Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
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.
|
Actually, 15% or less of the perimeter columns being damaged would not affect ALL floors or the core. Where are you getting your specs and stats?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
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.
|
True, if a large number of perimieter columns were compromised top-to-bottom. But they were not. The damage WAS limited, as per engineers' and architects' expected designs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
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.
|
If that floor were more solid, uncompromised and structurally sound, then yes your top section would meet resistance and either take much more than one-tenth of a second to give way, or present the much more likely amount of resistance that would cause the toppling upper section to tilt towards the side where structure was most compromised and weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
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.
|
That's correct. However each floor was buttressed below and above, and supported by the core and the perimeter. No reason for an enitre building to spontaneously lose all structural support, both in the core and the perimieter, and turn to dust and 30-foot column fragments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
They floated in the air - they were hooked up the outer column and the core, no place else.
|
And this doesn't explain why the core disappeared, the perimeters shredded, and the whole building was destroyed as though the whole thing was hit by a 100-storey jet plane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
You understand the core itself was hollow, had a dozen elevators, bathrooms, support rooms, right?
|
Yes. And no combustibles, and 50 columns thicker than your bathroom, which got thicker the further down you went, and whose shredding can in no way be accounted for by the official theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
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.
|
The two airplanes hit in completely different fashion. There is no proof that core columns were damaged, even if it's likely; in fact the impact that could be considered "glancing" had a titanium engine go right through, which removes the possibility that it hit any of the core columns.
An hour-long fire would not weaken steel unless it was approximately 6 times the reported temperatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
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.
|
Actually, this is precisely what it was designed to withstand. One of the building engineers is quoted as saying that they could withcstand multiple impacts of this sort, based on the largest airliner at the time, which contained more steel and less aluminum than modern air craft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
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.
|
Considering the "extra weight" was about 20% of the full mass of the building, Newton, Da Vinci, and the majority of HS physics teachers of the world could not agree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
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.
|
The truth is, the building was designed to take your airplane hit. The "percentage" of the column support was accounted for. The entire perimeter, either around or top to bottom, was not compromised by the impact - as per your favored government theory. The core was not damaged, as per the same theory. The fire was not hot enough long enough to weaken the steel as per your preferred theory.
While one compromised suppot/floor would be unable to resist the load of the upper 20 or so stories, the lower 80 stories would be able to provide resistance; would be able to hold out more than 1/10th of a second per down-crash, and would most likely have sent the downward-moving mass the way of least resistance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
What about it? I've never given it much thought.
|
Actually, neither have I, but it was the one conspiracy theory you didn't mention :P
It was also the instigator of the first "Patriot Act"....
:D