Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
The plane hit at a lower point of that tower = more weight above the impact area compared to the other tower. Basic physics; not surprising it would fall first.
|
Regardless, an object of lesser mass can't just pulverize an object three times it's mass regardless of the momentume or velocity - the upper portion fell as though through butter....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
Steel loses much of its strength well below its melting point. And that matters a lot in regards to why the towers fell due to how they were built ... see my next response below..
|
The towers and many other buildings (such as WTC7) were built in such a way as to take weakened/softened steel into consideration; the weakened steel matrix would actually act as a "spring" to any tendencies to pile-driven gravitational effects.
Not to say that the structure gained strength if any of the steel softened, just to say that *if* the steel somehow managed to soften globally by some mysterious process, it still wouldn't have collapsed, AND if it had somehow it couldn't have softened all steel universally so that a vertical, symmetrical collapse could ensue, it would have fallen asymmetrically, tipping for the most part at it's weakest sections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
The towers were tube-frame construction unlike most, especially older, skyscrapers which are box framed construction. The difference is that box-frame is akin to a grid with each floor being supported by numerous internal columns. Whereas, in tube-frame, there is an inner core and the outer walls with few to no internal columns...
|
Tube-frames have become common because of their exceptional rigidity and flexibility - from earthquake as well as hurricane type forces, Their construction was also designed to resist multiple airliner impacts, let alone one. The "grid" you refer to is much more tensile and resistant to impacts than the classical box grids.
You also make it sound as though there is nothing but air between the core and external support, which is false.
If what you said were true, then the external "shell" would have shredded or been shedded and the core or "spindle" would have remained standing - which didn't happen, it was as though the core was shredded top to bottom, an impossibility considering the localized impoacts of the planes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
The towers, also including building 7, were tube-frame construction verses box-frame ... as the steel weakened from the heat, the floor supports sagged and pulled at the connections between the core and outer walls ...
|
Which according to this and NIST's cartoon reconstruction would have pulled the external parts of the building indward (and WTC7 wasn't a tube construct btw) which didn't happen. The towers blew out, laterally, against the suppositions of gravitation driven collapses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
Eventually, as the stress built up, portions of affected floors began to fall onto the floor beneath. At some point, the load limit of the floors below was reached, starting a cascade of floors falling onto the floors below; pancaking effect.
|
NIST and the government 'experts' dismissed the pancaking years and years ago. Even if you were partially right, it would have taken a second or more for each flloor to "pancake" or resist then give out to the upper weight (what's called the pile-driver effect) - which at one hundred stories would have taken a lot more than 10 seconds for the whole thing to come down - would have taken more like a minute and a half, if all were symmetrical and perfect and slam-resist-slam-resist perfect. Which it warn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
Much of the jet fuel was rapidly consumed and hence the temperature it burns at is of little consequence. 1200F is plenty hot enough to ignite materials within the building, which then burned for an extended period of time, weakening the steel, leading to an unstoppable pancaking of floors, and ultimately, the destruction of the buildings.
|
Pancaking the government already said was not an event.
Jet fuel/turpentine/lighter fluid can't weaken steel to the point you're talking about. If all the fuel burned off and left wood and sheetrock and paper burning for an hour, there's no way that could soften steel. NIST has already stated that it was unlikely any of the fires burned above 650 farenheit. A foundry needs six hours and more at temps of 3000 to begin to liquefy steel, and yet liquid metal was pooled beneath the towers for weeks on end after the destructions...
[QUOTE=Ron Bennett;18413601]In short, the difference between tube-frame (Towers 1, 2, and 7), which allowed for large open floor plans, and box-frame (ie. Empire State Building) is ultimately what did the towers in ... lack of structural redundancy / robustness compared to traditional box-frame structures.
/QUOTE]
This is a familiar myth that was already discredited and in fact would have contributed to the structure actually lasting longer than a traditional construct particularly due to the impacts. However regardless unless the fires were ignited and maintained by accelerants capable of maintaining temperatures above 2000 farenheit minimum for at least 5 hours, the structure should not have suffered, regardless if the steel weakened or rather softened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vjo
It wasnt the government.. it was the owners of the building.. all 3 buildings. Need I say his name.  Better not.
Govt had nothing to do with it. They are not even needed to pull it off. WHO has the motive? The govt are victims as I see it. (The Pentegon) |
Who else but elements of the government could have prevented all air support from engaging? Who but elements in the government could have arranged for all apparently available forces to be engaged in military exercises on the same day at the same time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks
OK, here are some more facts:
The WTC was not just *a* steel building. It was one of the largest/ tallest buildings in the world. As such, it had special/ extra forces on it. A building like that doesn't need to have the steel "cut" or "melted" to demolish it. It only needs to have the heat *weaken* the trusses. When you take 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, and burn for a while with lots of flammable debris, and add in a huge initial impact to blow off any insulation --that's exactly what can happen.
Watch the NOVA documentary. In the film, you can actually see the exact moment or frame when the trusses fail.
|
So the impacts blew all the insulation off all the beams from top to bottom?
Then wood and office walls burned hot enough to melt steel, forge swords, liquefy man's most tensile alloy in history within minutes?
A building like that as you say was specially constructed to withstand multiples of the very forces apparently applied to it that day, as well as those to which you refer.
The NOVA "documentary" was mistaken because they excluded any core column support in their computer "simulation" cartoon, and they subsequently corrected that or apologized for it...
Don't watch NOVA or listen to NIST unless you're willing to dig....