• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

47 vertical support columns in core of each Twin Tower from bedrock to top floor

this is easy. It all just adds up. No need to make anything up. the facts are right in front of our noses. ---they just made us focus on the darn floors, and ignored the root of the problem. Getting rid of those columns. which no one can explain away it seems.---Just like no one will address the lack of remaining fuel, after the fireballs. ---I think we got this one.

Another forum has a steel worker who has put the columns in many highrise buildings and he has a lot of things to say about it......he wants a new investigation and is a so called "Truther".
 
I will piggy back on your comment by saying also those steel beams were not you standard steel beams , but specialize light weight beams, meaning that it will melt quicker than standard steel beams.
Once again focusing on the limbs of the tree, rather than the trunk. we are wise to your ploy. the floors can fall all day, explain how those 47 vertical central support columns came down, and there is a beer in it for ya.
 
Sorry Man, no disrespect---but the Columns, along with the outer wall, hold up the support beams. They would stand, if no floors were ever installed. Like the walls of your house, hold up the roof. the roof does not hold up the walls.
From the link I sourced..
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
 
Ok, take a look at some of the photos of the towers construction. The central column hold the whole thing up, like it's back bone. with out those columns, there is no structure. Nothing to hold up the floors. Once the floors broke free from the core supports, they fell. No disagreement there. But what does not get addressed is the free standing, self supporting 47 Vertical steel columns. that should still be standing there today. ---sorry not trying to sound like a wise guy here. but I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this one. and I try not speak before I'm pretty sure. (Saves having to look like a dumb ass later) but I would like to hear explanations, that don't just address the floors falling. we have that one, for now. But none address those central core Columns, and they are the Key to the whole thing. Where they go, the building will follow.
 
If there is another way to physically bring down those 47 massive columns, I'm all ears. The floors supports, are like limbs on a tree. the columns, are like the trees trunk. all the limbs can fall, but the trunk would remain. --I like that one. Just came up with that.

And completely wrong Skateguy ... the Towers were NOT one-piece solid structures like a tree TRUNK.

Tree trunks have ZERO empty space inside ... they are rigid and solid.

The Towers were FULL of empty space and hence can collapse within themselves.

Why can you still not get the childishly simple fact that buildings are MOSTLY AIR inside !!!

This does not require a three digit IQ to grasp !!!

The Towers were NOT solid one piece structures like a tree ... but were made up of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of SMALLER COMPONENTS.

EACH one of these connection points OFFERED a spot that was WEAKER than the component ITSELF !!!.

Two columns held together with four bolts in a COMPRESSION loaded state could hold together indefinitely ... BUT put a SHEER LOAD on that same column and the bolts will break with relative ease.

Don't believe me ... go ask a structural engineer !!!

Now you may "think" just because something is BIG it is conversely strong, when in fact the strength to mass ratio is NEVER exponential equal !!!

This little fact was observed by none other than Galileo long ago.

The bigger they are the harder they fall !!!

Your "perceptions" of things you deal with on a daily basis is not the same in the world of giants such as the WTC.

You can build a desk of wood or even steel with reasonable size legs and put what to "you" is huge amounts of books on it and it will not fail.

You can consider it common sense that a desk a thousands time bigger would be a thousands time stronger.

BUT you would be wrong !!!

The WTC were a delicate BALANCING act ... the taller you make it the stronger you need to make the supports ... the bigger the supports the more weight you add and you now have to add more strength to hold this extra weight.

BUT, on the other hand, if you build with an eye towards lightness and depend on a clever DISTRIBUTION of loads "rather" then super strong (heavy) construction you can build super tall with lots of open office space.

The WTC achieved its strength NOT by over-engineering but by a clever design that made OPTIMUM use of a centre core and an outer box wall design.

Unfortunately when those two elements were compromised by aircraft impacts and fire (we ALL SAW what happened) ... 9/11 would have been no surprise to Galileo !!!

Now I know that you will believe that because there were large sections of steel that it somehow makes the sections stronger ... but here is another little real factoid for you to ignore ...

The matter that makes up steel will be the SAME irregardless of the amount ... the ATOMIC BOND is the same big or small !!!
 
