Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
... 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?
|
One damaged floor didn't fall onto one un-damaged floor. It's more like a dozen floors fell onto "less damaged floors" below it. Because the outer column was damaged, it pretty much affected ALL floors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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.
|
Again, your making sound as if the damage was limited. A certain number of the columns were just gone. Once you lost multiple columns, you weaken everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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.
|
It did follow the path of least resistance - down. One floor (or multiple floors) fell down onto the floors below it. You don't drop an entire floor onto the floor below it and have it tip over sideways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The floors did not float in mid-air - there was plenty of truss support above and below each floor.
|
The floors were supported by columns and the core, not the floor below it. In other words, there was no load bearing walls. In fact, there were no walls - the entire space from the core to the outer perimeter was empty. They put walls into to make rooms for the offices, but none of those walls were load bearing at all.
They floated in the air - they were hooked up the outer column and the core, no place else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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...
|
You understand the core itself was hollow, had a dozen elevators, bathrooms, support
rooms, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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.
|
The two towers were built the same, and were both hit by airplanes pretty much in the same fashion. Airplanes hit both buildings, damaged columns, weakened or destroyed the core support, and caused massive hour long fires that weakened the now damaged structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The building was made to support it's own weight beyond the extrapolated damage in the NIST report.
|
Sure, totally; I'm sure it was. The building was designed to support it's own weight.
However, the building was not designed to survive an impact, have the outer perimeter destroyed and weakened, and then it wasn't design to have multiple floors crashing down.
Could it support the extra weight? Maybe? But not when most of the support was weakened and the weight was crashing down the way it was.
__________________________________________________ ____________
Media Guy, you can sit here and debate this all you want. The truth is an airplane slice through the buildings, destroying a percentage of the column support and instantly weakening all of the perimeter. The core was also damaged. The damage to the support, the fire that continued to weaken everything eventually lead to one or more floors collapsing onto the floor before it, which was unable to support the load because it too was damaged. It was only a matter of time before it fell.