Nice You Tube Video of the Collapse Mechanism
I don't have a date for this, but there is a notation that it's from TLC; The Learning Channel? Some choice bits in here, including the structural engineer who headed up the analysis team pointing out the relative lack of fireproofing on the steel trusses. Note the nutbar comments as well.
posted by Pat @ 6:00 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
Yeah, chf, and I bet he knew that the first day or two, before he'd "studied" the issue.
Wow! Real science! Real scientists. I wonder why the moonbats don't have any of those?
I'm sorry to be off topic here, but this is notable:
A BBC editor is clarifying a story they ran regarding the "confusion" as to the identity of the hijackers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
On the one hand, this editor doesn't come out and say the story is being misused by conspiracy fantasists to buttress their hijacker identity claims; his article is a touch wishy-washy in that regard. On the other hand, he does go out of his way to emphasize the FBI's confidence in their accuracy of identifying the hijackers, as well as a couple of government panels (one Brit, one US) similar confidence:
"The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers."
Seen the video before but thanks again - $20 says you could show it to a CT guy and they'll focus on the use of the word explosion by the guy analyzing the steel. Even though it directly contradicts claims that all the steel was removed and disposed of before analyzing.....
The more I've read and looked into how the actual collapse happened, the more I realize just how big a miracle it was that it held for so long after the initial impact.
Also, the camera angle at the end of the clip shows a good angle of just how much crap hit WTC-7 from the North tower.
Tym, i hate to disagree but you are wrong about the end of the movie, because u can see WTC7 in the foreground of the collapse, so it really isnt a good angle.
elmondohummus, thanks for the link, we always appreciate tips here!
I meant more the radius of debris being ejected from a side view, not an actual shot of stuff physically hitting it.
I shoulda been way more clear. I wasn't talking about how you see it heading into WFC so much as I meant just how far out the buckling forced the perimeter of the building and the fact that the collapse was largely uniform in terms of how much crap got shot out in every direction.
It also blows away the "in it's own footprint" myth.
Ah ok, yeh u can see big chunks fly out to the side.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc1east.avi
Here u can also see a big chunk falling to the side.
poppop wrote: "You guys really think these flimsy trusses were the only things supporting the floors?"
Did you actually pay any attention to that video, or did you just let your eyes (and ears) glaze over?
Trusses are very strong and efficient for their weight. They're also very vulnerable to intense heat if unprotected.
The Trusses were one component of a complex integrated support network that also involved the Exterior and Interior Columns.
A good point, though, as mentioned in Les Robertsons Debate with Steven Jones.
The steel testing done, that showed the trusses survived 2h of fire, were done with fireproofing on. Les, one of the engineers who designed the WTCs, stated that without the fireproofing, the Trusses would not have lasted anywhere near the 2h mark in testing.
The Trusses of the WTC weakened, bent downward, pulling on the columns they were adjoined to, causing bowing of said columns. This contributed to the eventual bending of the columns, combined with others that were severed, that led to the eventual collapse.
TAM
In hind sight there were a number of flaws in the construction, that may have helped the colapse.I saw piks showing the shear pins but they were designed for lateral loads not vertical. The truss mounts were simple "L" brackets, a dia brace on each would have made them much stronger and heat resistant. Perhaps this was the real weakness? The floor joist trusses should have had vertical supports as well for stiffness.
There were many thousand of tons of floor pushing down on the already weakened outer load bearing members. The floors were not designed to be self standing and the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and designed to withstand lateral loads, hence, can implode onto itself. The weight pushed down colapsing the truss supports which were the only support for the floors to the outer walls so the weight of the concrete floors fell in the hollow section of the building with little of no restance one of the reasons the building was so light for its size, the only other floor support was from the core girders.
This is one of the reason the building was so appealing as it had lots of open space in the interior. There was also little or very little fire insulation on the upper floors and it was blown off at impact. There should have been 39mm min and there was only 19mm on average. There were complaints at the time but cost won out
A good point, though, as mentioned in Les Robertsons Debate with Steven Jones.
Did Robertson really deign to debate Jones? That's kind of sad, but I'd still like to see it if you have a link.
"pre-planted explosives knocked the fireproofing off? "
That is the most absurd thing anyone could say. How did the planes hit exactly where these pre-planted explosives were?
It has been documented from the time the towers were built that the fire proofing was minimil on the upper floors due to costs.
When the World Trade Centre was built in the 1970s, 19-millimetre fireproofing was used.
Doubling it was later recommended but it was only applied to fewer than a third of the towers' girders by September 11 because the work could only be carried out as floors became empty, according to the magazine.
"The New York City building code stipulates that the insulation on steel structures should be at least 38 millimetres thick. However, the Port Authority's special legal status means it does not have to comply with the code," New Scientist said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/scitech/2003/02/item20030206224350_1.htm
You never explain how this could be done. Do you know how many trusses there were?, have you seen piks of the fireproofing? Here is a pik
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
How could this be done when there was a ceiling and the floors were occupied and there are hundreds of trusses. Not too much room to plant explosives, run all the wireing.
How were they detonated and where were the detonaters?
How did the planes hit the exact spot of these so called explosives? I could go on but any sane person should get the point
There was no CD and the vids clearly show it was no free fall.
Do you have any clue how the towers were designed?
The floors were not designed to be self standing and the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and designed to withstand lateral loads, hence, can implode onto itself. The pushed down colapsing the truss supports which were the only support for the floors to the outer walls so the weight of the concrete floors fell in the hollow section of the building with little of no restance one of the reasons the building was so light for its size, the only other floor support was from the core girders
The 24' sections were the outer girders that were bolted to gether in sections thus creating a weak point at the joint. Every one knows that joints are always weak points. There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. The floors were not designed to be self standing but designed for lateral loads. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced. The floors had little or no rebar just steel screen like that of home slabs.
The failure of the floor system led to a free fall of a mass of approximately 30 stories and 14
stories onto the 80 and 96, respectively, floor structure below. The enormous kinetic energy
released by this 2-3-floor downfall was too large to be absorbed by the structure underneath.
The impact effect generated from this upper part onto the lower part was surely much higher
than the buckling resistance of the columns below.
The lighter perimeter columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 appear to have used column-to-column connections with 4 bolts, whereas larger members presumably from lower floors used six-bolt column-to-column connections. Core column sizes vary, with some heavier sections at the lower floors having plates 4 inches thick or greater. The steel pieces range in size from fasteners inches in length and weighing a couple of ounces to column pieces up to 36 feet long and weighing several tons. They were all bolted together which creats a weak point.
Indeed, such a structural system is based on the premise that the perimeter columns and spandrel members resist gravity and lateral loads. These loads are transformed into axial, bending, shear, and torsion stresses and deformations. The thousands of tons of downward force was turned into lateral force expelling girders sidways as they broke at the bolted joints.
How many times is this idiot going to repeat the free fall myth?
Alex like I said is another thread
Talking sense to people like these serves as much purpose as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations.
These whaks are not qualified to do anything more than C&P what their whak hero's say, if they were they would stand up and qive their qualifications. So far every one has run away and hid from the question
Post a Comment
<< Home