That is a good analogy....

No, it is not creative ... buildings are NOT solid inside.

You, again, show your complete and utter LACK of scientific understanding.

How did I just "know" you would be back so quickly and oh! so predictably posting the exact same ... word-for-word ... stuff as before.

Political Forum - View Single Post - I'm Officially Retiring From Trying to Get Support for a New 9/11 Investigation.

Most rational and intelligent people would consider endless spamming as weak and puerile ... I have asked you many times if you have anything stronger or newer.

But it is just the same boring old round of blah, blah, blah ... wonder how long it will take you to get back round to posting your "I would marry Rosie O'Donnel" one ???

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-odonnell-would-marry-her.html#post1058380855

Political Forum - View Single Post - Rosie O'Donnell...I would marry her!!!

Rosie O'Donnell...I would marry her!!!

And you NEVER answer questions ... you just abandon the thread, when it is not going your way, and start a new one.

Spamming and dodging STILL doesn't make you right !!!

Endless repetition STILL doesn't make you right !!!

Your a slow learner ... consistant though :doh
 
But what does not get addressed is the free standing, self supporting 47 Vertical steel columns. that should still be standing there today. ---sorry not trying to sound like a wise guy here. but I'm pretty sure I'm correct on this one. and I try not speak before I'm pretty sure. (Saves having to look like a dumb ass later) but I would like to hear explanations, that don't just address the floors falling. we have that one, for now. But none address those central core Columns, and they are the Key to the whole thing. Where they go, the building will follow.

Skateguy where do you get the 47 steel columns as one structure from ???

Were EACH those columns ONE SINGLE piece of steel rising from foundation to roof in ONE continuous section ???

Please, please, please tell me that is not what you believe !!!

If that is indeed the case then you had better explain exactly how and which steel mill is capable of producing singlular pieces of steel column in 1,362ft and 1,368ft continous lengths ...

Please explain also the type of transportation capable of delivering steel columns that length or how it could be transported through the narow and congested streets of New York ...

Please also explain the construction capabilities and cranes able to erect steel columns of that singular length ???

Don't forget these buildings were built in the years between 1966 and 1972.

4513101891a7949971613o.jpg


construction-1.jpg


Please show where in these images from the construction there are 47 CONTINUOUS columns and not 47 columns on EACH FLOOR ... there were 110 floors ... that therefore is over 5,170 INDIVIDUAL core columns ... NOT just 47 !!!

Some Articles From Engineering News Record.
 
Please show where in these images from the construction there are 47 CONTINUOUS columns and not 47 columns on EACH FLOOR ... there were 110 floors ... that therefore is over 5,170 INDIVIDUAL core columns ... NOT just 47

Like I said before.....there is a steel worker on another forum that put up the columns in many highrise buildings that is a so called "Truther".

He has a lot to say and one of the things he talks about is how it takes 3 hours to preheat one joint with a "rosebud" so it can be welded together as one.......thus making the central core columns one solid fused piece from bedrock all the way to the top floor.

He also talks about how it takes three hours for a "rosebud" directly on it to preheat the steel to a temperature far lower than the fires somehow obtained.

Plus even if the floors did pancake the core columns would still stand strong within the interior central core.

By the way the last I heard they retracted the Pancake Theory and revised(manipulated) their story for collapse a few times now and it still re-writes physics on how the central core columns could blow themselves out of the way all the way down faster than the top floor dropping so the top floor can hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it.

femacore.gif
 
Last edited:
Like I said before.....there is a steel worker on another forum that put up the columns in many highrise buildings that is a so called "Truther".

So you keep saying ... means nothing !!!

Link to what he says would mean more than just you saying it ... :roll:


By the way the last I heard they retracted the Pancake Theory and revised(manipulated) their story for collapse a few times now and it still re-writes physics on how the central core columns could blow themselves out of the way all the way down faster than the top floor dropping so the top floor can hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it.

Sheech your slow ... this is OLD !!!

Please show some awareness of the flow of time ...

The "pancake" theory was a first thought idea ... with fuller information it was expanded to the progressive collapse theory ... YEARS ago.

