mycal

Oct 22 2008, 06:13 PM

You still think that the towers were CD? A 767 crashes into a 110 story tower at the 93fl, nearly dead center, setting it on fire. The tower burned for nearly an hour and 45 mins. Would you stand under the thousands upon thousands of tons being held up by weakened and non existent supports? I wouldn't because there is a very high probability that the tower will collapse. Once those thousands of tons are in motion, the floors below don't stand a chance.

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.


There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

mycal

Oct 22 2008, 06:13 PM

I also know for a fact through simple common sense and scientific reasoning and honest observation, that the WTC Towers were destroyed with top-down explosive demolitions, and WTC7 was destroyed with an ordinary demolition.






You still think that the towers were CD? A 767 crashes into a 110 story tower at the 93fl, nearly dead center, setting it on fire. The tower burned for nearly an hour and 45 mins. Would you stand under the thousands upon thousands of tons being held up by weakened and non existent supports? I wouldn't because there is a very high probability that the tower will collapse. Once those thousands of tons are in motion, the floors below don't stand a chance.

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.


There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

SPreston

 

I also know for a fact through simple common sense and scientific reasoning and honest observation, that the WTC Towers were destroyed with top-down explosive demolitions, and WTC7 was destroyed with an ordinary demolition.

mycal

 

You still think that the towers were CD? A 767 crashes into a 110 story tower at the 93fl, nearly dead center, setting it on fire. The tower burned for nearly an hour and 45 mins. Would you stand under the thousands upon thousands of tons being held up by weakened and non existent supports? I wouldn't because there is a very high probability that the tower will collapse. Once those thousands of tons are in motion, the floors below don't stand a chance.

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.

There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

JFK

Oct 22 2008, 06:36 PM

I would especially like to see your numbers as far as the weight of the concrete floor slabs per floor.

Grit1645

Oct 22 2008, 08:52 PM

JFK

Oct 22 2008, 06:36 PM

I would especially like to see your numbers as far as the weight of the concrete floor slabs per floor.

My understanding the concrete was some type of lightweight mix, maybe 120 pcf. 4.5 inches on metal deck would equate to about 45 psf. Add the metal deck and finishing ballpark 50 psf total. 200 feet on a side X 50 psf = 2 million pounds, or 2000 Kips/floor.

JFK

Oct 22 2008, 09:30 PM

Grit1645

Oct 22 2008, 08:52 PM

JFK

Oct 22 2008, 06:36 PM

I would especially like to see your numbers as far as the weight of the concrete floor slabs per floor.

My understanding the concrete was some type of lightweight mix, maybe 120 pcf. 4.5 inches on metal deck would equate to about 45 psf. Add the metal deck and finishing ballpark 50 psf total. 200 feet on a side X 50 psf = 2 million pounds, or 2000 Kips/floor.

Great... Now cite me an official report to that effect.

Grit1645

Oct 23 2008, 12:52 AM

JFK

Oct 22 2008, 09:30 PM

Grit1645

Oct 22 2008, 08:52 PM

JFK

Oct 22 2008, 06:36 PM

I would especially like to see your numbers as far as the weight of the concrete floor slabs per floor.

My understanding the concrete was some type of lightweight mix, maybe 120 pcf. 4.5 inches on metal deck would equate to about 45 psf. Add the metal deck and finishing ballpark 50 psf total. 200 feet on a side X 50 psf = 2 million pounds, or 2000 Kips/floor.

Great... Now cite me an official report to that effect.

Why do you need an official report for, JFK? Concrete weighs between 110 and 150 pcf depending on the mix. The floor slabs are detailed in various sites/sketches. The building dimensions are known. Where's the ambiguity? Do you think these numbers should be something ELSE?

JFK

Oct 22 2008, 06:36 PM

mycal

Oct 22 2008, 06:13 PM

I also know for a fact through simple common sense and scientific reasoning and honest observation, that the WTC Towers were destroyed with top-down explosive demolitions, and WTC7 was destroyed with an ordinary demolition.






You still think that the towers were CD? A 767 crashes into a 110 story tower at the 93fl, nearly dead center, setting it on fire. The tower burned for nearly an hour and 45 mins. Would you stand under the thousands upon thousands of tons being held up by weakened and non existent supports? I wouldn't because there is a very high probability that the tower will collapse. Once those thousands of tons are in motion, the floors below don't stand a chance.

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.


There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to share your numbers with us.

I would especially like to see your numbers as far as the weight of the concrete floor slabs per floor.

Aldo Marquis CIT

Oct 22 2008, 06:20 PM

mycal

Oct 22 2008, 06:13 PM

You still think that the towers were CD? A 767 crashes into a 110 story tower at the 93fl, nearly dead center, setting it on fire. The tower burned for nearly an hour and 45 mins. Would you stand under the thousands upon thousands of tons being held up by weakened and non existent supports? I wouldn't because there is a very high probability that the tower will collapse. Once those thousands of tons are in motion, the floors below don't stand a chance.

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.


There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

If a demo expert wired and completely blew out the 4 floors hit on 9/11 in a replica of the north tower (floors 94-98) would the whole building collapse downward without stopping?

mycal

Oct 23 2008, 10:31 AM

JFK

Oct 22 2008, 06:36 PM

mycal

Oct 22 2008, 06:13 PM

I also know for a fact through simple common sense and scientific reasoning and honest observation, that the WTC Towers were destroyed with top-down explosive demolitions, and WTC7 was destroyed with an ordinary demolition.






You still think that the towers were CD? A 767 crashes into a 110 story tower at the 93fl, nearly dead center, setting it on fire. The tower burned for nearly an hour and 45 mins. Would you stand under the thousands upon thousands of tons being held up by weakened and non existent supports? I wouldn't because there is a very high probability that the tower will collapse. Once those thousands of tons are in motion, the floors below don't stand a chance.

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.


There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to share your numbers with us.

I would especially like to see your numbers as far as the weight of the concrete floor slabs per floor.

Semantics. It doesn't take a research paper to show that there were thousands of tons of weight above the impact zones. Did you expect the buildings to continue standing as if nothing happened? The 767-200 is 156ft wing tip to wing tip. The towers were 200ft wide. Do you think none of the supports were taken out by the aircraft? Do you know that fire weakens steel? How is the remaining supports and floors built only to hold the weight of the floor above, suppose to handle 15 to 30 extra floors? Would you have stood in that void and felt assured that the towers wouldn't collapse?

Everything that happened to those towers happened according to the laws of physics. Tower 2 fell according to the off center impact and lower impact. Tower one fell according to the dead center impact and higher impact.

"Frank A. Demartini"

 

“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.” 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.

Edited by JFK, Oct 23 2008, 10:50 AM.

mycal

Oct 23 2008, 10:36 AM

mycal

Oct 22 2008, 06:13 PM

Aldo Marquis CIT

Oct 22 2008, 06:20 PM

If a demo expert wired and completely blew out the 4 floors hit on 9/11 in a replica of the north tower (floors 94-98) would the whole building collapse downward without stopping?

Yes, because...

SPreston

 

I also know for a fact through simple common sense and scientific reasoning and honest observation, that the WTC Towers were destroyed with top-down explosive demolitions, and WTC7 was destroyed with an ordinary demolition.

mycal

 

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.

There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

SPreston

 

There is something called COMMON SENSE. Maybe you should check it out.

Must you show your ignorance before everyone? The South Tower top 30 floors tilted away from the side it was hit on. You go ahead and research it, and then you can come back here and tell everybody you were wrong. Just a simple mistaken assumption on your part. This diagram will help you.



In this famous South Tower photo, the floors are still intact above the explosive wave proceeding down the tower. Look at the lowest explosive puffs on the left and several floors at the corner are still intact above it. The demolition here is traveling down the tower faster than the floors collapsing. The toppling top 30 floors are shattered with explosives and disappear down into the pulverized dust cloud.

SPreston

Oct 23 2008, 12:00 PM

SPreston

 

I also know for a fact through simple common sense and scientific reasoning and honest observation, that the WTC Towers were destroyed with top-down explosive demolitions, and WTC7 was destroyed with an ordinary demolition.

mycal

 

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.

There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

SPreston

 

There is something called COMMON SENSE. Maybe you should check it out.

Must you show your ignorance before everyone? The South Tower top 30 floors tilted away from the side it was hit on. You go ahead and research it, and then you can come back here and tell everybody you were wrong. Just a simple mistaken assumption on your part. This diagram will help you.



In this famous South Tower photo, the floors are still intact above the explosive wave proceeding down the tower. Look at the lowest explosive puffs on the left and several floors at the corner are still intact above it. The demolition here is traveling down the tower faster than the floors collapsing. The toppling top 30 floors are shattered with explosives and disappear down into the pulverized dust cloud.

Have you posted the correction to your error yet mycal? To enhance your credibility, it is good sense to own up to simple mistakes and go on from there.

mycal

Oct 24 2008, 10:32 AM

What error? The reason this tower tilted before collapse is because it was hit off center. The plane entered on the south, but was more toward the western side of the building. It tilted in the derection of most of the damage and continued to collapse on down. You think it is CD, because you see a bunch of smoke and debris? Did you expect it to fall in one piece. Do you even understand the forces that are involved here?

mycal

Oct 24 2008, 10:32 AM

SPreston

 

SPreston

 

I also know for a fact through simple common sense and scientific reasoning and honest observation, that the WTC Towers were destroyed with top-down explosive demolitions, and WTC7 was destroyed with an ordinary demolition.

mycal

 

The second tower was hit much lower and off center, so it had even more weight sitting above the destroyed and weakened supports. That is why it fell first and the top tilted toward the side the plane hit on, before the rest of the floors gave way.

There is something called PHYSICS. Maybe you should check it out.

SPreston

 

There is something called COMMON SENSE. Maybe you should check it out.

Must you show your ignorance before everyone? The South Tower top 30 floors tilted away from the side it was hit on. You go ahead and research it, and then you can come back here and tell everybody you were wrong. Just a simple mistaken assumption on your part. This diagram will help you.



In this famous South Tower photo, the floors are still intact above the explosive wave proceeding down the tower. Look at the lowest explosive puffs on the left and several floors at the corner are still intact above it. The demolition here is traveling down the tower faster than the floors collapsing. The toppling top 30 floors are shattered with explosives and disappear down into the pulverized dust cloud.

Have you posted the correction to your error yet mycal? To enhance your credibility, it is good sense to own up to simple mistakes and go on from there.

What error? The reason this tower tilted before collapse is because it was hit off center. The plane entered on the south, but was more toward the western side of the building. It tilted in the derection of most of the damage and continued to collapse on down. You think it is CD, because you see a bunch of smoke and debris? Did you expect it to fall in one piece. Do you even understand the forces that are involved here?

BoneZ

Oct 24 2008, 01:09 PM

mycal

Oct 24 2008, 10:32 AM

What error? The reason this tower tilted before collapse is because it was hit off center. The plane entered on the south, but was more toward the western side of the building. It tilted in the derection of most of the damage and continued to collapse on down. You think it is CD, because you see a bunch of smoke and debris? Did you expect it to fall in one piece. Do you even understand the forces that are involved here?

Do you understand that if demolitions experts could just light a few fires on a few floors or just blow up a couple floors at the top and make a whole building come down, they would be rich beyond belief? Any of us could be demolitions experts and make alot of money with that type of logic. Steel-framed structures do not and have never completely collapsed due to fire, ever.

Not only were those buildings designed to withstand jetliner impacts from a Boeng 707 (a 707 is faster than a 737), but those buildings were designed to withstand collapses.

The WTC towers were designed as 3 buildings one on top of each other:



The two separate bands around each tower were the mechanical floors and used vents/louvers instead of windows which is why they're a different color. While the occupancy floors were made out of trusses, the mechanical floors were made solid with a sturdier beam construction. Had some miraculous event taken place to cause a collapse, the buildings were designed to arrest collapse at the mechanical floor areas.

With that in mind, to bring those buildings down, a demolitions expert would have to completely take out the mechanical floors to progress a full and complete collapse. That's exactly what happened on 9/11. In the following video, pay close attention to the lower mechanical floors. You will see on both visible sides of the tower, an explosion rips through the entire mechanical floor section before the collapse wave reaches it:

Video Link Here

Taking out the mechanical floors was vital to bringing down the towers completely. You absolutely cannot set a few fires or destroy a few floors in the center or top of a building and expect it to collapse completely. That is not how controlled demolitions work.

With explosives, you can make any building fall how and which way you want. You can make the building do anything with the right explosives and right detonation timing. If you're perpetrating the events of 9/11 and you have the buildings completely laden with explosives, it wouldn't matter where those planes hit, you could start detonation at or around the impact area and make it look like the building started its collapse due to damage in the impact area.

Had there not been explosives placed in the towers, the impact damage would have been repaired and life would go on in the towers. To view exhaustive research on this subject by scientists, scholars, architects and engineers, visit the websites in my signature.

mycal

Oct 24 2008, 04:17 PM

The bottom line is that if you take out supports and weaken others, the building is probably going to fail.

"mycal"

 

There was too much weight above the impact to expect that it would just hold with inadequate support

"mycal"

 

The video you posted shows dust and debris being ejected from the windows probably by the air pressure from within the building as the floors are compacting together.

"mycal"

 

There is no explosion.

BoneZ

Oct 24 2008, 04:29 PM

I would like for you to go tell all these architects, scientists, scholars and engineers at the websites in my signature that they're all wrong and all the years they spent in college getting Ph.D's was all wasted time because you know more than them.

Grit1645

Oct 24 2008, 08:05 PM

BoneZ

Oct 24 2008, 04:29 PM

I would like for you to go tell all these architects, scientists, scholars and engineers at the websites in my signature that they're all wrong and all the years they spent in college getting Ph.D's was all wasted time because you know more than them.

Well, mine was all wasted time, since ya'all know more than me. These guys too:

www.physics.buffalo.edu/whkinney

www.civil.eng.buffalo.edu/~reinhorn/

I don't feel bad, though, cause I'm in good company...

Grit1645

Oct 24 2008, 08:05 PM

BoneZ

Oct 24 2008, 04:29 PM

I would like for you to go tell all these architects, scientists, scholars and engineers at the websites in my signature that they're all wrong and all the years they spent in college getting Ph.D's was all wasted time because you know more than them.

Well, mine was all wasted time, since ya'all know more than me. These guys too:

www.physics.buffalo.edu/whkinney

www.civil.eng.buffalo.edu/~reinhorn/

I don't feel bad, though, cause I'm in good company...