Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StuBradley
Yes, your "rational thought" would tell you this. However, anyone who knows about engineering will tell you that this cannot be true. If it were true, then the exterior facade would have to be about 10 feet thick (at the base of the tower) as it would be supporting the weight of the entire building (109 floors) above it.
The only reasonable way to build a steel and concrete structure (over 100 feet high or more) is to have a central core that carries the load combined with a glass (or in this case glass and steel) facade. Get out your phone book and look up a random structural engineer or commercial architect in your city. Ask them if this is true, since you seem to belittle my knowledge every chance you get.
|
every chance I get?
I've never noticed you existed before your attack post.
now, I'm sure that your here slinging porn because of your exceptional knowledge of building so these links will mean nothing to you but we've already seen that you aren't interested in the truth, just your version.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StuBradley
I agreed that the pancake theory was possible. All I am asking is that IF the floors pancaked where was the 800 foot high UNDAMAGED steel core of the north tower? Even if they somehow toppled over it's tough to miss 40 some 800ft. long solid steel colums.
|
They were destroyed, just as the exterior columns were. read my link.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StuBradley
Instead they found no pieces of debris larger than 30 feet or so. Which means that these 800ft. long steel colums (which were previously undamaged and designed to hold the weight of the entire building and then some) snapped into at least 27 pieces each (800ft./30ft. =26.66666). This seems rational to you?
|
this is another lie.
plenty of pieces bigger than 30ft.:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StuBradley
Actually, I thought that is what it was for the longest time. Until I read that the powder that covered most of the city later in the day was comprised primarily of powdered concrete. That does not make sense to me but then again I am stupid and uneducated.
|
you got a link for that story?
here's what I read:
Lioy and his collaborators examined the dust using microscopic, inorganic, organic, and particle size fractionation analysis. They found plaster, paint, foam, glass fibers and fragments, fiberglass, cement, vermiculite (used as a fire retardant instead of asbestos), chrysotile (asbestos), cotton fibers and lint, tarry and charred wood, and soot
The USGS team also analyzed WTC dust using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction analysis. Like Lioy's group, USGS scientists discovered a complex mixture of materials: glass fibers (up to 40% in some samples), gypsum (wallboard), concrete, paper, and other construction debris. "I was just amazed at how many glass fibers there were," Meeker said. The high concentration of glass was due partially to windows, but primarily to ceiling tiles. SEM revealed that much of the glass was present as odd-shaped fibers and spheres. "It's not an effect of the collapse," Meeker said. These compositions are compatible with "slag wool," a common component of ceiling tiles and other building materials.
All of the samples were very alkaline. Aqueous suspensions of Lioy and Chen's dust samples ranged from pH 9 to 11.5. Nobody was surprised by the high pH values, which are mainly due to cement dust. CaOH, CaCO3, and CaSO4 from cement, wallboard, and other construction materials permeated the samples.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html