Can the force of falling water destroy a car?

[greyl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Frk2H-g3CQ

[Realityhack]

1. Cool. Thanks for posting that. n/t

[Bonobo]

2. Is this a reference to fuel destroying columns? nt

[Bolo Boffin]

3. You can take it as that.

I think it's more about the piledriver effect, though. Whether the upper section remained a unit or whether it was torn apart into its individual pieces, the mass still retained all of its force as it moved down.

[Bonobo]

4. Thought provoking. nt

[wildbilln864]

7. you mean even as some of it went over the side?

:crazy:

reminds me of that silly "sledgehammer meets steuben glass" silliness.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Plenty of the water went over the side of the car, wildbill.

This experiment should remind you of my "sledgehammer meets Steuben glass" analogy. This is what I'm talking about.

[wildbilln864]

10. it was then and still is....

ridiculous! :rofl:

[wildbilln864]

11. it does not....

have the same mass when some of it is lost over the side was my point. BTW.

[jakeXT]

5. They used 10 tonnes of water, but they didn't try if the car still worked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GN1P5YTUBvE




Killing a Toyota
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfZDtC9kjVk

[lovepg]

6. Try that trick with a 49 Nash and see what happens. You can dent a car these days..s

by setting your coffee on the roof. Why not try bending core columns. Or would that test be actually accurate
and mess up your claim?

[wildbilln864]

8. you got it love! nt

[hack89]

12. You wouldn't even have to touch the core columns

take away the floors and they collapse due to no horizontal support.

[lovepg]

15. So dump the water on the steel reinforced concrete floor slab and see if it it crumbles.

The post shows nothing thats all i am pointing out.

[lovepg]

22. Hack you betray your lack of knowledge, the core columns had horizontal support ..

Beams.

[hack89]

26. The floors provided the horizontal support. nt

[lovepg]

31. No look at the construction pictures there are clearly horizontal support beams. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

35. You're confusing the four cranes used to build the towers with bracing.

Those followed the construction process up and then were dismantled at the top.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. The design of the WTC towers had all lateral loads being handled by the perimeter columns.

That means that all crossbracing for the towers was handled in the perimeter. The core was for gravity loads only.

[lovepg]

32. Sorry your just flat out wrong on this point.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Nope. Alas, the person flat out wrong about this is you.

100% of lateral loads on the structure were handled by the perimeter.

The core columns were only designed to handle gravity loads.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Them are the facts.

ETA: fixed bad brain mistake, thanks, anonymous messenger, too busy fighting off Beckites drunk on the blood of Van Jones on Twitter.

[Realityhack]

63. Do you have any evidence for that statement.

Like a link to engineering information?
Your personal observance of what you think is adequate cross bracing does not count. This is an engineering issue.

[wildbilln864]

47. wrong!

the core columns were tied together by beams and would support each other horizonatlly.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. How does this stop this from happening?

[lovepg]

14. Stop planting explosives in the buildings???nt

[Bolo Boffin]

16. No. You have zero evidence of explosives in the building. n/t

[lovepg]

17. You have zero evidence this post means anything.nt

[rhymeandreason]

18. What's this, th voice of God

"YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES IN THE BUILDING".

What an arrogant and false statement. You need to back off.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. No, simply the voice of truth.

You have zero evidence of explosives in the building.

I'm sorry that truth is something you cannot recognize.

[rhymeandreason]

20. There is difference in the interpretation of evidence.

Your unqualified assertions are matters of opinion (yours), not fact.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Not in this case.

Got any evidence? I've been looking for seven years now. No one has presented any actual evidence of explosives in the collapses.

[lovepg]

24. No evidence IS there you just do not believe it.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. You have no evidence that there were explosives in that building.

None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

[rhymeandreason]

38. There is abundant evidence. You simply interpret it differently.

Your bold assertions are baseless and false.

Just as some advocates for alternate theories seek closure over the events of 911 by embracing some theory or another, debunkers also seek closure by committing to the OGCT. I would hope that, in the interest of engaging an honest and productive discussion, you would respect the value of remaining open-minded.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. On remaining open-minded

Present evidence and you'd be surprised how open-minded I am. However, you have none.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

[lovepg]

23. Self delete

[wildbilln864]

25. WTF!?

Thin steel car bodies do not come close to these core colums of which there were 47 all together!

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Make them as big as you like.

If the floors are ripped away, the core is going to fall.

[wildbilln864]

30. why do you think that?

the core columns were connected to each other with steel beams. If the floors rip away, the steel core remains.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Because this is reality, wildbill.

The core was designed to only support gravity loads. 100% of lateral loads were handled in the perimeter. Without the floors connecting the core to the perimeter, there was nothing to keep the core from collapsing from a gust of wind.

Please read the NIST reports. You might actually learn how these buildings worked.

[wildbilln864]

41. The core was designe to support up to five times it's gravity load, AFAICT.

"gust of wind"!?
The building, including the core was designed to withstand a hundred mph hurricane.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. I don't think so. Going to have to see a reputable line with that information.

The BUILDING was designed to withstand hurricane-strength winds, not the CORE all by itself.

[wildbilln864]

46. Think what ever you wish to....

but the core columns as part of the support structure had to also be redundant in strength enough to support the floors in case of a hurricane or plane crash. If they weren't, what would hold the building up in case of a hurricane? :crazy:

[Bolo Boffin]

48. The perimeter columns were what held these buildings up in case of a hurricane.

That is how they were designed, wildbill.

ETA: And your non-presentation of evidence to support your fantasy about the Towers is duly noted.

[wildbilln864]

49. This picture clearly shows....

core columns connected to each other horizontally with steel beams! :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Connections for the floor trusses, taking the lateral energy out to the perimeters. n/t

[wildbilln864]

51. they tie the core columns together!

the core columns are connected to each other through the horizontal beams you see in the picture! If one falls it has to pull or push on the ones connected to it. :crazy:

[Bolo Boffin]

52. But provide no overall support for the whole core.

You have a gigantic strawman in your head labeled "How the WTC towers were constructed" and you accept absolutely no evidence to the contrary, solely so you can keep believing that the buildings were brought down with CT. Learn how these buildings actually worked.

[wildbilln864]

53. not verticle support, no....

but horizontal support, yes! :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Only enough support locally to keep the columns straight.

Because any appreciable bending would have crippled the core columns. The building's lateral loads were handled by the perimeter structure.

Look at a bookcase, wildbill. Until you put the backing on, the vertical and horizontal components are flimsy. The backing is the crossbracing for the bookcase. The perimeter structure was the crossbracing for the core and the entire building.

[wildbilln864]

57. that's wrong...

Those core columns were substantially larger that the perimeter columns! And they were tied together by horizontal cross beams. If we take your book case and omit the backing but substitute a horizontal brace at the top and center, it will stand on it's own. That's what the horizontal members on the columns do.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. That is not wrong.

That is the way those buildings were designed.

"To solve the problem of wind sway or vibration in the construction of the towers, chief engineer Leslie Robertson took a then unusual approach — instead of bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls, the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building."

http://tripatlas.com/World_Trade_Center

[wildbilln864]

59. while all of that is correct....

it in no way takes away from my original point that the cores would remain standing without the floors being connected. :eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

60. For how long, wildbill? For as long as they did - ten, fifteen seconds

Which is to say - No. They would not.

[wildbilln864]

61. your opinion! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Based on the actual evidence, wildbill.

Fully supported by the evidence. When the perimeter columns provide virtually all support against lateral loads, when the cores are deprived of their assistance, they go down, too.

[wildbilln864]

54. and the floor trusses.....

were connected only to the verticle columns, not the horizontal beams connecting the core columns.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. were connected to the ACTUAL CORE COLUMNS

the horizontal beams between the core columns were there only to help keep the columns straight locally. The actual crossbracing, the actual part of the building dealing with lateral loads, was in the perimeter structure.

"The tube-frame design, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a new approach which allowed open floor plans rather than columns distributed throughout the interior to support building loads as had traditionally been done. The World Trade Center towers utilized high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design

[lovepg]

33. Wrong there were horizontal support beams for the core. Look at some pictures..

before you blow it on this one.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Again, you are confusing the construction cranes with bracing for the core.

You might as well bring your trump card out. I've seen it before, and you've got nothing.

[lovepg]

40. No I am not the construction drawings show them as well. Nice try though!

[Bolo Boffin]

43. No.

The next time you get a bookshelf from Target, notice how flimsy it is until you put the backing on. Without crossbracing, vertical and horizontal beams mean squat for stability.

[lovepg]

44. BUT YOU CLAIMED THEY WERE NOT THERE! Now you claim they are not good for stability?

Your "facts" are sure a fudgeable entity.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Now I know what you are talking about.

The floors had to be attached to something. But the cores were not designed to handle anything but gravity loads.

[lovepg]

64. But without the floors they would not have collapsed which was your claim.

so we got that figured out. wheeeew.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. Without the floors, they WOULD have collapsed. And they DID. n/t

[lovepg]

66. In your fantasy.Nt

[Bolo Boffin]

67. No, in reality.

Parroting my words back to me doesn't mean you've made a point, not if the words don't apply to me.

[lovepg]

68. Saying no without explanation does not make a point.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. It's right there on every video of the core remaining after the rest of the building falls.

After a few seconds, down go the cores.

[defendandprotect]

70. So . . . the fire hoses brought down the WTC towers . . . ????

:evilgrin: