Question about structural beams, and columns ;) Options

[forester]

the structural beams of the wtc and all buildings are designed to be able to hold up the weight of all the beams above them.

at the wtc towers, after the planes hit, many of the beams were severed. this puts a lot more of the weight of the building on the undamaged beams.

question 1: how many beams MUST stay intact for the buildings to stay up?

question 2: if the section of the towers above the impact does collapse due to the beams in the damaged section nolonger being able to carry the above weight, can the beams below the damaged section literally catch the fall of the collapsing section and keep the building up? i took physics many years ago but im sure their is an equation to figure out the weight or kinetic energy of a mass after it falls several feet.

if the section above the plane damage did indeed collapse, the undamaged section below it would have had to be able to hold up all the weight above it multiplied by its velocity...i assume. considering this, is it logical to expect the undamaged floors to be able to hold this weight? is there any precident for this?

[NJcpaTOM]

the structural beams of the wtc and all buildings are designed to be able to hold up the weight of all the beams above them. 

at the wtc towers, after the planes hit, many of the beams were severed.  this puts a lot more of the weight of the building on the undamaged beams. 

question 1:  how many beams MUST  stay intact for the buildings to stay up?

question 2:  if the section of the towers above the impact does collapse due to the beams in the damaged section nolonger being able to carry the above weight, can the beams below the damaged section literally catch the fall of the collapsing section and keep the building up?  i took physics many years ago but im sure their is an equation to figure out the weight or kinetic energy of a mass after it falls several feet. 

if the section above the plane damage did indeed collapse, the undamaged section below it would have had to be able to hold up all the weight above it multiplied by its velocity...i assume.  considering this, is it logical to expect the undamaged floors to be able to hold this weight?  is there any precident for this?

I'm no structural engineer but I just finished watching 911 Mysteries and think that you may find it very informative.

I think it will more than answer your questions.

You can get it using this link. 911 Video Downloads

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[waterdancer]

These are questions NIST should have answered already (if they haven't it's not my fault). I'm not going to get technical here, but generally, what you are asking about sounds basically like a progressive collapse or pancaking scenario. Based on the video evidence and the official timing for the collapses, there is very little evidence that lower floors provided any resistance to upper floors (especially in WTC 7). Also, some more points to consider: these buildings were overengineered to withstand high winds and to meet engineering standards. Even in a substantially weakened condition (not proven
IMO) due to heat and airplane damage, in my opinion, the steel should have been able to hold up most if not all of the buildings (partial collapse at best, in other words). Then, looking at how the upper floors of the South tower slowed their rotation and turned to powder as they were tilting and spinning and how the top floors of the North tower somehow pancaked themselves into powder while still maintaining enough weight and kinetic energy to bring down the whole North tower... well, these are questions for NIST. All we need to do is find fault with their answers (if we are able). The burden of proof on their theory lies with them.

[dMz]

Related info can be found at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10265082

. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=1928

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10308055

and

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10494746

[Roark]

There were only structural beams in the core area. The main floors were supported by floor trusses.

I suppose you mean the columns?

It is a major mistake to look at a single structural element without considering how that element interacts with the other structural elements.

For instance, the exterior columns were stabilized and prevented from buckling by the floor assemblies.

If the floors started to sag or fail, then the exterior columns would be subject to buckling failure.

[dMz]

There were only structural beams in the core area. The main floors were supported by floor trusses.

I suppose you mean the columns?

It is a major mistake to look at a single structural element without considering how that element interacts with the other structural elements.

For instance, the exterior columns were stabilized and prevented from buckling by the floor assemblies.

If the floors started to sag or fail, then the exterior columns would be subject to buckling failure.

I suppose that I meant "related info," just like I posted there, [again unsourced] Chuckles. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yawn.gif)

P.S. BTW, this ISN'T the Debate section there, Chuckles...

This post has been edited by dMole: May 22 2008, 08:07 AM

[Roark]

Are you the local grammar Nazi?


Who’s debating? A question was asked and I was just trying to clarify the issue.

[dMz]

Are you the local grammar Nazi?

Who’s debating? A question was asked and I was just trying to clarify the issue.

Ummm, no- I suppose that I have a right to know what I intended with my own grammar. For the record, your "Nazi" comment is neither warranted, applicable, nor welcome.

You seem to have asked an "open-ended" question that didn't really have a context from what I could tell. Again, you might want to work on that whole "source" thing... HINT: the quotation key is 2 keys directly right of the "L" on most US keyboards, right under the left bracket...

It might now seem to some here on this forum that:

"YOU ARE HERE TO DISRUPT UNDER THE FALSE PRETENSE OF POLITE MANNERS AND ASKING QUESTIONS WHICH SIMPLY GET PEOPLE TO ARGUE INDEFINITELY ABOUT THINGS THAT CAN NEVER BE PROVEN ABSENT A GENUINE INVESTIGATION WITH SUBPOENA POWER IN A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE OR A COURT OF LAW..."

This post has been edited by dMole: May 24 2008, 12:37 AM

[dMz]

There were only structural beams in the core area. The main floors were supported by floor trusses.

Ummm, so the ~240+ perimeter beams weren't "structural beams" then???? You might want to check that with the steel specs and with the "safety factors" that I recently asked you about back over in the Debate section, there Chuckles.

So the main floors were only supported by floor trusses then? LOL! What was on the ends of those floor trusses then, Chuckles?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/lame.gif)

Admins: could you please merge Roark's recent drivel with the appropriate thread in the Debate section? Also, can someone please look up this joker's IP address and run a Whois request?

This post has been edited by dMole: May 22 2008, 09:16 AM

[Roark]

Ummm, so the ~240+ perimeter beams weren't "structural beams" then????

No, they were columns. Do try to keep up. Columns are vertical, beams are hrizontal.

You might want to check that with the steel specs and with the "safety factors" that I recently asked you about back over in the Debate section, there Chuckles.

Well since you seem to be the expert in strucutral engineering, how about if you tell me if those "safety factors" changed as a result of the damage to the building by impact and fire? Please provide the calculations to support your case.

So the main floors were only supported by floor trusses then? LOL! What was on the ends of those floor trusses then, Chuckles?

Don't play silly games, you know what I mean. The loads in the tenant areas of the floors were carried by the trusses to the perimeter and the core. (and that is the last time I will respond to your baiting attempts and thinly veiled ad hom attacks)

[albertchampion]

let me just say this about "melting" steel.

if you can do it with kerosene, wood, paper, and carpeting - you might want to take your methodologies to nucor, gerdau, mittal, aksteel, ussteel. they would love to learn how to do that. would save them beaucoup costs of steel production.

and the welding industry - think on how much they would like to spread a paste of kerosene and wood chips on a weld joint, ignite it with a match, and create a fusion joint

i have said for years that one of the major problems in this society is how so few know anything about how it works.

as to the volume of jetA deployed in the towers, i found this illustration on journal for 911 truth to be quite revealing:


VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf


terminate the trolls.

[Roark]

So how did the steel melt without loosing all its strength first?

[albertchampion]

YOU ARE A SILLY TWIT.

wtc1,2,6,7 were blown up.

[dMz]

Well since you seem to be the expert in strucutral engineering, how about if you tell me if those "safety factors" changed as a result of the damage to the building by impact and fire? Please provide the calculations to support your case.

I never claimed to be a structural engineer per se. I doubt that anyone will find where I have claimed that. I do know my way around a differential equation and a CAD program, however. For the benefit of the general public who read this forum- "safety factor" or "factor of safety" is a design multiplier that would have been set by "Worthington, Skilling, Helle, & Jackson, Structural Engineers". Does anyone really believe that the design of the WTC somehow changed on 9/11/2001? Laughable. R.oark seems to have resorted to grammatical and semantics sophistry. R.oark- your sophist engineering "questions" should properly be addressed to "Worthington, Skilling, Helle, & Jackson, Structural Engineers" BTW.

Don't play silly games, you know what I mean. The loads in the tenant areas of the floors were carried by the trusses to the perimeter and the core. (and that is the last time I will respond to your baiting attempts and thinly veiled ad hom attacks)

Don't play silly games... indeed. Now there's a concept, R.oark. You haven't been attacked by me yet- I can assure you that you would have noticed, and it wouldn't have been "thinly veiled" had I done so. Where's Cary when I need him?

EDIT: When the "columns" were laying on the back of a flatbed trailer for transport, what would the general public likely call them? That reminds me- where did those WTC core and perimeter "columns" go post-collapse exactly?

This post has been edited by dMole: May 23 2008, 02:16 AM

[dMz]

(and that is the last time I will respond to your baiting attempts and thinly veiled ad hom attacks)

Can I get that in writing? Oh yeah, I just did. Thank you very much Roark- it's been real, and it's been fun, but...

[dMz]

These are questions NIST should have answered already (if they haven't it's not my fault).

For the benefit of foxy, nicepants, Roark and the rest of the J_R_E_F trolls- read the above quote. Sums it up fairly well, don't you think?

As an aside, which branch of NIST professionally handles structural engineering for their customers again?

[dMz]

No, they were columns. Do try to keep up. Columns are vertical, beams are hrizontal.

@ R.oark-

So why aren't these called "I-columns" then?

http://www.saginawpipe.com/steel_i_beams.htm?kc=A8NGc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-beam

If you'll notice, I didn't make the OP- do try to keep up. There appears to be fairly common usage of "beam" to describe a large length (often either 20 or 40 feet long to fit on a semi-truck flatbed, IIRC) of structural steel. Here are a few more words that you might have a problem with- angle, channel, tube, pipe, rod, shaft, rebar, pin, bolt, rivet...

For the record, you are free to use any words however you see fit [Personally- I'm thinking of 2 that start with "a" right now...] (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

This post has been edited by dMole: May 23 2008, 01:32 PM

[Sanders]

So how did the steel melt without loosing all its strength first?

I haven't read this whole thread (just the last few posts actually), so forgive me if I'm not on the same page .... but there almost certainly wasn't any melting of any steel that day. Steven Jones' research and the evidence he has presented all point to the use of Thermite to cut columns (or, specifically Thermate). Steel beams sticking up out of the rubble with 45 degree cuts slobbered with slag, or bright orange lava-like stuff pouring out of the side of the building in that video clip does (less than) nothing to disuade me from agreeing with his conclusion of course (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) .

But that stuff ain't steel - it's molten Iron. Molten iron and aluminum oxide (emmited as a cloud of whitish-grey dust) are the two main by-products (along with extreme heat) of the Thermite/Thermate chemical reaction.

[Sanders]

Columns are vertical, beams are horizontal.

Hey, what if you pick up a column with a crane and turn it horizontal? Does it immediately become a beam?? What if you hold it at a 45 degree angle??? Owch, thinking about that made my head hurt !!!



( (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) sorry, I couldn't help myself )

[dMz]

I wonder what Roark would call this thing? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzTEIqkZKIM