Free Thought Project Meme

brazenlilraisin · 9th June 2017, 04:59 AM

I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?

Mark F · 9th June 2017, 05:57 AM

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?

Its simple: The starting assumption is wrong. It isn't 15 floors acting on 90 floors, its 15 floors acting on 1 floor, then 16 floors acting on one floor, then 17 floors acting on one floor, then 18 floors acting on one floor, etc, etc, etc,....

fagin · 9th June 2017, 06:01 AM

That's way too simple an explanation....

DGM · 9th June 2017, 08:22 AM

I'd ask her to explain exactly what laws of physics were violated and how. After she fails at that, ask her for calculation to show there was not enough energy.

Porpoise of Life · 9th June 2017, 08:30 AM

In my experience people who believe in conspiracies have emotional reasons for doing so.
"it violates the laws of physics" actually means: "I am assuming this thing here somehow validates what I want to believe, but I don't know any of the details and will interpret critical questions as a personal attack."

So my advice would be: don't bother.

Grizzly Bear · 9th June 2017, 10:53 AM

There is an extremely verbose way to cover this but the short technical explanation is that towers would only behave in the fashion CT's think if they were monolithic structures with no in-between smaller interconnected pieces. Referencing the lower stories not being on fire is irrelevant... everything that failed below the impact regions failed because the elements along the collapse interface got overloaded and too eccentrically loaded in rapid succession to act as part of the overall structural system.

dudalb · 9th June 2017, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?

Hell, anybody who got a "C" or better in High School Physics could debunk that crap.

DGM · 9th June 2017, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Hell, anybody who got a "C" or better in High School Physics could debunk that crap.

The problem is, there is no actual claim as to what laws of physics were violated, so what would they be "debunking"?

This whole "campaign" is a no starter at face value. It's based on a false starting assumption and it really just goes down hill from there. Their energy bullet points are kind of funny considering they more or less express the same thing but fail to explain an interaction.

I'm sure their target audience will total get what they are saying.

cantonear1968 · 9th June 2017, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?

To expand on Mark F's point:

The live load of 1 WTC floor was about 29,000,000 lbs.

The mass of the15 floors she allows is 66,000,000 lbs.

66,000,0000 > 29,000,000

How could the Towers stop collapsing?

Mark F · 9th June 2017, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by fagin

That's way too simple an explanation....

Geared to the comprehension level of the intended audience.

Originally Posted by DGM

I'd ask her to explain exactly what laws of physics were violated and how. After she fails at that, ask her for calculation to show there was not enough energy.

I'd shortcut that; What about a controlled demolition allows the laws of physics to be suspended? The only thing being violated is the application of physics.

beachnut · 11th June 2017, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?

The WTC was a very strong building, a system of made up of a core, a shell and floors. The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core. The shell is the lateral support for the WTC, making it possible to stand in hurricane force winds, the core and shell hold up the WTC, the floors only hold up themselves attached to the core and shell. The floor connections at the shell and core fail above 29,000,000 pounds about the mass of ~12 floors; thus dropping a mass of 15 floors will destroy each floor connections in turn with the shell being ripped up into parts as it was built, and the core failing since it can't stand without the shell for lateral support.

The strength of the WTC is also its weakness. Unlike the Empire State Building, the WTC could stop aircraft impacts at 200 mph with energy of 200 pounds of TNT. The ESB could not stop an 18 pound of TNT impact.

Floors fail above 29,000,000 pounds. But prepare for the Gish Gallop of cold fire, steel can't fail, thermite, thermate, C4, Planes can't fly fast, terrorists can't fly, nukes, free-fall, squibs, explosives in the basement; and if she comes up with something new, share it.

JSanderO · 14th June 2017, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

To expand on Mark F's point:

The live load of 1 WTC floor was about 29,000,000 lbs.

The mass of the15 floors she allows is 66,000,000 lbs.

66,000,0000 > 29,000,000

How could the Towers stop collapsing?

WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds

the DESIGN live load was:

55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds.

The actual live load was probably less than that.

JSanderO · 14th June 2017, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

The WTC was a very strong building, a system of made up of a core, a shell and floors. The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core. The shell is the lateral support for the WTC, making it possible to stand in hurricane force winds, the core and shell hold up the WTC, the floors only hold up themselves attached to the core and shell...

Not exactly correct.

The 3 main elements... facade, floor membranes (slabs) and the core were all part of the wind load resistance strategy as they were interconnected and "composite".

beachnut · 14th June 2017, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by JSanderO

Not exactly correct.

The 3 main elements... facade, floor membranes (slabs) and the core were all part of the wind load resistance strategy as they were interconnected and "composite".

Quote:

The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core.

Quote:

"The tubular framing system for the perimeter walls resisted all of the lateral forces imposed by wind and earthquake, as well as the impact loads imposed on September 11." - Leslie Robertson

Yes, the WTC was a strong system, the ESB failed to stop an 18 pound KE impact, the WTC would stop a 187 pound impact at the shell.

cantonear1968 · 15th June 2017, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by JSanderO

WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds

the DESIGN live load was:

55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds.

The actual live load was probably less than that.

From NIST FAQ #12

"The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C)."

If that is not the live load I'll stand corrected.

Edit: Ok I think I see where I am going wrong. Live Load refers to the people and furnishings. Gravity Load refers to the Live and Dead loads together. I see your point regarding Live Load and it agrees with the estimate by Thomas Eager:

"With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t [2,600,000 lbs] beyond its own weight."

Thank you for the clarification.

Oystein · 15th June 2017, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by cantonear1968

"The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C)."

If that is not the live load I'll stand corrected.
...

Actual Capacity > Design Load

Grizzly Bear · 15th June 2017, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?

By they way... simple explanation on this might be to compare how basic college level physics problems are treated vs what the towers actually are. I recall my college level classes started in basics with single-element problems, where you dealt with one simple solid mass, following one simple direction of motion in a frictionless environment...

The towers had tens of thousands of interconnected pieces scaled exponentially higher than simple physics problems. Look at what engineers have to do in order to calculate how these things have to be designed before they're constructed, in order for the final product to work as intended...

That meme follows the casual simple body concept of physics and tries to scale it to that of a skyscraper... there's a pretty simple, uncomplicated reason why that line of thinking is wrong.

Crazy Chainsaw · 19th June 2017, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

By they way... simple explanation on this might be to compare how basic college level physics problems are treated vs what the towers actually are. I recall my college level classes started in basics with single-element problems, where you dealt with one simple solid mass, following one simple direction of motion in a frictionless environment...

The towers had tens of thousands of interconnected pieces scaled exponentially higher than simple physics problems. Look at what engineers have to do in order to calculate how these things have to be designed before they're constructed, in order for the final product to work as intended...

That meme follows the casual simple body concept of physics and tries to scale it to that of a skyscraper... there's a pretty simple, uncomplicated reason why that line of thinking is wrong.

Exactly it is a result of connections being forced to work individually because of essesive loading in a dynamic Collapse, that results in rapid energy transfer that can not be shared or compensated for by sharing loads in the structure, as outlined by James Clark Maxwell.
Connections are most effected by the time interval of sudden undesigned for loads, the faster the loading occurs the less time for the energy to dissipate though the structure.
That's what Maxwell said in his pinned beam equations.
That's why the top block represention is so wrong.

Crazy Chainsaw · 19th June 2017, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by JSanderO

WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds

the DESIGN live load was:

55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds.

The actual live load was probably less than that.

The live load is meaningless once the forces become dynamic, because load timing comes into play the faster the loading and momentum of impacts the less time for collective load sharing between connections.

Time, momentum, and individual strength of the connections are the key factors the Cters argument is so pour that it can't even be considered physics.

9th June 2017, 04:59 AM	#1
brazenlilraisin ...tart Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 660	Free Thought Project Meme I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?
brazenlilraisin ...tart Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 660	__________________ "LMAO! pure intelligets, have you read my posts?"--superlogicalthinker

9th June 2017, 05:57 AM	#2
Mark F Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,108	Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me? Its simple: The starting assumption is wrong. It isn't 15 floors acting on 90 floors, its 15 floors acting on 1 floor, then 16 floors acting on one floor, then 17 floors acting on one floor, then 18 floors acting on one floor, etc, etc, etc,....
Mark F Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,108	__________________ So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

9th June 2017, 06:01 AM	#3
fagin Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: As far away from casebro as possible. Posts: 4,616	That's way too simple an explanation....
	__________________ There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda

9th June 2017, 08:22 AM	#4
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,240	I'd ask her to explain exactly what laws of physics were violated and how. After she fails at that, ask her for calculation to show there was not enough energy.
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 Last edited by DGM; 9th June 2017 at 08:25 AM.

9th June 2017, 08:30 AM	#5
Porpoise of Life Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 3,043	In my experience people who believe in conspiracies have emotional reasons for doing so. "it violates the laws of physics" actually means: "I am assuming this thing here somehow validates what I want to believe, but I don't know any of the details and will interpret critical questions as a personal attack." So my advice would be: don't bother.
	Last edited by Porpoise of Life; 9th June 2017 at 08:33 AM. Reason: typo

9th June 2017, 10:53 AM	#6
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,769	There is an extremely verbose way to cover this but the short technical explanation is that towers would only behave in the fashion CT's think if they were monolithic structures with no in-between smaller interconnected pieces. Referencing the lower stories not being on fire is irrelevant... everything that failed below the impact regions failed because the elements along the collapse interface got overloaded and too eccentrically loaded in rapid succession to act as part of the overall structural system.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,769	__________________ My new side hobby.... giving online game cheaters a rough time ._. Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg

9th June 2017, 12:29 PM	#7
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 37,184	Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248 I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me? Hell, anybody who got a "C" or better in High School Physics could debunk that crap.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

9th June 2017, 12:39 PM	#8
DGM Skeptic not Atheist Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,240	Originally Posted by dudalb Hell, anybody who got a "C" or better in High School Physics could debunk that crap. The problem is, there is no actual claim as to what laws of physics were violated, so what would they be "debunking"? This whole "campaign" is a no starter at face value. It's based on a false starting assumption and it really just goes down hill from there. Their energy bullet points are kind of funny considering they more or less express the same thing but fail to explain an interaction. I'm sure their target audience will total get what they are saying.
	__________________ "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 Last edited by DGM; 9th June 2017 at 12:47 PM.

9th June 2017, 12:52 PM	#9
cantonear1968 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,605	Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248 I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me? To expand on Mark F's point: The live load of 1 WTC floor was about 29,000,000 lbs. The mass of the15 floors she allows is 66,000,000 lbs. 66,000,0000 > 29,000,000 How could the Towers stop collapsing?
	__________________ Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. -Good luck America with President Trump Last edited by cantonear1968; 9th June 2017 at 01:14 PM. Reason: Grammar

9th June 2017, 06:28 PM	#10
Mark F Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,108	Originally Posted by fagin That's way too simple an explanation.... Geared to the comprehension level of the intended audience. Originally Posted by DGM I'd ask her to explain exactly what laws of physics were violated and how. After she fails at that, ask her for calculation to show there was not enough energy. I'd shortcut that; What about a controlled demolition allows the laws of physics to be suspended? The only thing being violated is the application of physics.
Mark F Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,108	__________________ So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

11th June 2017, 08:19 AM	#11
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 24,788	oops, already covered Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248 I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me? The WTC was a very strong building, a system of made up of a core, a shell and floors. The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core. The shell is the lateral support for the WTC, making it possible to stand in hurricane force winds, the core and shell hold up the WTC, the floors only hold up themselves attached to the core and shell. The floor connections at the shell and core fail above 29,000,000 pounds about the mass of ~12 floors; thus dropping a mass of 15 floors will destroy each floor connections in turn with the shell being ripped up into parts as it was built, and the core failing since it can't stand without the shell for lateral support. The strength of the WTC is also its weakness. Unlike the Empire State Building, the WTC could stop aircraft impacts at 200 mph with energy of 200 pounds of TNT. The ESB could not stop an 18 pound of TNT impact. Floors fail above 29,000,000 pounds. But prepare for the Gish Gallop of cold fire, steel can't fail, thermite, thermate, C4, Planes can't fly fast, terrorists can't fly, nukes, free-fall, squibs, explosives in the basement; and if she comes up with something new, share it.
	__________________ "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

14th June 2017, 03:36 AM	#12
JSanderO Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,679	Originally Posted by cantonear1968 To expand on Mark F's point: The live load of 1 WTC floor was about 29,000,000 lbs. The mass of the15 floors she allows is 66,000,000 lbs. 66,000,0000 > 29,000,000 How could the Towers stop collapsing? WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds the DESIGN live load was: 55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds. The actual live load was probably less than that.
	__________________ So many idiots and so little time.