And considering that it was an EARLY proposal put together by FEMA ... whose area of expertise is NOT structural engineering ... and that those early initial reports by NON-EXPERTS of building collapse forensics were later reviewed and revised by the more knowledgable NIST whose MORE detailed and thourough examinations and techniques were able to MORE fully explain the collapse mechanism ... then it is a moot point anyway !!!

FEMA: About FEMA

NIST Laboratories

In science as information is added a theory adapts ... there is NO manipulation.

But in your scientific ignorance you still don't seem to "get" that !!!

AGAIN creative please explain exactly WHICH laws of physics were either violated or broken ... you know the ones you keep (yawn) claiming and yet NEVER seem to explain ???

So WHICH ones were they ... and how come the rest of this planets scientific communities appear not to have noticed ???


I have asked this of you numerous times ... and you have YET to answer.

I predict another dodge attempt coming up ... :roll:

NIST and the World Trade Center
 
Last edited:
Like I said before.....there is a steel worker on another forum that put up the columns in many highrise buildings that is a so called "Truther".

He has a lot to say and one of the things he talks about is how it takes 3 hours to preheat one joint with a "rosebud" so it can be welded together as one.......thus making the central core columns one solid fused piece from bedrock all the way to the top floor.

He also talks about how it takes three hours for a "rosebud" directly on it to preheat the steel to a temperature far lower than the fires somehow obtained.

Plus even if the floors did pancake the core columns would still stand strong within the interior central core.

By the way the last I heard they retracted the Pancake Theory and revised(manipulated) their story for collapse a few times now and it still re-writes physics on how the central core columns could blow themselves out of the way all the way down faster than the top floor dropping so the top floor can hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would if dropped right beside it.

femacore.gif
Allow me to elaborate on what I mean by pancake theory, which only applied to the first ten floors that where damaged during initial impact.. and yes it's only conjecture....but a educated guess.
 
And completely wrong Skateguy ... the Towers were NOT one-piece solid structures like a tree TRUNK.

Tree trunks have ZERO empty space inside ... they are rigid and solid.

The Towers were FULL of empty space and hence can collapse within themselves.

Why can you still not get the childishly simple fact that buildings are MOSTLY AIR inside !!!

This does not require a three digit IQ to grasp !!!

The Towers were NOT solid one piece structures like a tree ... but were made up of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of SMALLER COMPONENTS.

EACH one of these connection points OFFERED a spot that was WEAKER than the component ITSELF !!!.

Two columns held together with four bolts in a COMPRESSION loaded state could hold together indefinitely ... BUT put a SHEER LOAD on that same column and the bolts will break with relative ease.

Don't believe me ... go ask a structural engineer !!!

Now you may "think" just because something is BIG it is conversely strong, when in fact the strength to mass ratio is NEVER exponential equal !!!

This little fact was observed by none other than Galileo long ago.

The bigger they are the harder they fall !!!

Your "perceptions" of things you deal with on a daily basis is not the same in the world of giants such as the WTC.

You can build a desk of wood or even steel with reasonable size legs and put what to "you" is huge amounts of books on it and it will not fail.

You can consider it common sense that a desk a thousands time bigger would be a thousands time stronger.

BUT you would be wrong !!!

The WTC were a delicate BALANCING act ... the taller you make it the stronger you need to make the supports ... the bigger the supports the more weight you add and you now have to add more strength to hold this extra weight.

BUT, on the other hand, if you build with an eye towards lightness and depend on a clever DISTRIBUTION of loads "rather" then super strong (heavy) construction you can build super tall with lots of open office space.

The WTC achieved its strength NOT by over-engineering but by a clever design that made OPTIMUM use of a centre core and an outer box wall design.

Unfortunately when those two elements were compromised by aircraft impacts and fire (we ALL SAW what happened) ... 9/11 would have been no surprise to Galileo !!!

Now I know that you will believe that because there were large sections of steel that it somehow makes the sections stronger ... but here is another little real factoid for you to ignore ...

The matter that makes up steel will be the SAME irregardless of the amount ... the ATOMIC BOND is the same big or small !!!
sorry, but your evaluation is faulty. Hate to be the one to break it to you. but do carry on.
 
sorry, but your evaluation is faulty. Hate to be the one to break it to you. but do carry on.

And of course your word on that is what exactly, that I should just unquestioningly accept it ???

Where is my evalutation in error ... perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where !!!
 
No, it is not creative ... buildings are NOT solid inside.

You, again, show your complete and utter LACK of scientific understanding.

How did I just "know" you would be back so quickly and oh! so predictably posting the exact same ... word-for-word ... stuff as before.

Political Forum - View Single Post - I'm Officially Retiring From Trying to Get Support for a New 9/11 Investigation.

Most rational and intelligent people would consider endless spamming as weak and puerile ... I have asked you many times if you have anything stronger or newer.

But it is just the same boring old round of blah, blah, blah ... wonder how long it will take you to get back round to posting your "I would marry Rosie O'Donnel" one ???

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...-odonnell-would-marry-her.html#post1058380855

Political Forum - View Single Post - Rosie O'Donnell...I would marry her!!!

Rosie O'Donnell...I would marry her!!!

And you NEVER answer questions ... you just abandon the thread, when it is not going your way, and start a new one.

Spamming and dodging STILL doesn't make you right !!!

Endless repetition STILL doesn't make you right !!!

Your a slow learner ... consistant though :doh
The core of the buildings, were like most all frame work for modern buildings. Columns of steel, fastened together with cross bracing, to make a rigid structure. --No, it is not solid like a tree.--sorry if that one went over your head, as that was not my intent. I was simply trying to break it down as simple as possible for you. ---but if you can't see what I was referring to, I may be wasting my breath. It is just simple Structural design, --nothin new here. --did you build with "erector sets", when you were young? If not, it would explain your seemingly lack of basic engineering.--You don't have to have a degree to understand it.---and I'm not trying to be disrespectful with my comments.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.....follow the connection trail to the propaganda that is intentionally misleading.

The propaganda spewed via the vehicles of...History Channel and Popular Mechanics target average couch potato Americans too lazy to do their own research and intentionally mislead by focusing on the floor trusses and ignoring the many vertical support columns that run from bedrock to the top floor in the core.

Yes because, structural engineers, intlligence experts, people who are experts on actual demolitions, and people who were actually freaking there don't know as much as people like Alex Jones, Fetzer, and whoever you manage to pull out of the depths of cyberspace. I didn't say that they or anyone has all of the answers, but they shoot down the most retarded of the theories.

Somehow these core columns were blown out of the way fast enough all the way down for the top floor to hit the ground almost as fast as a ball would.

This might have to do with the incredible downwardforce that accompinied the failling of the building
 
Yes because, structural engineers, intlligence experts, people who are experts on actual demolitions, and people who were actually freaking there don't know as much as people like Alex Jones, Fetzer, and whoever you manage to pull out of the depths of cyberspace. I didn't say that they or anyone has all of the answers, but they shoot down the most retarded of the theories.



This might have to do with the incredible downwardforce that accompinied the failling of the building
"Boing"--sorry wrong answer---next contestant.
 
Great rebuttle
I'm a quick study--if it works for their side, it should work for mine. --If you have no facts to wage a rebuttal---just say they are stupid, misinformed, morons, and are just out and out, wrong. thought I would give it a try. :)
 
The core of the buildings, were like most all frame work for modern buildings. Columns of steel, fastened together with cross bracing, to make a rigid structure. --

Are you using "cross bracing" as to be taken to mean diagonal bracing ???

There was diagonal bracing in the Twin Towers ... there was also horizontal.

Some more information would be helpful, pretty please !!!

No, it is not solid like a tree.--sorry if that one went over your head, as that was not my intent. I was simply trying to break it down as simple as possible for you. ---but if you can't see what I was referring to, I may be wasting my breath.

Afraid that nothing went over my head ... ;)

However I believe, in a rather ****-handed way, you are referring to the RIGIDITY of a tree as opposed to solidity.

Trees as structures aside from a degree of rigidity also NEED a degree of FLEXIBILITY.

Were they wholly rigid and inflexible, without give or elasticity they would undoubtably break in the wind.

Just like the Towers ... there has to be a certain amount of give factored in too ... the wind forces acting upon the Towers were considerable and they had to, by way of a degree of flexibility resist them.

Are you aware that the wind speed DOUBLES for every ten-fold increase in altitude ... meaning that higher level winds (gradient wind) travel faster than winds at ground level !!!

Suspect you didn't !!!

It is just simple Structural design, --nothin new here. --did you build with "erector sets", when you were young? If not, it would explain your seemingly lack of basic engineering.--

I take it you mean a Lego kit ... well that would be a no, being a gurl I was much more interested in my ponies !!!

However I beg to differ regarding lack of skills ... the basic engineering is simple to grasp, nothing I have previously said would be misunderstood by those with relevent qualifications.

Nothing I have said would not be able to be found in engineering text !!!

You don't have to have a degree to understand it.---and I'm not trying to be disrespectful with my comments.

I again beg to differ ... detailed knowledge can only come from a greater level of learning.

Some things actually NEED a good understanding of the subject matter in the first place ... less knowledge = less understanding.

Über simple !!!

None taken ... it takes much more than that to even start to get to me ... this ain't my first ride, me laddie !!!

(I am such a fannybaws I managed to delete this and had to write it all out again as too busy tending Farmville ... :3oops:)
 
I'm a quick study--if it works for their side, it should work for mine. --If you have no facts to wage a rebuttal---just say they are stupid, misinformed, morons, and are just out and out, wrong. thought I would give it a try. :)

My comment wasn't a specious plea to authority. These people took time to explain things better than these other people. Many people in the documentery were actually there. The Truthers pull forward people with little knowledge of what they're talking about. I'm not saying that their authority always makes them right, but I'll trust a heart surgeon to tell me what's wrong with my heart over a classics professor.

Again noncredible source=failed argument
 
Are you using "cross bracing" as to be taken to mean diagonal bracing ???

There was diagonal bracing in the Twin Towers ... there was also horizontal.

Some more information would be helpful, pretty please !!!



Afraid that nothing went over my head ... ;)

However I believe, in a rather ****-handed way, you are referring to the RIGIDITY of a tree as opposed to solidity.

Trees as structures aside from a degree of rigidity also NEED a degree of FLEXIBILITY.

Were they wholly rigid and inflexible, without give or elasticity they would undoubtably break in the wind.

Just like the Towers ... there has to be a certain amount of give factored in too ... the wind forces acting upon the Towers were considerable and they had to, by way of a degree of flexibility resist them.

Are you aware that the wind speed DOUBLES for every ten-fold increase in altitude ... meaning that higher level winds (gradient wind) travel faster than winds at ground level !!!

Suspect you didn't !!!



I take it you mean a Lego kit ... well that would be a no, being a gurl I was much more interested in my ponies !!!

However I beg to differ regarding lack of skills ... the basic engineering is simple to grasp, nothing I have previously said would be misunderstood by those with relevent qualifications.

Nothing I have said would not be able to be found in engineering text !!!



I again beg to differ ... detailed knowledge can only come from a greater level of learning.

Some things actually NEED a good understanding of the subject matter in the first place ... less knowledge = less understanding.

Über simple !!!

None taken ... it takes much more than that to even start to get to me ... this ain't my first ride, me laddie !!!

(I am such a fannybaws I managed to delete this and had to write it all out again as too busy tending Farmville ... :3oops:)
Sorry, I didn't know you were a Girl. My bad.--Yes the Frame work does have built in flex in it, for the reasons you describe. so it won't fall or break. I was speaking of Horizontal cross members. Many buildings do not use diagonals, though I think they should. Could be because it would make them to ridged, with out enough flex. Conjecture on my part here. --An "Erector set" is small metal beams and girders that boys made structures like we are speaking of with. They teach us basic engineering principles at an early age. that hold true as time goes by.---I don't have an Engineering degree, yet I do hold one "United States Patent" for something I engineered. I have no business degree, yet have run a successful business for thirty years. And I worked for 20 plus years as a Journeyman Machinist, and Inspector. Primarily with Pumps and gas turbine engines. ---so I have a little understanding of the working of the physical world.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't know you were a Girl. My bad.--Yes the Frame work does have built in flex in it, for the reasons you describe. so it won't fall or break. I was speaking of Horizontal cross members. Many buildings do not use diagonals, though I think they should. Could be because it would make them to ridged, with out enough flex. Conjecture on my part here. --An "Erector set" is small metal beams and girders that boys made structures like we are speaking of with. They teach us basic engineering principles at an early age. that hold true as time goes by.---I don't have an Engineering degree, yet I do hold one "United States Patent" for something I engineered. I have no business degree, yet have run a successful business for thirty years. And I worked for 20 plus years as a Journeyman Machinist, and Inspector. Primarily with Pumps and gas turbine engines. ---so I have a little understanding of the working of the physical world.

