| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | What you have always failed to do is explain why this would act to halt its angular rotation, "suddenly" according to you now. Are you now going to attempt an explanation (which should be good for a laugh!) or are you going to fall back on your usual response of saying you have previously explained? |
Bushwacker,
This is what I said on Tuesday 13th November at 12.16am.
| James C wrote: | I'll repeat, the upper section did not drop onto the lower section.
Secondly, Newton's 1st law explains that a rotating body will continue to rotate unless acted upon by a force (torque). Clearly in this case that force came from the weight of the upper section itself which was heavier at the bottom than at the top (the steel structure was lighter at the top) and as it suddenly became free from the building directly below it, which was now falling away, that weight came into play to act in the counter direction.
It's so simple and yet you cannot see it. |
I would say that this constitutes an explantion and if you'd care to check you'd confirm that it was posted when I said it was. Why do you continue to ignore this and which why do you continue to lie? |
Of course this does not constitute an explanation because, as I said at the time, you have totally failed to explain how the torque necessary to stop the rotation came from gravity, acting only in a vertical direction, gravity being the only force acting on the upper section in your imaginary scenario of the upper section becoming free of the lower. I am not surprised you cannot answer this, because there is no answer, it could not happen. Your avoidance of this point through all your posts shows very clearly that you know that perfectly well, and your bluster cuts no ice at all.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you'd now care to tell me why the top of the tower stopped rotating and what caused the loss of fulcrum given that the weight of the upper section was shifting away from it? Stop your silly floundering and get on with it. |
It is very simple in the real world, rather than your imaginary one, and there was no loss of fulcrum. The tower gave way on one side of the fire floor, not on the other. The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper. It is very straightforward and follows the laws of physics, unlike your imaginary process. I have explained all that before, a shame you are too blinkered to grasp it. |
Oh dear, so gravity doesn't act on the part of the tower which is released to fall freely after the fulcrum is lost? So if a fulcrum is pulled from any rotating body, say a see saw, you are saying that gravity does not act on the part of the see saw which once sat on that fulcrum and so doesn't cause a change in the rotation in anyway? Please don't tell me that is what you are saying.
What makes it worse is how you can claim the upper section of the south tower rested on a fulcrum, which clearly was the core, and yet when it rotated and fell onto the outer edges of the tower, the facade and floors were able to offer serious restance! Good god, that part of the structure must have been the strongest in history what with there only being a 14" steel lattice structure, i.e. the facade, to offer any resistance to vertical loading. So your claim that the outer edge of the south tower, which comprised only a thin facade and lots of horizontal floors of lightweight steel trusses and screed, was capable of stopping the rotation of what was such a massive body is laughable in the extreme. Was there some sort of supporting structure to the facade and floors which I am not aware of. Remember, the core took the weight of the building, the facade withstood lateral loads (even if it was self-supporting and an independent structure) and the floors spanned between the two.
0/10 Try again. Stop making it up based on your beliefs and look again at how the building was actually constructed. |
Oh dear, oh dear, you clearly do not even understand how the building worked! The perimeter columns, which you call the facade, shared the gravity load with the core columns. You see, the floors were supported on trusses which spanned between the core and the perimeter so their weight was shared between the two sets of columns, there would be no way the core could take all their weight unless they were cantilevered out from it, which they were not. Understand? You were never really an architect, were you?
Of course gravity acts on a rotating structure, if the fulcrum vanishes. It acts in a vertical direction through the centre of gravity. It does not act to create a torque to stop its rotation. If you really think it does, explain how the torque is created. You have been waffling and blustering about this for a month, it is more than time for you to explain how you imagine the torque is created.
I'll give you a start, "Gravity acts vertically through the centre of gravity of an object. We are considering the hypothetical case of the upper section of the WTC South tower becoming free in space, so the only forces acting on it are gravity and a miniscule amount of air resistance which we can ignore in the context of its huge mass. These upper stories were rotating, and we postulate that this rotation halted suddenly. This would require enormous torque, and the only force then acting on the upper section was gravity. Gravity, acting vertically, was tranformed into torque by.............................." All you have to do is fill in the dots. Go ahead! |
The facade was only 14 inches thick and the floors were horizontal elements with just air between them!!!!! Are you saying the facade could support the core as well? 
Can you prove the facade would have been strong enough to cope with such momentum?
I never knew weekends could start with such a laugh.
|
Bluster away, if it makes you happy. It is clear that you are totally out of your depth, understanding neither physics nor building construction. You have a theory you cannot support, based on entirely imaginary physical principles that you cannot explain. Your only recourse is bluster, avoidance and misrepresentation - of course I did not say the perimeter could support the core. Is English comprehension really so difficult for you?
I'll make it very simple for you:
1. The perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core, as any research will show. Your idea that the core took all the gravity load is quite wrong.
2. Gravity does not act to stop the spin of a rotating free-falling object. Your idea that it does is quite wrong. |
Yes, the facade shared the loading of the floors as well as distributing lateral wind loading. They didn't take any weight of the core which was considerably more massive nor were they designed to take any dynamic loading other than wind. They were also extremely slender being only 14 inches in square, hollow section constructed of steel which became thinner with increases in height. I'll repeat, they were only 14 inches thick and hollow! So to say the facade would have been able to stop the rotation of thousands of tonnes of moving building is quite preposterous.
As for your second silly comment, perhaps you'd care to answer the question I posed about the see-saw above. If you do then I'll think you will find that the rotation will change, either stop or slow, once the rising part of the see-saw is under direct influence of gravity due to the loss of the fulcrum. You ignore that we are talking about an object resting on a fulcrum, initally at least, not a rotating free falling object.
This discussion has proved once and for all that you have absolutely no grasp of what principles are involved here. Alex_V must be pretty ashamed of you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bluster, bluster, and more bluster. you are out of your depth and sinking fast. Gravity cannot act to stop the rotation of a free-falling rotating object, whether it is a see-saw, a ball, a bottle or the top half of a skyscraper, can it? You will feel better if you simply admit you were wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Bluster, bluster, and more bluster. you are out of your depth and sinking fast. Gravity cannot act to stop the rotation of a free-falling rotating object, whether it is a see-saw, a ball, a bottle or the top half of a skyscraper, can it? You will feel better if you simply admit you were wrong. |
How many times do I have to explain to you, it was not free-falling during initial rotation because part of the upper section was resting on the fulcrum and so was unable to move!
Remember, 14 inches thick. Go away and thick about that then revise your answer. Better still, just go away. I would if I'd made such a serious fool of myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Bluster, bluster, and more bluster. you are out of your depth and sinking fast. Gravity cannot act to stop the rotation of a free-falling rotating object, whether it is a see-saw, a ball, a bottle or the top half of a skyscraper, can it? You will feel better if you simply admit you were wrong. |
How many times do I have to explain to you, it was not free-falling during initial rotation!
Remember, 14 inches thick. Go away and thick about that then revise your answer. Better still, just go away. |
Your claim, apparently, was that the fulcrum on which it was rotating was destroyed by explosives. Then it was free-falling. Then it suddenly stopped rotating due to some mysterious action of gravity producing a torque to stop it. Are you changing your story now? Do be clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Bluster, bluster, and more bluster. you are out of your depth and sinking fast. Gravity cannot act to stop the rotation of a free-falling rotating object, whether it is a see-saw, a ball, a bottle or the top half of a skyscraper, can it? You will feel better if you simply admit you were wrong. |
How many times do I have to explain to you, it was not free-falling during initial rotation!
Remember, 14 inches thick. Go away and thick about that then revise your answer. Better still, just go away. |
Your claim, apparently, was that the fulcrum on which it was rotating was destroyed by explosives. Then it was free-falling. Then it suddenly stopped rotating due to some mysterious action of gravity producing a torque to stop it. Are you changing your story now? Do be clear. |
I have made myself very clear as well you know. Stop trying to wriggle your way out. Just admit defeat.
Please address the issue of the thickness of facade, we are all waiting for your revised answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Bluster, bluster, and more bluster. you are out of your depth and sinking fast. Gravity cannot act to stop the rotation of a free-falling rotating object, whether it is a see-saw, a ball, a bottle or the top half of a skyscraper, can it? You will feel better if you simply admit you were wrong. |
How many times do I have to explain to you, it was not free-falling during initial rotation!
Remember, 14 inches thick. Go away and thick about that then revise your answer. Better still, just go away. |
Your claim, apparently, was that the fulcrum on which it was rotating was destroyed by explosives. Then it was free-falling. Then it suddenly stopped rotating due to some mysterious action of gravity producing a torque to stop it. Are you changing your story now? Do be clear. |
I have made myself very clear as well you know. Stop trying to wriggle your way out. Just admit defeat.
Please address the issue of the thickness of facade, we are all waiting for your revised answer. |
Ah, back to pretending you have already explained!
As you know, you haven't.
Explain how you believe gravity exerts a torque to stop the spin of a free-falling rotating object or admit you are wrong.
Once you have done that, we can get back to what really happened, not before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Bluster, bluster, and more bluster. you are out of your depth and sinking fast. Gravity cannot act to stop the rotation of a free-falling rotating object, whether it is a see-saw, a ball, a bottle or the top half of a skyscraper, can it? You will feel better if you simply admit you were wrong. |
How many times do I have to explain to you, it was not free-falling during initial rotation!
Remember, 14 inches thick. Go away and thick about that then revise your answer. Better still, just go away. |
Your claim, apparently, was that the fulcrum on which it was rotating was destroyed by explosives. Then it was free-falling. Then it suddenly stopped rotating due to some mysterious action of gravity producing a torque to stop it. Are you changing your story now? Do be clear. |
I have made myself very clear as well you know. Stop trying to wriggle your way out. Just admit defeat.
Please address the issue of the thickness of facade, we are all waiting for your revised answer. |
Ah, back to pretending you have already explained!
As you know, you haven't.
Explain how you believe gravity exerts a torque to stop the spin of a free-falling rotating object or admit you are wrong.
Once you have done that, we can get back to what really happened, not before. |
Still avoiding my question I see!
OK, let's look at this torque business, not that it helps you to explain your theory of course.
I'd suggest you look up whether gravity can exert a torque or not. I think you'll soon find that it can otherwise a see-saw would never work. Torque is just another name for rotational force and where the centre of gravity is no longer aligned above a common point or fulcrum then gravity exerts a force which causes rotation, i.e. torque.
But the issue lies with the centre of gravity which can be translated as the average location of the weight of an object. So it is not beyond reason to argue that the centre of gravity of the upper section was lower down rather than higher up, i.e. more towards the base of the section, when you consider the construction of the tower increased in size and mass from top to bottom. Therefore the rotation started because instability was encountered on one side as the first explosives went off to reveal the weaknesses in support created by the fire and impact damage; weaknesses which may or may not have caused some form of collapse later on. The upper section then started to pivot and rotate against a fulcrum (the core). Now if we follow that the facade would have offered no further resistance, being that it was incredibly lightweight and slender (only 14 inches wide remember) when compared to the upper portion of the tower then it should just have continued to rotate and ultimately fall off. After all, the core, now acting as the fulcrum in this case, had been supporting the upper section quite happily for 30 years and as there was no dynamic load pushing down on it, that is to say, the upper section wasn't falling onto it but remained resting on the core at that moment in time there is no reason to assume it would suddenly have fallen to pieces? But the rotation did almost stop and the upper section just fell into the crumbling mass of tower collapsing below it. So I would argue that the rotation decelerated because the part of the upper section which had once been joined to the core had suddenly lost that connection very rapidly due to explosives now going off further down the tower and so gravity now exerted its torque on that part of the section also in the same way that it was exerting its force at the top. And because the centre of gravity was lower, gravity was able to exert a great counter force the other way to rapidly slow the rotation. In ship construction this centre of gravity is called the metacentric centre and ship designers use it to ensure gravity will always exert a counter torque to a boat to maintain its upright position even if it starts to rotate. This is similar to my bottle sinking in water analogy several posts ago where a spinning bottle will rotate to fall base end first because its centre of gravity is near that point.
No doubt you'll try and deny this has anything to do with anything but it is a fair and I'd say accurate answer. Just as good as Greenings hypothesis even without the maths which is pointless in his case because the construction of the towers was not conducive to pancaking floors. Even if slightly flawed, it's got to be better than the terrible answer you gave earlier on about the facade being able to stop the rotation of a structure weighing several thousand tons. Would you care to explain or revise that now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, of course gravity can create a torque when a fulcrum is present, as in a see-saw. What you are still failing to do is to justify your belief that it can create a torque in a free-falling object.
You say that the upper section started to rotate "because instability was encountered on one side as the first explosives went off to reveal the weaknesses in support created by the fire and impact damage; weaknesses which may or may not have caused some form of collapse later on." So presumably you accept that the core was damaged on one side to enable that to happen, do you?
You then have the upper section pivoting on the core, presumably the intact side of the core. Since the core is by definition in the core of the building, the upper section pivoting on it would go down on one side, as observed, and naturally up on the other by the same amount, like your famous see-saw. Was a large crack opening up on the opposite side to the collapse observed? No, it was not.
You then, strangely, assume that the core, collapsing on one side to enable the upper section to tilt, still had all its strength, going by your remark that it had been supporting the upper section for 30 years and had no reason to fall to pieces.
Then comes your assumption that "the part of the upper section which had once been joined to the core had suddenly lost that connection very rapidly due to explosives now going off further down the tower" for which of course there is no evidence. If however you were right, you now have the upper section still rotating in freefall.
Now we come to the point where your theory falls apart completely, because the only force acting on the upper section is gravity, acting vertically through the centre of gravity. Talking about ships is quite irrelevant, because then there is another force acting, the buoyancy, and the buoyancy and gravity between them do create a torque which rotates the hull. In the case of the upper section of the tower, there is no buoyancy and no fulcrum, so there is no other force to create a torque. Gravity acting alone simply cannot create a torque, so if you were right the upper section would continue to rotate. This is the point you repeatedly fail to address.
Your statement "gravity now exerted its torque on that part of the section also in the same way that it was exerting its force at the top. And because the centre of gravity was lower, gravity was able to exert a great counter force the other way to rapidly slow the rotation" shows a great confusion of thought. Gravity never acted at the top of the section, it at all times acted through the centre of gravity. When the section began to lean, rotating on part of the inner core acting as a fulcrum, according to you, gravity as at all times acted vertically through the CoG, which was not above the fulcrum. The fulcrum exerted an upwards force, and the two forces acted together to create a torque, rotating the section. If the fulcrum disappeared, the only force left would be gravity, and the torque would disappear as well. However, the section was already rotating, and no torque could be created to stop it.
I shall be out most of tomorrow, so you have plenty of time to think about and try to understand this. I am sure you will in the end, and realise your mistakes. Whether you will admit them is of course another matter altogether. I expect only more bluster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | What you are still failing to do is to justify your belief that it can create a torque in a free-falling object. |
But it wasn't a free falling object as I keep trying to tell you. Although the main weight bearing part of the fulcrum had been lost the upper section was still very much attached to other parts of the building like the floors and facade below it. This is expanded upon below if you dare read that far.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | So presumably you accept that the core was damaged on one side to enable that to happen, do you? |
Yes, but this damage only became critical once the explosives had created further instability. Absence the sounds of explosives there is no other reason to assume this damage would have created further problems.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Then comes your assumption that "the part of the upper section which had once been joined to the core had suddenly lost that connection very rapidly due to explosives now going off further down the tower" for which of course there is no evidence. |
Watch this video discussing the testimony of 118 firefighters. I especially like the sounds of explosives at 6.59 mins just before the south tower collapsed. Care to explain these?
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Talking about ships is quite irrelevant, because then there is another force acting, the buoyancy, and the buoyancy and gravity between them do create a torque which rotates the hull. |
Yes apologies, I failed to mention something which is of course critical and you spoke of when you said "Was a large crack opening up on the opposite side to the collapse observed? No, it was not. " Despite the loss of the weight bearing fulcrum due to the explosives, the upper section was still attached to many other parts of the building. It also had plenty of structure still below it for it to interact with as it fell. These elements all added together to offer resistance and therefore provide the bouyancy needed for gravity to exert its counter force. I hope you are not now going to deny this and go on pretending that the upper section was in absolute free fall unconnected in anyway to the tower below? You only need to observe how the upper section slowed down or appeared to jolt at least once during descent as it clashed with the other parts of the falling building. Mind you, if you care to look at the video again, I think you'll find that not only am I correct about what I say above but that it is also impossible to see whether a crack appeared on the other side of the facade due to the dust cloud thus confirming your analysis to be pure fiction. I also find it intriguing looking at that clip that the facade on the left (and in fact the one on the right if you look carefully), the facade you said supported and therefore stopped the rotation of the upper section, didn't actually fall until after the upper section disappeared from view whereby it rotated outwards. How do you explain that if the upper section was by your account a dynamic load capable of crushing the entire structure below. Did the facades just move out of the way?
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I shall be out most of tomorrow, so you have plenty of time to think about and try to understand this. I am sure you will in the end, and realise your mistakes. Whether you will admit them is of course another matter altogether. I expect only more bluster. |
Thanks for explaining a little about your social life but I really couldn't give a toss. Perhaps when you get back you'd be so kind as to explain your theory of how the facade was capable of stopping the rotation of a dynamic load of several thousand tons yet the more massive and supportive core fell to pieces. Then again it is very clear from the video clip above that this did not happen; the rotation didn't adjust until after it was falling through the building. I notice of course that this is the fourth or fifth time you have avoided answering this question. I wonder why. Don't forget to also answer my questions above the explosives and the facades and if you start talking one more time about free falling objects then I'll just have to ignore you. Reference to the video clips in your answers would be appreciated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, a breakthrough!
Lord be praised, you have finally realised what utter garbage you were talking and retreated from it!
Now instead of imaginary exploseves leaving "the top section with nothing below it at all." we have "the upper section was still attached to many other parts of the building. It also had plenty of structure still below it for it to interact with as it fell."
Yes indeed James, of course it did! Interacting with the structure below it as it fell was what stopped it rotating, as I have been pointing out for the last month. Interacting with the structure below it was what crushed the structure below it as is blindingly obvious.
Of course being the pompous fool you are, you are now pretending that it was me who talked about the upper section having nothing below it all, in other words in freefall, and you are going to ignore me if I speak of it! What a threat, and what a prat you are! Having discovered the idea of buoyancy you are now saying that buoyancy was provided by the lower section, quite unbelievable. Buoyancy relates to liquids, James! Yes, resistance was provided by the lower section, something you denied for so long, but where on earth you think that resistance was applied to enable gravity to stop the rotation remains a mystery, and it would no doubt take take another month to get that out of you. According to you earlier, the core columns were destroyed with explosives, so what is offering resistance, could it be your derided "facade"? Let us have your new story straight, shall we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Answer my questions! What are you scared of?
Your final comment about the facade is utterly comical. Did you not read what I said?
Edit: Your silence is deafening and the desperation in your last post is revealing to all - all those silly ad hominem remarks and focussing in on my figurative use of the term bouyant. Looks like you cannot counter my arguments using basic physics after all, which is what this thread is all about.
What made those explosive noises again - surely that wasn't the sound of a rotating structure?
Did the facade really stop the rotation as you assert? Strange that several storey's of facade below the upper section remained intact until after the upper section had fallen past - looks like all those blasts of dust and smoke weren't signs of the facade being crushed as one might think. In fact, why didn't the collapsing floors pull the facade inward, instead of outward as observed, they were joined together weren't they? Anyone would think the blasts were indicative of something breaking the floor to facade connections.......no, surely not! How does basic physics tally this discrepency or with what you said before which I've included below (my emphasis in bold)?
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I suggest that the core columns were pulled outwards by the sagging trusses, just as the perimeter columns were pulled inwards. The whole top section would then drop, as we observe, not just the perimeter columns and the floors, leaving the core as a spike, stripped bare of the rest of the structure. Once the whole of the top section was falling, including the core, it simply crushed the whole of the lower section complete. Part of the core at the lowest level was indeed so massive that it remained standing momentarily before succumbing. |
And how does the observed collapse answer Newton's 3rd Law? How come the upper section, which was lighter in mass than the structure below it, remained intact for so long as it "crushed" (your term) the building below? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | Answer my questions! What are you scared of?
Your final comment about the facade is utterly comical. Did you not read what I said?
Edit: Your silence is deafening and the desperation in your last post is revealing to all - all those silly ad hominem remarks and focussing in on my figurative use of the term bouyant. Looks like you cannot counter my arguments using basic physics after all, which is what this thread is all about.
What made those explosive noises again - surely that wasn't the sound of a rotating structure?
Did the facade really stop the rotation as you assert? Strange that several storey's of facade below the upper section remained intact until after the upper section had fallen past - looks like all those blasts of dust and smoke weren't signs of the facade being crushed as one might think. In fact, why didn't the collapsing floors pull the facade inward, instead of outward as observed, they were joined together weren't they? Anyone would think the blasts were indicative of something breaking the floor to facade connections.......no, surely not! How does basic physics tally this discrepency or with what you said before which I've included below (my emphasis in bold)?
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I suggest that the core columns were pulled outwards by the sagging trusses, just as the perimeter columns were pulled inwards. The whole top section would then drop, as we observe, not just the perimeter columns and the floors, leaving the core as a spike, stripped bare of the rest of the structure. Once the whole of the top section was falling, including the core, it simply crushed the whole of the lower section complete. Part of the core at the lowest level was indeed so massive that it remained standing momentarily before succumbing. |
And how does the observed collapse answer Newton's 3rd Law? How come the upper section, which was lighter in mass than the structure below it, remained intact for so long as it "crushed" (your term) the building below? |
Give it up James, you are just looking more and more foolish, your inane earlier theory of gravity stopping the rotation of a free-falling upper section is now replaced by an equally incomprehensible version in which the lower section is still blown apart with explosives but mysteriously continues to offer enough resistance to stop the rotation of the upper part. You have demonstrated that you do not know how the buildings were constructed and have no idea of physics involved in their destruction. All you have is a belief that explosives were involved somehow, even though that makes no sense at all.
You really had better think it through again, and come up with something that offers enough resistance to stop the rotation. That should be interesting given that you have already ruled out the perimeter columns as too weak and the core columns as being destroyed by explosives.
I did not say the perimeter columns alone stopped the rotation, that is your invention, what I said was, "It is very simple in the real world, rather than your imaginary one, and there was no loss of fulcrum. The tower gave way on one side of the fire floor, not on the other. The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper. It is very straightforward and follows the laws of physics, unlike your imaginary process. I have explained all that before, a shame you are too blinkered to grasp it." The upper section no doubt hit the fractured core columns on the side that had given way as well as the perimeter columns.
The noise heard on the video you posted is not explosions at all, it is the sound of the steel giving way at the start of the collapse, as should be obvious. It is exactly similar to the sound of other large steel structures giving way, due to overload.
That you should think that the mass of the lower section is relevant to it being destroyed by the upper falling on it demonstrates once again your confusion of thought. The video shows the upper section being destroyed from the bottom up, just as the lower section is being destroyed from the top down, as the upper section falls, crushing it. Newton's third law is of course observed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NIST's supplemental FAQs deal with the question of whether sufficient gravitational energy was present for the collapse to continue, once initiated. LINK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what does all of this prove?
I say the bangs in that clip are explosives, you say they are the sound of a high rise steel building falling to pieces. Can you provide evidence of this sound?
I say the building didn't stop rotating until after it started to fall, you say the left side of the building stopped this motion causing the fulcrum side to collapse and the upper section to fall (although this isn't what is observed in the video evidence nor could the floors and facade have stopped the building rotating and any damaged columns would simply have punched their way through the bottom of the upper section so offering no further resistance to rotation either - i.e. the upper section should have continued to rotate until breaking off completely).
You say the entire building below the upper section was crushed as the core was pulled outwards and the facades pulled inward, I say it wasn't and simple observation will show you how the facades fell away from the tower and were very much intact as they fell.
You use wonderful phrases like 'confusion of thought', 'shame you are too blinkered', and 'as should be obvious' proving you cannot discuss matters with intelligence and dignity which is usually a sign of desperation.
So, to answer my first question above, it is obvious that you cannot categorically explain how the application of basic physics can prove the 'truther's wrong because you are operating on the same belief system you accuse me of using. For everything you say, there is another side to the argument and in fact, in your case, that other side fits more closely with what is observed in the videos.
No doubt you'll continue to peddle your silly theories but as a critic you have proved yourself to be worthless.
Don't forget to post a clip of the sound of a large steel structure giving way. I take it you have such evidence to hand or are you just making another assumption based upon your beliefs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | So what does all of this prove?
I say the bangs in that clip are explosives, you say they are the sound of a high rise steel building falling to pieces. Can you provide evidence of this sound?
I say the building didn't stop rotating until after it started to fall, you say the left side of the building stopped this motion causing the fulcrum side to collapse and the upper section to fall (although this isn't what is observed in the video evidence nor could the floors and facade have stopped the building rotating and any damaged columns would simply have punched their way through the bottom of the upper section so offering no further resistance to rotation either - i.e. the upper section should have continued to rotate until breaking off completely).
You say the entire building below the upper section was crushed as the core was pulled outwards and the facades pulled inward, I say it wasn't and simple observation will show you how the facades fell away from the tower and were very much intact as they fell.
You use wonderful phrases like 'confusion of thought', 'shame you are too blinkered', and 'as should be obvious' proving you cannot discuss matters with intelligence and dignity which is usually a sign of desperation.
So, to answer my first question above, it is obvious that you cannot categorically explain how the application of basic physics can prove the 'truther's wrong because you are operating on the same belief system you accuse me of using. For everything you say, there is another side to the argument and in fact, in your case, that other side fits more closely with what is observed in the videos.
No doubt you'll continue to peddle your silly theories but as a critic you have proved yourself to be worthless.
Don't forget to post a clip of the sound of a large steel structure giving way. I take it you have such evidence to hand or are you just making another assumption based upon your beliefs? |
Yes, I thought you would ignore the difficulty you are in over finding some part of the structure able to provide enough resistance to stop the upper section rotating, since you claim the perimeter columns are too weak and the core columns were destroyed with explosives. That is a real problem you have got yourself in, and rather to do with basic physics, isn't it?
Of course some of the perimeter columns fell outside the building, the collapse was a chaotic affair, not a neat demolition job. The leading edge of the falling upper section clearly went inside the perimeter columns of the lower section, so those columns would be expected to fall outside the building, having assisted in stopping the rotation of the upper section when impacted by the outside of the perimeter columns of the falling upper section.
You seem confused about the purpose of this thread, which was to enable truthers to demonstrate why they believe that basic physics refutes the NIST official collapse theory, which they have failed to do. What you do seem to have achieved is to demonstrate why basic physics refutes the theory that there were explosives in the lower section of the South Tower, so congratulations on that.
You asked for the sound of a large steel structure giving way, so listen to this, the sound of a gigantic crane giving way. Interestingly, witnesses to the event described the noise as explosions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll ignore the first bit of your post - more pointless waffle to contradict your previous assertions.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | You asked for the sound of a large steel structure giving way, so listen to this, the sound of a gigantic crane giving way. Interestingly, witnesses to the event described the noise as explosions |
Erm excuse me but that is a crane not a building and those boom like noises are much further apart in time and don't have the same 'crack' sound like those on the clip I showed you. Besides, the camera and its microphone were only a few metres away from what was an exposed steel structure so the sounds cannot be compared like for like.
Also, notice how the crane rotated and kept on rotating until it hit the building under construction - no collapsing in on itself and no neat pile of individual steel elements.
Did witnesses use the word explosion to describe the booms - what about Lance Wallace, I think he used the word boom?
Is that the best you can do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | I'll ignore the first bit of your post - more pointless waffle to contradict your previous assertions.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | You asked for the sound of a large steel structure giving way, so listen to this, the sound of a gigantic crane giving way. Interestingly, witnesses to the event described the noise as explosions |
Erm excuse me but that is a crane not a building and those boom like noises are much further apart in time and don't have the same 'crack' sound like those on the clip I showed you. Besides, the camera and its microphone were only a few metres away from what was an exposed steel structure so the sounds cannot be compared like for like.
Also, notice how the crane rotated and kept on rotating until it hit the building under construction - no collapsing in on itself and no neat pile of individual steel elements.
Did witnesses use the word explosion to describe the booms - what about Lance Wallace, I think he used the word boom?
Is that the best you can do? |
Yes, of course you will ignore the fact that you cannot explain or justify your theory, I expect that. Your theory makes no sense, so how could you?
Yes, the steel structure I refer to is a crane, well spotted! And it collapses in a different way to a building, quite right again. However, it is a tall steel structure, in fact the one of the tallest in Milwaukee at the time, and it gave way owing to overload, making a similar sound to that heard on the video of the steel structure of the WTC tower giving way, a sound that was likened to explosions.
"It was like two bombs going off. It was like two explosions," Craig said. "When I went outside I looked around and saw the helicopters hovering over the stadium, and I could see that the crane was gone."
You think it sounded different to the WTC do you? I am surprised! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | "It was like two bombs going off. It was like two explosions," Craig said. "When I went outside I looked around and saw the helicopters hovering over the stadium, and I could see that the crane was gone." |
Strange, there were three booms. Lance Walker used the word boom and he was one of the guys filming the thing.
Face facts Bushwacker, you cannot explain your theory any better than I can (although at least mine fits better with the video footage). Can you describe to me the point at which the rotation is stopped by the facade? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | "It was like two bombs going off. It was like two explosions," Craig said. "When I went outside I looked around and saw the helicopters hovering over the stadium, and I could see that the crane was gone." |
Strange, there were three booms. Lance Walker used the word boom and he was one of the guys filming the thing.
Face facts Bushwacker, you cannot explain your theory any better than I can (although at least mine fits better with the video footage). Can you describe to me the point at which the rotation is stopped by the facade? |
Why should it be strange that there were three?
Why should it be strange that what some people called explosions others should call booms?
Did everyone hearing the WTC towers collapse call the noise "explosions"? - of course not, you really are grasping at straws!
I am glad that you are at last honest enough to admit that you cannot explain your theory, but I am afraid that it fits not at all with the video, since the video shows the rotation of the upper section slowing down or stopping, and your theory cannot account for that, since you think the perimeter columns are too weak to do that and the core columns were destroyed by explosives.
Since I know that the perimeter columns shared the gravity load with the core, something that had escaped your notice, my theory has no difficulty with the perimeter columns acting against the rotating top section when it fell on them, as seen on the video, and since the core columns of the lower section were not in fact destroyed with explosives, the core columns of the upper section may well have impacted against them when the upper section rotated.
Bear in mind that the upper section was itself being destroyed very rapidly as it fell; by the time it stopped rotating, it was a very much shorter and therefore much less massive structure than it had been, but all the way down it was hitting against new and undamaged parts of the perimeter columns, which themselves were made of progressively thicker steel, while the remaining upper floors of the top section were of progressively thinner steel. The upper section was destroying the perimeter columns of the lower section, but they were also acting on it. Looking at the video again, it seems there comes a point where the growing resistance of the perimeter columns is sufficient to stop the rotation of the now much less massive upper section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I am glad that you are at last honest enough to admit that you cannot explain your theory, but I am afraid that it fits not at all with the video, since the video shows the rotation of the upper section slowing down or stopping, and your theory cannot account for that, since you think the perimeter columns are too weak to do that and the core columns were destroyed by explosives. |
The fact the facade fell away from the tower intact after the upper section had fallen clearly shows that it didn't stop the rotation of the upper section otherwise such a dynamic load would have crushed the facade completely considering it was only 14 inches thick. Clearly the upper section fell inside this part of the facade. And of course the floors couldn't have offered any resistance being as they were 3 foot deep trusses covered in thin metal decking and screed capable of carrying no vertical dynamic loading above the usual design weight for office floors. So when you said this:
"The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper."
what part, on the other side to the fulcrum, was capable of stopping the rotation and how comes the upper section appeared to be falling through the tower when rotation did actually stop as observed? This is what I'm trying to get to the bottom of and yet such a detail appears to allude you and your theory.
14 inches!!....and bear in mind that the rotation was along the long floor span, not the short, so much less core was involved and a lot more non-load bearing construction.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Bear in mind that the upper section was itself being destroyed very rapidly as it fell; by the time it stopped rotating, it was a very much shorter and therefore much less massive structure than it had been |
So where's the momentum now for this collapse if the upper section was all the time becoming less massive and much of the destroyed elements were falling away from the tower, as observed? Are you now contradicting yourself and saying the uppers section didn't crush the tower all the way down but initiated a progressive collapse instead? After all you said this,
"Once the whole of the top section was falling, including the core, it simply crushed the whole of the lower section complete"
Remember, no fully built high-rise steel building (in any western country) has ever collapsed completely and turned into so many individual bits due to progressive failure before - ever, and yet on 9/11 there were 3. Amazing.
And boy did those upper sections have a long way to travel through such massive resistance....and yet made it to the ground in such a short space of time. Those architects and engineers should be shot for designing such nonsense buildings!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | I am glad that you are at last honest enough to admit that you cannot explain your theory, but I am afraid that it fits not at all with the video, since the video shows the rotation of the upper section slowing down or stopping, and your theory cannot account for that, since you think the perimeter columns are too weak to do that and the core columns were destroyed by explosives. |
The fact the facade fell away from the tower intact after the upper section had fallen clearly shows that it didn't stop the rotation of the upper section otherwise such a dynamic load would have crushed the facade completely considering it was only 14 inches thick. Clearly the upper section fell inside this part of the facade. And of course the floors couldn't have offered any resistance being as they were 3 foot deep trusses covered in thin metal decking and screed capable of carrying no vertical dynamic loading above the usual design weight for office floors. So when you said this:
"The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper."
what part, on the other side to the fulcrum, was capable of stopping the rotation and how comes the upper section appeared to be falling through the tower when rotation did actually stop as observed? This is what I'm trying to get to the bottom of and yet such a detail appears to allude you and your theory.
14 inches!!....and bear in mind that the rotation was along the long floor span, not the short, so much less core was involved and a lot more non-load bearing construction.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Bear in mind that the upper section was itself being destroyed very rapidly as it fell; by the time it stopped rotating, it was a very much shorter and therefore much less massive structure than it had been |
So where's the momentum now for this collapse if the upper section was all the time becoming less massive and much of the destroyed elements were falling away from the tower, as observed? Are you now contradicting yourself and saying the uppers section didn't crush the tower all the way down but initiated a progressive collapse instead? After all you said this,
"Once the whole of the top section was falling, including the core, it simply crushed the whole of the lower section complete"
Remember, no fully built high-rise steel building (in any western country) has ever collapsed completely and turned into so many individual bits due to progressive failure before - ever, and yet on 9/11 there were 3. Amazing.
And boy did those upper sections have a long way to travel through such massive resistance....and yet made it to the ground in such a short space of time. Those architects and engineers should be shot for designing such nonsense buildings!
|
The upper section was falling on to the perimeter columns at an angle, as can be seen on the video. This would have the effect of knocking the perimeter columns outward whilst, Newton's third law being what it is, slowing down the rotation. Perhaps some of the perimeter columns were crushed in the process, I do not think you can claim that they all fell intact. Bear in mind that what they were being impacted by was other perimeter columns from higher up the tower, not some solid object.
I think you are misleading yourself about how substantial the perimeter columns were, with your constant reference to them as a facade of 14 inches thickness; no estimate of their share of the gravity load of the towers that I have seen puts it at less than 40%, and, as you say, we are dealing here with the longer side of the building, with more of the columns.
I never meant to imply that I thought the upper section stayed intact while crushing the lower section, clearly it did not, it was destroyed itself in the process of destroying the lower section, some of the debris fell away from the building, but most of the debris from both sections continued on down, crushing the remainder of the building in a progressive collapse.
Lots of things happened for the first time that day, fully laden airliners were flown at high speed into high rise buildings for the first time, massive damage and extensive fires occured within buildings of a tube within a tube design, and progressive collapse of high rise buildings occured. Perhaps these things are connected in some way? The architects and engineers should not be shot, but congratuled for designing buildings that so well withstood the intial impacts of the jets flying into them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | The upper section was falling on to the perimeter columns at an angle, as can be seen on the video. This would have the effect of knocking the perimeter columns outward whilst, Newton's third law being what it is, slowing down the rotation. Perhaps some of the perimeter columns were crushed in the process, I do not think you can claim that they all fell intact. Bear in mind that what they were being impacted by was other perimeter columns from higher up the tower, not some solid object.
I think you are misleading yourself about how substantial the perimeter columns were, with your constant reference to them as a facade of 14 inches thickness; no estimate of their share of the gravity load of the towers that I have seen puts it at less than 40%, and, as you say, we are dealing here with the longer side of the building, with more of the columns.
I never meant to imply that I thought the upper section stayed intact while crushing the lower section, clearly it did not, it was destroyed itself in the process of destroying the lower section, some of the debris fell away from the building, but most of the debris from both sections continued on down, crushing the remainder of the building in a progressive collapse.
Lots of things happened for the first time that day, fully laden airliners were flown at high speed into high rise buildings for the first time, massive damage and extensive fires occured within buildings of a tube within a tube design, and progressive collapse of high rise buildings occured. Perhaps these things are connected in some way? The architects and engineers should not be shot, but congratuled for designing buildings that so well withstood the intial impacts of the jets flying into them. |
Well, what a turn around. From angry poster who knows exactly how basic physics can be used to support their theory to more humble poster who realizes there are more questions to be answered if the full picture is to emerge. Is this the same Bushwacker? Perhaps the season of goodwill is affecting you?
Your change in anaylsis is noted and accepted although it still leaves that dreaded question which remains the great unanswered issue of your theory - how come the fulcrum disappeared if the upper section was pushing out the facade instead of landing onto it? In other words, where was the sudden change of rotation which you claimed caused the core to collapse? However, I'm glad you've now realized that basic physics cannot support your theory.
And what about WTC7, was that hit by a fully laden airliner? How come it collapsed with its walls still vertical when the building spanned the sub-station using an asymmetrical structure? How come the BBC knew of WTC7's collapse before it actually happened? How come no progressive collapse has ever before caused an entire high-rise building to fall completely to the ground and end up as a pile of bits? So many questions which just shouldn't arise if 9/11 was as you say it was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | The upper section was falling on to the perimeter columns at an angle, as can be seen on the video. This would have the effect of knocking the perimeter columns outward whilst, Newton's third law being what it is, slowing down the rotation. Perhaps some of the perimeter columns were crushed in the process, I do not think you can claim that they all fell intact. Bear in mind that what they were being impacted by was other perimeter columns from higher up the tower, not some solid object.
I think you are misleading yourself about how substantial the perimeter columns were, with your constant reference to them as a facade of 14 inches thickness; no estimate of their share of the gravity load of the towers that I have seen puts it at less than 40%, and, as you say, we are dealing here with the longer side of the building, with more of the columns.
I never meant to imply that I thought the upper section stayed intact while crushing the lower section, clearly it did not, it was destroyed itself in the process of destroying the lower section, some of the debris fell away from the building, but most of the debris from both sections continued on down, crushing the remainder of the building in a progressive collapse.
Lots of things happened for the first time that day, fully laden airliners were flown at high speed into high rise buildings for the first time, massive damage and extensive fires occured within buildings of a tube within a tube design, and progressive collapse of high rise buildings occured. Perhaps these things are connected in some way? The architects and engineers should not be shot, but congratuled for designing buildings that so well withstood the intial impacts of the jets flying into them. |
Well, what a turn around. From angry poster who knows exactly how basic physics can be used to support their theory to more humble poster who realizes there are more questions to be answered if the full picture is to emerge. Is this the same Bushwacker? Perhaps the season of goodwill is affecting you?
Your change in anaylsis is noted and accepted although it still leaves that dreaded question which remains the great unanswered issue of your theory - how come the fulcrum disappeared if the upper section was pushing out the facade instead of landing onto it? In other words, where was the sudden change of rotation which you claimed caused the core to collapse? However, I'm glad you've now realized that basic physics cannot support your theory.
And what about WTC7, was that hit by a fully laden airliner? How come it collapsed with its walls still vertical when the building spanned the sub-station using an asymmetrical structure? How come the BBC knew of WTC7's collapse before it actually happened? How come no progressive collapse has ever before caused an entire high-rise building to fall completely to the ground and end up as a pile of bits? So many questions which just shouldn't arise if 9/11 was as you say it was. |
Do try not to be quite so silly, James. I have not changed my analysis at all, unlike yourself, I can explain my theory, unlike yourself, and it obviously conforms with physical laws. Whether yours does is unknown, since you are unable to explain what it is, apart from a belief that explosives must have been used. Starting with that belief, you have attempted to work backwards towards explaining what happened, but finally realised that what was observed to happen to the top section conflicts with the idea that explosives were used on the lower section, and given up, apparently.
The upper section was landing on the perimeter columns and pushing them out, is that too difficult a concept for you? It was landing at an angle, get it?
Did I say a sudden change in rotation caused the core to collapse? I think not. The core collapsed on the impact side from a combination of impact damage, fires and sagging trusses. Once collapse started, the dynamic forces of the upper section falling overloaded the entire structure, and a progressive collapse resulted.
WTC7 was a hit by a collapsing 110 storey building, the first time that has ever happened, and left to burn unattended for seven hours. It was widely expected to collapse, not least by the FDNY who understand rather more about how buildings behave in fires than you appear to. The BBC got a garbled report that it had already collapsed, when the situation was that it was expected to at any moment. Sometimes the media does not get things entirely right, have you ever noticed?
I admire your committment to re-cycling, but if you are going to re-cycle the entire output of already answered questions from the so-called truth movement, that is rather excessive, I feel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Did I say a sudden change in rotation caused the core to collapse? |
Erm.....Yes!
"The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper."
But now you've changed your story so that's OK.
Good to see the grumpy old Bushwacker is back. I was getting worried.
So all in all, your theory about the collapse is just your belief and nothing more. I thought so.
And what was it I said about progressive collapse again? I think you need to do more research about the history of major building collapses for if you do you'll find that progressive collapse has never caused a high-rise steel building to be destroyed in its entirety. All other examples of progressive collapse in high-rise buildings are partial except for the three which happened on 9/11 and those buildings employed 2 different structural types so didn't even have a common design to lay the blame on. Your slapdash use of this term is getting very boring but then again it is obvious you use it to satisfy your own belief without even understanding how buildings really behave under such conditions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Did I say a sudden change in rotation caused the core to collapse? |
Erm.....Yes!
"The upper section pivoted on the intact side, which acted as a fulcrum, and thus started to rotate. It stopped rotating when it hit the lower section on the other side from the fulcrum. Faced with the massive overload of the top section dropping on it, the lower section started to collapse, as did the upper."
But now you've changed your story so that's OK. |
In your mind that is the same thing is it? I see.
| Quote: |
So all in all, your theory about the collapse is just your belief and nothing more. I thought so.
|
Whose theory did you think it was?
| Quote: | | And what was it I said about progressive collapse again? I think you need to do more research about the history of major building collapses for if you do you'll find that progressive collapse has never caused a high-rise steel building to be destroyed in its entirety. All other examples of progressive collapse in high-rise buildings are partial except for the three which happened on 9/11 and those buildings employed 2 different structural types so didn't even have a common design to lay the blame on. Your slapdash use of this term is getting very boring but then again it is obvious you use it to satisfy your own belief without even understanding how buildings really behave under such conditions. |
I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave earlier, lots of things happened for the first time on that day. Since you had only a very confused idea of how the towers were constructed before I educated you, and can still put forward no theory of why the upper section stopped rotating, you are in a very weak position to make such comments. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Since you had only a very confused idea of how the towers were constructed before I educated you |
Your desperation to sound like you know what you are talking about is easy to see and makes for amuzing reading. I'm quite aware of how the buildings were constructed, I was teaching you critics about the subject last year if you'd care to check. I'll dig out some old posts if you like then that will shut you up but in the meantime I'll just point out the present gaps in your knowledge by highlighting this quote from you earlier today:
"as you say, we are dealing here with the longer side of the building, with more of the columns.
I had to laugh since the buildings were square in plan. There was no long side. But the core in each tower was rectangular which meant there was a long floor span side and a short floor span side and this is what I was referring to. Here, let me show you:
Keep trying Bushwacker. You might just get it one day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | Since you had only a very confused idea of how the towers were constructed before I educated you |
Your desperation to sound like you know what you are talking about is easy to see and makes for amuzing reading. I'm quite aware of how the buildings were constructed, I was teaching you critics about the subject last year if you'd care to check. I'll dig out some old posts if you like then that will shut you up but in the meantime I'll just point out the present gaps in your knowledge by highlighting this quote from you earlier today:
"as you say, we are dealing here with the longer side of the building, with more of the columns.
I had to laugh since the buildings were square in plan. There was no long side. But the core in each tower was rectangular which meant there was a long floor span side and a short floor span side which is what I was really referring to. Here, let me show you:
Keep trying Bushwacker. You might just get it one day. |
Gosh, you got one right!
Tell us again how the core took all the gravity load, that really is "amuzing" amusing and amazing at the same time!
Meanwhile, you have made zero progress with your task of explaining why basic physics refutes the NIST official collapse theory, I take it you have given up on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Tell us again how the core took all the gravity load, that really is "amuzing" amusing and amazing at the same time! |
Oh no, I think we've been here before.....and you like to think you know it all.
From here.
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4805&postdays=0&post order=asc&start=310
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | James C wrote: |
As a former architect, I understand quite well how buildings work.....
The perimeter columns of the twin towers were designed to support the floors which spanned between the massive interior columns and the outer walls. Essentially, the building's structural support was the core of columns and not the facade although the outer skin could have supported itself albeit with little lateral resistance. |
You clearly do not understand how the towers worked. The central core carried about 50% of the gravity load and the perimeter columns, which were not a facade, the other 50%, and all the lateral wind load. How could you think that the central core, holding only one end of the floor trusses, could possibly take the whole load? I suggest you have a proper look at the design. |
Uh Uhm Cough Cough.......any outer wall is a facade. Let's get that straight shall we!
The lateral wind load in any building is spread throughout the whole structure; the whole building acting like a tree trunk. Are you suggesting that the bark of a tree stops it from falling down in high winds?
Do you know how much weight the core carried? Where do you get 50% from. Please give me the source of your figures?
The simple fact is, the core could easily stand on it's own without the floors. It didn't need the floors to work. Sure, the core supported the floors, doing 50% of the work for this job, but the floors offered nothing in return (except to transfer lateral wind loads from facade to core) - in short, the core was it's own free structure capable of withstanding any force from wind, explosion, fire etc etc. Strangely though, human beings need to use floors to allow them to do activities that only human's like to do so floors were added to the building. This was the reason for constructing these towers in the first place - to provide office space. Can you understand this bit so far? I know some of you critics find it hard to deal with reality. So, the floors are built after the core is constructed. The floors span between the core and the facade. The floors are pinned to the facade and core with tiny (5/8 inch) bolts to steel wall plates (the wall plates are fixed to the core and the outer steelwork. This makes the floors all the more separate from the core - there is no cantilevering from the core. (Perhaps you should research into cantilevers at this point). Simply, therefore, even if the trusses had collapsed in uniform, which they didn't, they would not pull the core down in a million years. Instead, you would have something similar to what happened at Ronan Point (the construction is different but the structural principle is the same - steel core, concrete floors spanning between that and supporting outer facade - oh look, a partial progressive collapse).
Perhaps you should introduce yourself to structural concepts with this book Structures: Or Why Things Don't Fall Down before making any more stupid comments. |
But I accept that in your desperation it has been easy for you to have fooled yourself into thinking my comment about the core carrying the weight and the facade taking the lateral loads meant I was saying the facade took no floor loading at all. Sorry, I'll ensure I make myself very clear in future.
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Meanwhile, you have made zero progress with your task of explaining why basic physics refutes the NIST official collapse theory, I take it you have given up on that |
Because no progressive collapse has ever resulted in complete destruction of a high-rise building, period. Is this why there is still no official explanation for WTC7 or why NIST doesn't bother to explain what happened after collapse was initiated in the towers? The WTC7 draft report of 18th December as promised back in June is no better than the last one they released. Surely basic physics could have been applied by NIST to explain collapse by now? Mind you, you can't explain it either so as a critic you're doing a very bad job.
That said, looking back through the posts, this image caught my eye (below). I think it highlights very well how there is very little mass falling onto the tower as it collapses. Most of it is being ejected outwards, so where is the upper section of tower to crush the lower part? Without any substantial solid mass, there'd be no progressive collapse.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, you are still getting it wrong, the perimeter columns took virtually all the wind load, as well as at least 40% of the gravity load. Try some research into the construction of the towers, not just into your own posts, fascinating though they obviously are for you.
I like your idea that basic physics says that if something has never happened before, then it can never happen in the future, whatever the conditions, that really is a classic!
And congratulations on your X-ray vision, few people can look inside a photograph of a dust cloud and see exactly what is happening the way you can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 12:55 am Post subject: Re: Basic Physics and WTC Collapse |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | This post is generally a reply to kbo234 from the articles forum (http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=11852) - I thought it would be worth answering it in critics corner to introduce the topic to the debate. It refers to the WTC collapses, and is a description of why kbo234 and others in the truth movement believe that basic physics refutes the NIST official collapse theory.
|
At last, after five pages, James C has revealed it all!
| Bushwacker wrote: | | Meanwhile, you have made zero progress with your task of explaining why basic physics refutes the NIST official collapse theory, I take it you have given up on that |
| James C wrote: | | Because no progressive collapse has ever resulted in complete destruction of a high-rise building, period. |
Obviously, that is the end of that debate, then. There can be no argument with that penetrating insight! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