14th June 2017, 03:40 AM	#13
JSanderO Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: nyc Posts: 2,679	Originally Posted by beachnut The WTC was a very strong building, a system of made up of a core, a shell and floors. The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core. The shell is the lateral support for the WTC, making it possible to stand in hurricane force winds, the core and shell hold up the WTC, the floors only hold up themselves attached to the core and shell... Not exactly correct. The 3 main elements... facade, floor membranes (slabs) and the core were all part of the wind load resistance strategy as they were interconnected and "composite".
	__________________ So many idiots and so little time.

14th June 2017, 02:13 PM	#14
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 24,788	Originally Posted by JSanderO Not exactly correct. The 3 main elements... facade, floor membranes (slabs) and the core were all part of the wind load resistance strategy as they were interconnected and "composite". Quote: The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core. Quote: "The tubular framing system for the perimeter walls resisted all of the lateral forces imposed by wind and earthquake, as well as the impact loads imposed on September 11." - Leslie Robertson Yes, the WTC was a strong system, the ESB failed to stop an 18 pound KE impact, the WTC would stop a 187 pound impact at the shell.
	__________________ "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein "... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

15th June 2017, 11:46 AM	#15
cantonear1968 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,605	Originally Posted by JSanderO WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds the DESIGN live load was: 55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds. The actual live load was probably less than that. From NIST FAQ #12 "The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C)." If that is not the live load I'll stand corrected. Edit: Ok I think I see where I am going wrong. Live Load refers to the people and furnishings. Gravity Load refers to the Live and Dead loads together. I see your point regarding Live Load and it agrees with the estimate by Thomas Eager: "With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t [2,600,000 lbs] beyond its own weight." Thank you for the clarification.
	__________________ Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. -Good luck America with President Trump Last edited by cantonear1968; 15th June 2017 at 11:57 AM.

15th June 2017, 12:56 PM	#16
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 14,819	Originally Posted by cantonear1968 "The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C)." If that is not the live load I'll stand corrected. ... Actual Capacity > Design Load
	__________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

15th June 2017, 05:45 PM	#17
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,769	Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248 I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me? By they way... simple explanation on this might be to compare how basic college level physics problems are treated vs what the towers actually are. I recall my college level classes started in basics with single-element problems, where you dealt with one simple solid mass, following one simple direction of motion in a frictionless environment... The towers had tens of thousands of interconnected pieces scaled exponentially higher than simple physics problems. Look at what engineers have to do in order to calculate how these things have to be designed before they're constructed, in order for the final product to work as intended... That meme follows the casual simple body concept of physics and tries to scale it to that of a skyscraper... there's a pretty simple, uncomplicated reason why that line of thinking is wrong.
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,769	__________________ My new side hobby.... giving online game cheaters a rough time ._. Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg

19th June 2017, 05:30 AM	#18
Crazy Chainsaw Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,729	Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear By they way... simple explanation on this might be to compare how basic college level physics problems are treated vs what the towers actually are. I recall my college level classes started in basics with single-element problems, where you dealt with one simple solid mass, following one simple direction of motion in a frictionless environment... The towers had tens of thousands of interconnected pieces scaled exponentially higher than simple physics problems. Look at what engineers have to do in order to calculate how these things have to be designed before they're constructed, in order for the final product to work as intended... That meme follows the casual simple body concept of physics and tries to scale it to that of a skyscraper... there's a pretty simple, uncomplicated reason why that line of thinking is wrong. Exactly it is a result of connections being forced to work individually because of essesive loading in a dynamic Collapse, that results in rapid energy transfer that can not be shared or compensated for by sharing loads in the structure, as outlined by James Clark Maxwell. Connections are most effected by the time interval of sudden undesigned for loads, the faster the loading occurs the less time for the energy to dissipate though the structure. That's what Maxwell said in his pinned beam equations. That's why the top block represention is so wrong.

19th June 2017, 05:37 AM	#19
Crazy Chainsaw Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,729	Originally Posted by JSanderO WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds the DESIGN live load was: 55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds. The actual live load was probably less than that. The live load is meaningless once the forces become dynamic, because load timing comes into play the faster the loading and momentum of impacts the less time for collective load sharing between connections. Time, momentum, and individual strength of the connections are the key factors the Cters argument is so pour that it can't even be considered physics.