Not a worry, but the little pink symbol beneath my profile info is usually a clue ... ;)

It it good to know some of your background Skategy, for some reason I thought you were younger ... :3oops:

Your Erector set is what we call "Meccano" over here ... brilliant toy, and although I get what you are saying about its ability to teach some basic engineering principles, that is only if it is explained to you as well.

You can build some pretty impossible in the real world, shapes with it ... so unless you have had the added explanation and teaching you may well have a distorted or flawed understanding !!!

For myself, I trained as a Dental Surgeon through the RAF (Royal Air Force) and matriculated through the Scottish University system ... and although a medical field you still had to have training in engineering principles, particularly mechanical ... as well as various military field medicine skills, as being classed non-combatent you still had to train for being called upon, a bit like your MASH hospital stuff !!!

In applied dentistry you still need to understand engineering, although on a micro-scale ... cantilevers, abutments, pressure, stress, pivots, fracturing, etc ... e.g your TMJ (temporomandibular joint) or jaw bone is a double-hinge joint, allowing for anterior/posterior and lateral movement !!!

Measuring and manufacturing a dental bridge is not strictly just a medical proceedure, but also an engineering feat in minature !!!

So although having spend my career in micro, I can still scale-up and apply those principles ... and I think that is where many people go wrong ...
they cannot scale-up ... so to them common sense tells them that something twice the size is twice as strong, when that is not strictly true.

To use a dental analogy ... the bite FORCE exerted by the human jaw can be averaging around 160 lbs of pressure, with it at maximum, in some cases, at over 970 lbs, with the incisors maxing out at 34/5 lbs !!!

Whilst bite PRESSURE can be up to over 5,000 psi !!!

Now, in people who grind their teeth, that can INCREASE by factors of 7 to 10times that ... but do they, therefore, "need" to be 7 to 10 times bigger to do it ???

Well, obviously, that's a no ... and yet that is what many people are arguing regarding this, applying what to them may be common sense rules, but they count for nothing unless you truly and fully understand the differences between exponential, linear and logarithmic measurments, etc.

As a 9/11 related example let's use the Boeing 707 which was the aircraft used to calculate the impact forces in the 1964 study of the Towers.

And even IF the 767 which hit on 9/11 was the exact same size and weight the as the 707, the simple fact that is was travelling faster INCREASES the damage.

Now, how many people here would know, automatically, that even for an object the exact same weight and mass ... by doubling the speed(velocity) you QUADRUPLE the kinetic energy !!!

So the exact same object, by just DOUBLING velocity would impact with FOUR TIMES more energy as before !!!

Just like your bullet in my other post ... whether in your hand or a chamber it has the same weight and mass but by "changing" velocity you "change" the levels of damage ... simple stuff ...

~~~~~~~~~~

As a funny aside ... our nursing service in the RAF is known as PMRAFNS (Princess Marys' Royal Air Force Nursing Service) an acronym which we renamed Pull My RAF Nickers Sideways !!!

How naughty ... :3oops:

Btw, we still have travelling Journeymen from Germany, who travel all over, for just over 3 years, developing their various skills until the level of Master Craftsman, known as Wandergesellen.

They are the best, they are meticulous at everything, even down to time-keeping and cleanliness, they have to wear an old-fashioned uniform, are not allowed to marry during the apprenticeship, yet must kiss (nicely) every woman they meet and are incredibly polite ... so if ever you are building a house !!!

Presse - Rechtschaffene Fremde Maurer- und Steinhauergesellen

Journeymen find their way to Estonia

wandergesellen.jpg
 
Not a worry, but the little pink symbol beneath my profile info is usually a clue ... ;)

It it good to know some of your background Skategy, for some reason I thought you were younger ... :3oops:

Your Erector set is what we call "Meccano" over here ... brilliant toy, and although I get what you are saying about its ability to teach some basic engineering principles, that is only if it is explained to you as well.

You can build some pretty impossible in the real world, shapes with it ... so unless you have had the added explanation and teaching you may well have a distorted or flawed understanding !!!

For myself, I trained as a Dental Surgeon through the RAF (Royal Air Force) and matriculated through the Scottish University system ... and although a medical field you still had to have training in engineering principles, particularly mechanical ... as well as various military field medicine skills, as being classed non-combatent you still had to train for being called upon, a bit like your MASH hospital stuff !!!

In applied dentistry you still need to understand engineering, although on a micro-scale ... cantilevers, abutments, pressure, stress, pivots, fracturing, etc ... e.g your TMJ (temporomandibular joint) or jaw bone is a double-hinge joint, allowing for anterior/posterior and lateral movement !!!

Measuring and manufacturing a dental bridge is not strictly just a medical proceedure, but also an engineering feat in minature !!!

So although having spend my career in micro, I can still scale-up and apply those principles ... and I think that is where many people go wrong ...
they cannot scale-up ... so to them common sense tells them that something twice the size is twice as strong, when that is not strictly true.

To use a dental analogy ... the bite FORCE exerted by the human jaw can be averaging around 160 lbs of pressure, with it at maximum, in some cases, at over 970 lbs, with the incisors maxing out at 34/5 lbs !!!

Whilst bite PRESSURE can be up to over 5,000 psi !!!

Now, in people who grind their teeth, that can INCREASE by factors of 7 to 10times that ... but do they, therefore, "need" to be 7 to 10 times bigger to do it ???

Well, obviously, that's a no ... and yet that is what many people are arguing regarding this, applying what to them may be common sense rules, but they count for nothing unless you truly and fully understand the differences between exponential, linear and logarithmic measurments, etc.

As a 9/11 related example let's use the Boeing 707 which was the aircraft used to calculate the impact forces in the 1964 study of the Towers.

And even IF the 767 which hit on 9/11 was the exact same size and weight the as the 707, the simple fact that is was travelling faster INCREASES the damage.

Now, how many people here would know, automatically, that even for an object the exact same weight and mass ... by doubling the speed(velocity) you QUADRUPLE the kinetic energy !!!

So the exact same object, by just DOUBLING velocity would impact with FOUR TIMES more energy as before !!!

Just like your bullet in my other post ... whether in your hand or a chamber it has the same weight and mass but by "changing" velocity you "change" the levels of damage ... simple stuff ...

~~~~~~~~~~

As a funny aside ... our nursing service in the RAF is known as PMRAFNS (Princess Marys' Royal Air Force Nursing Service) an acronym which we renamed Pull My RAF Nickers Sideways !!!

How naughty ... :3oops:

Btw, we still have travelling Journeymen from Germany, who travel all over, for just over 3 years, developing their various skills until the level of Master Craftsman, known as Wandergesellen.

They are the best, they are meticulous at everything, even down to time-keeping and cleanliness, they have to wear an old-fashioned uniform, are not allowed to marry during the apprenticeship, yet must kiss (nicely) every woman they meet and are incredibly polite ... so if ever you are building a house !!!

Presse - Rechtschaffene Fremde Maurer- und Steinhauergesellen

Journeymen find their way to Estonia

wandergesellen.jpg
Great information. thanks for sharing. --We could use some of that "Old School Craftsmanship" in America now days. All we know how to do, is make money, and text. We have forgotten our way as Builders.:(
 
Here is some information on the Twin Towers actually being designed to withstand a possible plane impact during foggy conditions....

9-11 Research: Towers' Design Parameters

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated

aircraftcomparison.gif


The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.


property Boeing 707-320.............Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons..........23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs.....395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs............179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft.....................156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^.....................2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft.........................159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph..................530 mph


Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details.

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS. "

" BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT."

" THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE."

At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these perimeter columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom