London Apartment Tower ENGULFED in flames for a day but NO COLLAPSE!!!

SmarterthanYou said:
[1]then you suck ass as a scientist with an engineering degree because you're missing a supposedly very important factor in your 'loads' which is the fire and initial damage from the jet. but lets not let awkward issues fuck with your scenario.

[2]and you're basing your theory on the hypothesis of BOTH planes causing almost the SAME AMOUNT of LOCALIZED damage, and that the fire from both jets caused an EQUAL AMOUNT of heat damage to those 8 supporting joists in BOTH BUILDINGS just so that they both collapsed in upon themselves in almost the exact way each............

[ibid]and you think those odds are the same as a group of 19 individuals who actually PLANNED on ramming two planes in to two buildings.......

yeah, i see how that works in idiot land.
Click to expand...

LOL You're channeling ZippyDesh with the all caps and poor sentence structure.

1. The impact loads of the jets wasn't acting on the building when it collapsed- only gravity does. Unlike people, structures don't "remember" what happened before.
2. No, because as I said earlier, precision isn't part of the deal here. Both planes were hit, but at different locations. One went down in less time, which demonstrates the imprecise nature of the structural analysis. However, the end result was the same, and that is equally predictable.

BTW it's not my theory, but the theory of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and completely backed up by the science of building structures.
 
STY, ever her of Euler? He invented the Euler formula to describe column behavior.

6860ead0e30317b12c1c35e4cb322c797166b3bb


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_critical_load

P is load capacity
E gets smaller as temperature increases
I does not change in this example
L is the column length
K does not change in this example (at least not much)

The length, L, is super important here because it is in the denominator and is squared. So if the column length doubles the load capacity is reduced by a factor of 4. If three times longer by a factor of 9. The length is a function of the internal bracing, which as I said earlier was done by the floors. So as the floors gave way in the fire zone, the length of the columns weakened bigly.

E is less dramatic on the equation but it's important here because the temperature of the fires was highest at the central core of columns. The exterior ones were only exposed on the interior sides. So the interior columns were weakened first, explaining why the building seemed to collapse in on itself.
 
Last edited:
Right said:
LOL You're channeling ZippyDesh with the all caps and poor sentence structure.

1. The impact loads of the jets wasn't acting on the building when it collapsed- only gravity does. Unlike people, structures don't "remember" what happened before.
2. No, because as I said earlier, precision isn't part of the deal here. Both planes were hit, but at different locations. One went down in less time, which demonstrates the imprecise nature of the structural analysis. However, the end result was the same, and that is equally predictable.

BTW it's not my theory, but the theory of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and completely backed up by the science of building structures.
Click to expand...

I can see your point on the weakening of steel in a fire. I know for a fact due to ships fires steel will lose 60% or more of it strength above 1800 Deg F in less than 25 minutes. I have seen decks buckle, plates buckle, structures collapse because of the weakening. This is on ships now. They use a higher grade of steel (marine grades) which are generally stronger than steels used in commercial building construction. It all makes sense to me.
 
Sailor said:
I can see your point on the weakening of steel in a fire. I know for a fact due to ships fires steel will lose 60% or more of it strength above 1800 Deg F in less than 25 minutes. I have seen decks buckle, plates buckle, structures collapse because of the weakening. This is on ships now. They use a higher grade of steel (marine grades) which are generally stronger than steels used in commercial building construction. It all makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah building steel is either 36 ksi or 50 ksi. (Ksi = 1000 pounds per square inch tensile strength.) I'm not sure about ships as I haven't designed one. It's probably 50 then goes up from there.

I've met the chief engineer that does the landing gear on a Boeing 787 and that steel is 288 ksi. I don't have tools that are that strong!

In a ship, the hull could remain intact while the interior burns because it's cooled by the water that surrounds it.
 
cawacko said:
Maybe this is institutional denial of science but I would pay for TDAK, Desh and BAC to walk in to a corporate board room and say this is a bush/bin laden conspiracy
Click to expand...

This is why they are relegated to internet safe spaces. If they said this retarded shit in public, they'd be laughed out of the building.
 
BAC believes it was Bush, because Bush = White = bad.

If it occurred under Obama, he'd be calling every truther a moron.
 
Irish said:
Who? "The government" Is very vague. There are many levels and actors.
Click to expand...

You could argue the govt. lost a lot too. THey lost a lot of troops, supplies, money, etc., With the WOT.

So one could argue this was orgichtraded by the private sector to punish the govt.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well, i'm more convinced now than ever that most of you morons are complete and total lemmings that would willingly walk in to the gas chambers if the government told you it was absolutely necessary for national security. that you can steadfastly put your blind moronic faith in the word of an entity that was never supposed to be trusted, viewed as a necessary evil upon it's creation, gives credence to the claim that freedom really is dead.
Click to expand...

YOu're in agreement with BAC, and Deshtard. Don't you think you may be wrong?
 
cawacko said:
BAC, are these guys lying or just wrong?



World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
Click to expand...

You could also read the non-partisan 9/11 commission. But I'm sure BAC and TDAK have further conspiracies about that.

Which is why CTs are mostly retarded. Because they rely on conspiracy after conspiracy and conspiracy to explain all logic away.

JJP is part of the conspiracy, since they won't all agree.

The sky is blue, is a conspiracy.
 
Right said:
This sounds like you want to take your bat and ball and go home.
Click to expand...

At 12 years of age, I learned that I can take a horse to water but I can't make him drink. I gave y'all something to consider, y'all didn't want to because you're 'engineers' with them there college degrees and are smarter than the average bears, so good luck.
 
Right said:
I'll say it again, I have a degree in this science, and I knew that the towers would fall when I was watching the 9/11 event unfold on television. The mechanisms why are 100% fact based and simple to understand. Yet liberal retards refuse to learn, just like they refuse to learn economics and history.
Click to expand...

Its why they are Libtards.
 
Irish said:
Who? "The government" Is very vague. There are many levels and actors.
Click to expand...

let me guess........as a government stooge, you'd like to see detailed outlines and bulletpoint arguments about which government entity, the reporting agencies they have attached to them, and the very specific powers that each one has that they didn't before. am i right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top