives/thermite be utilised to accomplish this?

[jaydeehess]

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4719/tilt.png

Demonstrates quite well that the upper section columns are not lined up with the lower section columns. So yes psky they did fall between each other.

[fitzgibbon]

.
It shows how strong and rigid properly designed buildings are and how ridiculous it is to think the top 10% of the north tower could come straight down and crush the rest in less than 18 seconds.

You're comparing an apple to a gorilla. In case you hadn't read the thread, the Turkish building was a flour factory. Like a grain silo, both structures are prone to explosion due to grain dust, etc. in the interior air igniting. Ergo, both silos and flour mills (and other similar structures I'm sure) are over-strengthened and overbuilt so that any explosion will be contained by the structure. That's why the building rolled.

Are you suggesting that the WTC should've rolled?

[psikeyhackr]

You're comparing an apple to a gorilla. In case you hadn't read the thread, the Turkish building was a flour factory. Like a grain silo, both structures are prone to explosion due to grain dust, etc. in the interior air igniting. Ergo, both silos and flour mills (and other similar structures I'm sure) are over-strengthened and overbuilt so that any explosion will be contained by the structure. That's why the building rolled.

Are you suggesting that the WTC should've rolled?
.
Are you suggesting that the Turkish building could have supported 20, 30, 40 or 50 stories?

The supposed collapse of the WTC would had to have destroyed the building from the direction from which it was designed to be the strongest.

psik

[Sam.I.Am]

.
Are you suggesting that the Turkish building could have supported 20, 30, 40 or 50 stories?

The supposed collapse of the WTC would had to have destroyed the building from the direction from which it was designed to be the strongest.

psik

It was solid reinforced concrete. There are plenty (http://www.studyof911.com/video/files/dakota_demolition.mov) of examples of buildings constructed in that manner not breaking apart when a steel structure would've.

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8650/fallover1174148.jpg

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8468/oopsbuilding57821246376.jpg

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8158/09sta3til1898462.jpg

[psikeyhackr]

It was solid reinforced concrete. There are plenty of examples of buildings constructed in that manner not breaking apart when a steel structure would've.
.
And what was the concrete reinforced with?

They couldn't have been liquid reinforced concrete. :D

psik

[Dave Rogers]

.
And what was the concrete reinforced with?

They couldn't have been liquid reinforced concrete. :D

psik

Would somebody like to remind me what the advantages of reinforced concrete are? Something about having the compressive strength of concrete combined with the tensile strength of steel? And could somebody remind me whether it's the compressive or the tensile strength that acts to resist crushing forces? Just like psikeyhackr, I seem to have forgotten all this rather fundamental stuff.

Dave

[psikeyhackr]

Would somebody like to remind me what the advantages of reinforced concrete are? Something about having the compressive strength of concrete combined with the tensile strength of steel? And could somebody remind me whether it's the compressive or the tensile strength that acts to resist crushing forces? Just like psikeyhackr, I seem to have forgotten all this rather fundamental stuff.

Dave
.
Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up skyscrapers?

Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up the Golden Gate Bridge? The cables on the bridge are made of what?

psik

[BigAl]

.
Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up skyscrapers?

Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up the Golden Gate Bridge? The cables on the bridge are made of what?

psik

Your point?

Concrete isn't used as a structural component in very tall buildings.

[Dave Rogers]

Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up skyscrapers?

Compressive in the vertical supports, both in horizontal components. It's compressive strength - you know, the one that concrete is better in - that resists crush-down. Therefore, a concrete building, even reinforced with steel, would be expected to resist crush-down better than a steel one.

Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up the Golden Gate Bridge? The cables on the bridge are made of what?

Is this an entry for most laughably irrelevant comment made by a truther, is your sarcasm meter broken, or did you have a point?

Dave

[A W Smith]

.
Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up skyscrapers?

Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up the Golden Gate Bridge? The cables on the bridge are made of what?

psik

Whats the total weight of the golden gate bridge resting on psikeyhackr?


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/ggbridge2-28.jpg

[sylvan8798]

Your point?

Concrete isn't used as a structural component in very tall buildings.

It has been in more recent times, when lighter weight concretes have been developed. Before that, the amount of concrete required for the lower floors would have taken up too much room to make it economical. If your whole space is taken up by concrete columns, you haven't gained much by building UP. As I recall, there are several concrete skyscrapers now including the Petronas towers.

[sylvan8798]

.


Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up the Golden Gate Bridge? The cables on the bridge are made of what?

psik

Umm, ....both? BTW, you can't push a rope. What is your point?

[BigAl]

It has been in more recent times, when lighter weight concretes have been developed. Before that, the amount of concrete required for the lower floors would have taken up too much room to make it economical. If your whole space is taken up by concrete columns, you haven't gained much by building UP. As I recall, there are several concrete skyscrapers now including the Petronas towers.

Thanks.

[sylvan8798]

Compressive in the vertical supports, both in horizontal components. It's compressive strength - you know, the one that concrete is better in - that resists crush-down. Therefore, a concrete building, even reinforced with steel, would be expected to resist crush-down better than a steel one.

Dave

Another thing about reinforced concrete - it's not so good in tension, that's why the steel is there. But if an unanticipated tensile force is applied to the structure at an area with little or no steel, it will simply crack and come apart, which is one of the reasons why buildings can tip over while staying otherwise mostly intact.

The tensile force breaks the concrete in an area where there isn't a lot of steel reinforcement, because that area didn't NEED it when it was standing. A steel structure would behave differently under the SAME circumstances because steel behaves differently than concrete and is very similar in tension and compression.

Which is why comparing a steel framed building to a concrete one is just a display of ignorance, IMHO.

[twinstead]

Which is why comparing a steel framed building to a concrete one is just a display of ignorance, IMHO.

Truthers? Displaying ignorance? I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED I say!

[psikeyhackr]

Is this an entry for most laughably irrelevant comment made by a truther, is your sarcasm meter broken, or did you have a point?
.
You wrote this:

Would somebody like to remind me what the advantages of reinforced concrete are? Something about having the compressive strength of concrete combined with the tensile strength of steel? And could somebody remind me whether it's the compressive or the tensile strength that acts to resist crushing forces? Just like psikeyhackr, I seem to have forgotten all this rather fundamental stuff.

Dave
.
I was pointing out that steel has both compressive and tensile strength. Some people seem to be implying that the concrete in the Turkish building is superior to steel. Even though it was supposedly "reinforced" concrete. Although I don't see how they know so much about the construction of that building.

psik

[Grizzly Bear]

I scanned and uploaded this into a PDF for all the "truthers" that haven't bothered to look up concrete reinforcement and materiality:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3351/concrete.pdf

As a bonus readers will also learn that "thermal expansion" isn't a new "invented" concept in design.

[Sam.I.Am]

Even though it was supposedly "reinforced" concrete. Although I don't see how they know so much about the construction of that building.

psik

1) You can see some of the stubs of rebar protruding from the hole that they cut into the building, as well as just as it flips on it's roof but before the dust catches up to the building and obscures it there is protruding steel.

2) All modern concrete structures of any substance have reinforcing steel of some type. It's a far reach to assume otherwise.

[alienentity]

I scanned and uploaded this into a PDF for all the "truthers" that haven't bothered to look up concrete reinforcement and materiality:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3351/concrete.pdf

As a bonus readers will also learn that "thermal expansion" isn't a new "invented" concept in design.

Happy B'day!

[Justin39640]

It has been in more recent times, when lighter weight concretes have been developed. Before that, the amount of concrete required for the lower floors would have taken up too much room to make it economical. If your whole space is taken up by concrete columns, you haven't gained much by building UP. As I recall, there are several concrete skyscrapers now including the Petronas towers.

aren't the cores of both the new WTC7 and the freedom tower concrete?

my cousins husband is working on the tower he was talkin about it to me a few weeks ago

ETA: happy bday GB

[Grizzly Bear]

Happy B'day!

ETA: happy bday GB


Thankyou! :D

[Dave Rogers]

I was pointing out that steel has both compressive and tensile strength. Some people seem to be implying that the concrete in the Turkish building is superior to steel. Even though it was supposedly "reinforced" concrete.

And I was using sarcasm to point out that, although steel has compressive strength, concrete is stronger in compression and hence would be expected to be more resistant to crush-down; and that the primary function of reinforcing bars in concrete is to provide a significant increase in tensile strength without significantly degrading the compressive strength. Since concrete also doesn't fail by buckling, it seems clear that the properties of a reinforced concrete structure are not particularly helpful in predicting the properties of a steel structure.

Dave

[jaydeehess]

.

I was pointing out that steel has both compressive and tensile strength. Some people seem to be implying that the concrete in the Turkish building is superior to steel. Even though it was supposedly "reinforced" concrete. Although I don't see how they know so much about the construction of that building.

psik

Even a wet noodle has both compressive and tensile strength, just not a lot of either.

Both steel and concrete have both compressive and tensile strength it just so happens that concrete has a greater compressive strength than steel while steel has better tensile strength than concrete and thus , in order to increse tensile strength and resistance therefore to buckling forces, concrete is reienforced with steel rods.

Are we finished with Engineering 101 for psky yet?

[jaydeehess]

.
Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up skyscrapers?
Depends on which structural member one is concerned with.

The columns were under compression. They resisted the sway of the building by the interaction of basically all structural systems(floors, trusses and both perimeter and core columns) which is shear and tension force.
The floor trusses and beams were under tension along their length but under compression at their seats at the columns.
The truss and beam seats were in a cantilever arrangement which means they were taking both compressive and tensile/shearing forces.

ONCE AGAIN though, the columns simply cannot stand by themselves without the bracing between core and perimeter via the floor trusses. They will buckle due to the inherent instability of long columns. It would not matter what their compressive strength is. Long columns require bracing in order to make use of their compressive strength.

Is it compressive strength or tensile strength that holds up the Golden Gate Bridge? The cables on the bridge are made of what?

psik

As irrellevent as comparing a reinforced concrete structure to a steel, long span building is, you go one further and now want to compare a steel suspension strucure to a steel long span building.

The cables are in tension. The towers are in compression. The towers bases are taking the greatest compressive force in the entire structure and are made of what?

[psikeyhackr]

I scanned and uploaded this into a PDF for all the "truthers" that haven't bothered to look up concrete reinforcement and materiality:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3351/concrete.pdf

As a bonus readers will also learn that "thermal expansion" isn't a new "invented" concept in design.
.
Thanks GB. I had gone looking for that kind of information but yours is presented more succinctly than anything I found. But when I got back I found I had been suspended.

Hi

When your current 1 month suspension comes to an end your account will be on probation for a period of 3 months. (Ends 13th December 2009.)

This means that if you again breach Rule 11 during your probation period you will be immediately and without further warning, permanently banned from the Forum.


Regards

Darat
JREF Forum Admin
.
So the tensile and compressive strength of steel are the same at 22,000 psi.

And the compressive strength of concrete is 1350 psi.

So steel is 16 times as strong as concrete but since it is more dense it is 4.8 times as strong per weight.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!

psik

[DGM]

.
Thanks GB. I had gone looking for that kind of information but yours is presented more succinctly than anything I found. But when I got back I found I had been suspended.


.
So the tensile and compressive strength of steel are the same at 22,000 psi.

And the compressive strength of concrete is 1350 psi.

So steel is 16 times as strong as concrete but since it is more dense it is 4.8 times as strong per weight.

SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!!

psik
And how does heat fall into your equation?