Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » A 911 thought (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: A 911 thought
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
anyone care to join

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yes wakeup i'm joining you
what do you mean about the trade center
destroing it's own frame
what are you implying that someone blew it up?
didn't fire destroy it?

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hello wakeup
well no
fire did not destroy it because most of the jet fuel ignited outside the building(as you can see on the footage) with some of it going inside the building and burning a lot of things but after a hour it was just smoke
smoke is what you get when a fire does not get enough oxygen and people are jumping out not from heat but from agonizing smoke
so you see there was fire but very contained

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
o.k wize guy
but i heard the president say that fire destroyed the buildings he should know ,what are you saying that the bush administration is wrong
he can't be wrong he's leading the country
fair and just
don't you think?

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
thanks calling me wize guy
for one fire has not destroid a single building in history to date.
steel can get very hot before it bends(i think about 3000F)
and as i remember there were qiet a few explotions
on both towers what were they?????
the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
i might ad

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wakeup,

If you intend to stick around here, maybe you should share some personal info. Who ayou are, what kind of work you do, family, hobbies, etc. Y'know, become a person instead of a position. It might make some of this, shall we say, utter lunatic paranoia, easier to take. Just a thought,

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a theory that he (not she) is already an Ornery member using a new handle. The blank poetry structure, mix of clear and nutty ideas, and poor spelling is meant to hide his normal posting style. This allows him to be pissy and provocative without putting his ordinary day avatar on the line. wakeup, want to fessup? I swear it's not me, btw [Smile] . I couldn't bear to write a sentence like "i might ad" -- ugh.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave,

I KNOW who it is.

Hint: Somebody who usually is prolific, but hasn't been around much. (I was just wondering where he's been.) Somebody who has already defended his closest friend on this board. In fact, that defense is the only 'real' post he's made. Give up?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do. Who is it?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think so, Brain. But what does 911 have to do with SSM?
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I give up too. Do you really know or are you just confident about your guess? And who, pray tell, is Little Susie?

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just goes to show that extreme posting styles trump content. From 'what really happened' to 'what's my line'.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Spammers are interesting for the train wreck factor - but they always leave us bored, and then disappear.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cperry
Member
Member # 1938

 - posted      Profile for cperry   Email cperry   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, there's an appealling achy and mehitabel feel to the posts on this thread, but if it's really an existing OA member, please please please get out of this troll mode and go back to reasonable discourse instead of all this posting and reposting of the same old claim with nothing to back it up. One of the things I love about OA -- we don't have to suffer trolls.
Posts: 2782 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I give up too. Do you really know or are you just confident about your guess? And who, pray tell, is Little Susie?

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
stupid back button, sorry for the repost.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think he's following Hitler's strategy:

Repeat the same lie enough times and people will begin to believe it.

Forgive me for invoking Hitler in a thread. But he IS the one who said it, and it's an honest observation. [Big Grin]

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And now for something completely different:

I learned today that the Pentagon, on which construction first began on September 11, 1941.

It was to be the world's largest office building... until the building of the WTC.

Since the destruction of the WTC, the Pentagon is AGAIN the world's largest office building.

Symbolic, yes?

Invoke Hitler often and looudly! He is one of the preeminent historical touchstones of our era! Godwin should be sent to Gitmo!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*bump*

And now for something completely different:

I learned today that the Pentagon, on which construction first began on September 11, 1941.

It was to be the world's largest office building... until the building of the WTC.

Since the destruction of the WTC, the Pentagon is AGAIN the world's largest office building.

Symbolic, yes?

Invoke Hitler often and looudly! He is one of the preeminent historical touchstones of our era! Godwin should be sent to Gitmo!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I KNOW who it is.
So, do you or don't you?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great. He shouldn't have said he knew. Now someone had to take him out.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just think. Is there a reason this new person hasn't been banned after spamming the same post multiple times in multiple threads (and derailing them in the process) with hardly any responding to any posts? What do the mods know? There is a reason the mods haven't so much as given a warning (and it isn't because the mods haven't been checking in since wakeup started...I've seen at least one mod posting during this time frame).
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Spam? Just because someone has one subject on their mind, and a limited articulation of it, it's spam?

The rush to censorship.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Forgive me for invoking Hitler in a thread. But he IS the one who said it, and it's an honest observation. "

Actually, I think it was Goebbels, Hitlers propagandists, strategy [Big Grin]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Could be, Tommy. If that is true, I stand corrected.

Well, kenmeer, the fact is he seems to be repeating not just the smae concept, but the same words, without even the level of response I've seen other trolls give.

Then again, I have a feeling I know who the troll really is... so perhaps never mind.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm curious who you all think he is?
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TommySamma:

quote:
Actually, I think it was Goebbels, Hitlers propagandists, strategy [Big Grin]
quote:
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."

The Bellman
http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/the-hunting-of-the-snark/chapter-01.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Time to feed the troll [Wink] :

quote:
the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.
anyone care to join

OK, the kinetic energy of a body is equal to half the mass times the velocity squared {K = 1/2(m(v^2))}.

The final velocity squared minus the initial velocity squared equals two times the aceleration times the distance travelled {(vf^2)-(vi^2) = 2ad}

Assume the initial velocity is 0. We therefore have vf^2 = 2ad. Substituting for the velocity squared, we obtain the formula:

K = mad.

Now, suppose one floor of a WTC tower collapses. The average distance between floors is 415 meters / 110 floors = 3.772meters. Let's round down to be conservative. So, s = 3.

Acceleration is not greater than g, and will be less according to whatever structural integrity remains in the collapse. Let's set it at approx half g, or 5m/s^2.

Set the mass of the WTC above the floor that collapses at M. Then, the energy that impacts on the next floor down if one floor collapses is (very conservatively) 15*M.

In other words, the force that must be exerted to stop the collapsing mass from collapsing any further before it reachs the next floor is at least 15M + 10M (the force needed to counter gravity for the mass of the tower above the collapse point), or at least 2 and a half times normal load.

According to one 911 "sceptic", engineering practise is build structures to take four times their maximum load, so we are, on these conservative assumptions a good way towards the collapse of the building. A good way, but not all the way. If the next floor is undamaged, on these conservative (and therefore optimistic) assumptions, the collapse will be arrested. But as aircraft impacted on several floors, if one floor was at the point of collapse, then the next floor would have been close to the point of collapse. That is, would still be able to hold the mass above it, but only just. Onto this weakened floor, we suddenly dump the need to support 2.5 times the mass it was only just holding. The predictable consequence?

We can now repeat our formula for a two floor collapse. Onto the third floor, the floor two below the initial collapse, we now dump a load equal to M * 5 * 6. In other words, we expect it to now hold 4 times its normal load if it is to arrest the collapse. If undamaged, this floor is at its design limit. If it is damaged however, we go on to the fourth floor.

The fourth floor must now absorb an impact of M * 5 * 9. It must exert a force equal to 5.5 times its normal load to stop the collapse; or over 25% over its design capacity.

Thump, down it goes, even if (extraordinarilly unlikely, it is undamaged).

The next floor must absorb twice its normal design load, two floors later were up two three times the normal design load. By the tenth floor, it must exert 160 times the force it needs to support the mass above it prior to collapse, and 40 times its design limit.

Ten floors down, and more than fifty to go.

Bazant and Zhou did a similar, but more accurate calculation than mine. They determined that if one floor collapses at near g, the force applied will be approx 31 times the normal force, for just one floor.

Now, a troll that bites might suggest that this scenario is very unlikely. "It is implausible", they might say, "that the first floor would be weakened enough to not arrest the collapse" using my conservative assumptions.

Well, we might allow them a little wiggle room on that. But how implausible must it be before we are inclined to invoke a consipiracy involving thousands of Americans to murder thousands of other Americans as an alternative explanation?

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the smoke comming out of these towers sugest
to me that the fire has no oxygen to burn
and what's with the huge explosion
come on use you brain
think....?????
has gerry springer really fried your brains??
building 7 had beams twice the size
and went down exactly the same way
proof me wrong

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
to tom curtis
The proof. According to the law of gravity, it is possible to calculate the time it takes for an object to fall a given distance. The equation is H=(1/2)at2, where H is the height, a is the acceleration of gravity (10 meters per second squared) and t is time in seconds. Plug in the height of the building at 1350 feet (411 meters) and we get 9 seconds. That is just about the length of time it took for the very top of the World Trade Center to fall to the street below. According to all reports, the whole thing was over in just about ten seconds.

It is as if the entire building were falling straight down through thin air. As if the entire solid structure below, the strong part which had not been burned or sliced or harmed in any significant way, just disappeared into nothingness. Yet this (within a small tolerance) is what we would expect to find if there had been a controlled demolition, because the explosions below really do leave the upper stories completely unsupported. Like the Road Runner after he runs off the edge of the cliff, the entire building pauses a moment, then goes straight down.

Any kind of viscous process or friction process should have slowed the whole thing down. Like dropping a lead ball into a vat of molasses, or dropping a feather into the air, gravitational acceleration cannot achieve its full effect if it is fighting any opposing force. In the case of the World Trade Center, the intact building below should have at least braked the fall of the upper stories. This did not happen. There was no measurable friction at all.

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
to tom curtis
Tom Curtis is leaving out some FACTS
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.

A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.

But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.

Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.

If it did not tip, it would have ground straight down through the building below. The gravitational potential energy of the upper stories would be coupled into the frame below, beginning to destroy it. The frame below would deflect elastically, absorbing energy in the process of deflecting. At weak points, the metal structure would break, but the elastic energy absorbed into the entire frame would not be available to do more destruction. Instead, it would be dissipated in vibration, acoustic noise and heat. Eventually this process would grind to a halt, because the gravitational potential energy of a skyscraper is nowhere near sufficient to destroy its own frame.

If the World Trade Center towers had been built entirely out of concrete, they might have stood for awhile before toppling in the wind. But in that case, if they had collapsed straight downwards, the energy required to pulverize the concrete would have slowed the downward progress of the upward stories. The gravitational potential energy of the World Trade Center was barely sufficient to convert its concrete into powder, and for that to happen in an accidental collapse would have been impossible, but would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds in any case.

How it was done. The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001. Zim Israeli Shipping moved out of the buildings around that time. With a certain amount of shuffling of tenants from floor to floor, it should have been easy (with all the commotion and noise of remodeling) to plant explosives on several floors; enough for at least a sloppy kind of controlled demolition.

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wakeup
Member
Member # 3081

 - posted      Profile for wakeup   Email wakeup       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Conclusions

In order for the tower to have collapsed "gravitationally", as we've been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
On 9/11, energy was not conserved

Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wakeup,

"has gerry springer really fried your brains??" is uncivil, unnecessary and against the rules here. Please refrain from making personal comments of this nature and restrict your remarks to facts, issues, and arguments about the matter under discussion.

Everyone,

Making unsubstantiated statements is not expressly against the rules of Ornery, though certainly it is not in the spirit of discourse here. Neither is making repetitive posts, though as a courtesy wakeup was asked not to crosspost exactly the same post to multiple threads.

As this poster now seems prepared to discuss his ideas in more depth, I ask that the speculation on the person's identity and the use of the term "troll" cease, and that argumentation be allowed to follow its normal course.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wakeup:

quote:
We have been lied to. We have been lied to about this, at multiple levels. The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.

A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.

An ordinary fire achieves temperatures in the 600 to 800 degree centigrade range. We know there was a very extensive fire of that type in both WTC towers (and in building 7). We know this because of the thick black smoke plume which did not dissipate prior to collapse. Think about that for a second (but not too long as the excercise will be unfamiliar). If the fire had gone out, the smoke plume would have dissipated. The plume did not dissipate, ergo the fire did not go out.

From the size of the plume we know the fire was very extensive:

quote:
Using the Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) fire model, Fire Dynamics Simulator Ver. 1 (FDS1), fire scientists at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Rehm, et al. 2002) were able to mathematically approximate
the size of fires required to produce such a smoke plume. As input to this model, an estimate of the openings
available to provide ventilation for the fires was obtained from an examination of photographs taken of the
damaged tower. Meteorological data on wind velocity and atmospheric temperatures were provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on reports from the Aircraft
Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). The information used weather monitoring
instruments onboard three aircraft that departed from LaGuardia and Newark airports between 7:15 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001. The wind speed at heights equal to the upper stories of the towers
was in the range of 10–20 mph. The outside temperatures over the height of the building were 20–21 °C
(68–70 °F).
The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr,
around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed
out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented
energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from
each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The
modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in
these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the
aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100
°C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.

In one respect, the important thing isn't the temperature, it is the amount of heat produced. Was there enough heat to raise temperatures in the steal frame? Is 500+ megawatts in each tower enough to heat steal? (Better strike your head again and go Doh! to drive out thought.)

And given that there is enough heat to raise the temperature in steal, and fires burning at around 600 degrees centigrade, so the temperature of the steal could rise to 600 degrees, what do we expect?

quote:
But let's suppose that the fire was hot enough to melt steel. What would have happened in that case? Before it breaks, hot steel begins to bend. This redistributes the forces in the structure and puts elastic stress on those parts that are still cool. The process is asymmetric, so that the structure should visibly bend before breaking. But of course, no steel skyscraper has even bent over in a fire.
No, not that! Do you bother to read actual engineers reports on the issue, or do you only read the news media, so notorious for getting detail wrong!

Because the aircraft had destroyed a number of structural supports, other supports had to take the load. The redistributed load is not distributed evenly. Columns nearest the impact sites would take a much higher share of the new load than columns away from it. Just from that fact alone, they would have stresses close to failure. The have to have. The only way stress is redistributed is by elastic deformation. If the load on one column is too great, it deforms until another column can take the load - but in order to deform, it must be under high stress.

Now add heat!

The first thing heating does is it expands the steel. But the heating isn't even so some columns would expand, while others further from the fire would not. That means the columns that expand take more of the load. These, of course, will be the columns closest to the fire, ie, closest to the impact site, ie, the columns already under the greatest stress.

Then for the second act, when the steel is heated to around 600 degrees centigrade, it loses half its strength. It doesn't melt - it just becomes easier to deform. Less elastic. That's an nice little trick that black smiths learnt for shoing horses (though at 600 degrees, the steel is only just starting to glow).

So we've got some columns already at far above their normal stress - some even close to failure point. Then we heat them, which adds more stress, and at the same time halves their ability to handle the stress. And then if one fails, even slightly and starts to buckle, well that transfers more stress to those which haven't failed yet. Then if another fails, - well its time for you to strike your head again to avoid thought. Don't want to give up on a conspiracy theory, now.

quote:
Let's suppose the structure were sufficiently weakened that it did fail catastrophically near the point of the airplane strike. In this case, the intact structure below would exert an upward force on the base of the upper story portion of the building (the part that has been broken loose), while any asymmetry would allow the force of gravity to work uninhibited on the tip of the skyscraper. Thus, the top section of the skyscraper would tip and fall sideways.
No. The upper section is still a rigid structure. That means it moves as a single body. So as columns start failing on one side, it does tend to tip, but it tips over a pivot point close to the failure point. That means the columns nearest the pivot point support more weight, but because the structure above is rigid, the columns furthest from the pivot point support less weight. They tend to restrain the pivot rather than engourage it.

Of course this goes on until an entire floor has failed. After that, each floor collapses in turn and their is no more tendency to pivot. So the top of the tower starts to pivot for about 1 second, and then all the new forces imposed are down for everything. You've got 1 second of pivot, which becomes almost unoticable in the 10 seconds of falling that follows.

Of course, that initial angular momentum is not lost. Because of it, much of the tower does not collapse through its center. Rather, it collapses onto the WTC site. Its the debris that shattered the Marriot, that almost destroyed the facing facade of WTC 7. Of course conspiracy theorists are carefull not to mention this because it rather spoils the illusion of a controlled implosion.

Do I sense another "Doh!" coming on.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In one respect, the important thing isn't the temperature, it is the amount of heat produced. Was there enough heat to raise temperatures in the steal frame?"

Heat can increase via concentrate in confined spaces.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess I can't tell y'all according to the Mod. [Frown]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TomCurtis,

" (Better strike your head again and go Doh! to drive out thought.)" and "well its time for you to strike your head again to avoid thought. Don't want to give up on a conspiracy theory, now."

are incivil. If you cannot engage civilly with another contributor, then ignore that person's posts.

KE:

"I guess I can't tell y'all according to the Mod."

Not on the board, no. Speculate to your heart's content privately.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OrneryMod, every post by wakeup has been extremely uncivil, including the use of the head striking emoticon as an indication of how stupid we all are for not agreeing with him. Seeing you chose to let that pass without comment, I chose to mock his use of that emoticon. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Now, if you choose to actually do your job with regard to wakeup, then I will certainly be happy to remain civil.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
OrneryMod, every post by wakeup has been extremely uncivil, including the use of the head striking emoticon as an indication of how stupid we all are for not agreeing with him. Seeing you chose to let that pass without comment, I chose to mock his use of that emoticon. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Now, if you choose to actually do your job with regard to wakeup, then I will certainly be happy to remain civil.

Apparently, there is some confusion here. Let me clear it up: another poster breaking the rules does not give license to anyone else breaking the rules.

If that's not clear enough, let me restate it:

Just because <insert name here> broke rule <insert rule here>, doesn't mean that you are allowed to break rule <insert rule here>.

We will contact and work with everyone who breaks the rules on this forum. Feel free to report inappropriate posts, if you feel that we may have missed them. Regardless, everyone on this forum is expected to follow the published forum rules, at all times. We are expected to act like civil adults here - not children on a playground.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
wakeup is breaking the rules? Something happen while I was in day-surgery? (weny well, feel fine, ike being high on opiates)
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1