Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
You have it backwards. It wasn't an object one sixth crushing something six time larger. The floors above were six times heavier than the floor below it could support. Thus, it collapsed.
|
... and crushed one or a few weakened floors. What about the 70 or 80 structurally sound, unheated floors below those? Where was the resistance? How did they each give out in about one-tenth of a second each?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
So what your saying is that each side had 58 columns, and nearly half of one side was destroyed. That's before the fire PLUS the stress of the weight above it.
|
Half of one side, meaning one-eighth of the support of a floor or a few floors. Even if it was a whole side that was completely eradicated, the buildings were designed to take such an impact, even a couple such impacts each.
So one side out of four is compromised, the weight above drives down, and all four sides of all compromised floors and all four sides of all the uncompromised floors below give out all at once? That's not even logical.
Your one-side of four theory would indicate the top-dropping section would tilt to one side and topple, relieving the other three sides of the weight load and thus not leading to global collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
I mean, seriously, take a look at this picture? How in the world do you expect that not to collapse?
|
A form of failure would be logical if it followed the path of least resistance. However the failure went down vertically through the path of most resistance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Compared to other buildings, it was rather hollow. It was the other perimeter and the inner core that supported the building, as opposed to other buildings that have support throughout each floor.
|
The floors did not float in mid-air - there was plenty of truss support above and below each floor. In fact the government story holds that it was these cross supports weakening and being strong enough to pull in the perimeter support that somehow caused all the cross supports across all four sides on all 80 floors below to give out in 1/10th of a second each.
On top of this ridiculous contention, the increasingly thickened core column support also disappeared in dust. If the official version were logical, wouldn't this "spindle" have remained? It wasn't grated to shreds by the only part of the airplane massive and hard enough to sever them - the engines - from top to bottom zig-zag style...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
There was physically no support from the inner core to the outer wall:
|
On one of four sides of a few floors, probably. Does this explain the absence of an uneven, logical toppling in at least one of the towers? Instead two towers hit differently collapsed identically.
And if there were absolutely no support, no floor, how did those people get to the airliner impact zone/hole in the outer wall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
It's pretty simple: A huge airplane destroyed an entire side of perimeter support across ten floors, damaged the core, and further fire weakened it.
|
Actually it was much less than ten floors. Read the report.
The core was not damaged - though NIST theorized that perhaps three of the fifty core columns may have been damaged or weakened in one tower, and further theorized that up to five were damaged in the other.
The report also mentioned temperatures hot enough to weaken the steel may have occurred for several minutes, but the majority of the fire temperatures were on average a little over half that requirement. Even in a foundry, this highest-temperature requirement needs to be applied in a controlled manner for up to three hours before the result is achieved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
From wikipedia:
After the planes hit the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards.
The building fell because a fucking airplane destroyed a large percentage of the support and the building was unable to support it's own weight. |
It wasn't a large percentage, it was a minor percentage which according to the building engineers and architects was accounted for in the load-distribution design.
The building was made to support it's own weight beyond the extrapolated damage in the NIST report.
Like the NIST report, the Wikipedia explains a part of what happened - which it probably did, it's logical. But they entirely avoid tying together the elements leading up to collapse initiation and the collapse event itself. They leave it up to the reader to assume a conclusion they did not make, that they avoided entirely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
It's pretty simple. Take out 70 percent of my load bearing walls on one side of my house, the second floor is coming down.
|
Assuming 15% as the highest hypothesized amount of structural damage as reported by NIST, what is your "70 percent" referring to? That has nothing to do with the WTC towers...
:D