Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Actually, 15% or less of the perimeter columns being damaged would not affect ALL floors or the core.
|
The perimeter columns supported all of the floors - from the ground level up to the top. They perimeter columns were damaged, and in some cases completely destroyed. The perimeter columns started to bend outwards due to the damage and the fires, pulling the trusses on every floor below it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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...
|
You keep trying to minimise the damage to the perimeter columns. In some places they were completely destroy, so nothing was supporting the floors above. The perimeter columns were also pushed out, pulling the floors with them which not only affected the perimeter columns below, but also affected the perimeter columns on all sides being as the floor and the trusses holding the floor in place were being pulled away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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.
|
But not all floors were uncompromised or structurally sound.
And no, nothing would have "tilted to the side". The floors fell down. Not sideways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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.
|
A massive one story building collapsed. This was so massive that it caved in ten levels underground, and was still ten stories tall above ground. Millions and millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god knows what fell.
This is where your points fail. Your making it sounds like the core magically disappeared, but that would have happened no matter what. Even if the building was brought down entirely by explosives, the core and everything else would have been pulverised and turned into debris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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.
|
What do you mean by no combustibles? In the core itself were utility rooms with back up batteries and generators. Bathrooms had paper towels and rags and trash bins. Your making the core to be solid steel with the fact it was elevtaors and rooms full of combustibles with load bearing walls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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.
|
Two large airplanes hit two tall buildings.
Saying they were different is like saying one car hit another car head on at 70mph opposed to one car hitting the passenger door head on at 70mph. Very different, but you still end up with the same result.
Planes crashed into the towers, destroying the support and hitting the core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
An hour-long fire would not weaken steel unless it was approximately 6 times the reported temperatures.
|
So what your saying here is that thermite couldn't have been used to take down the buildings because the fire wasn't hot enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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.
|
Key word here is "designed for".
My car is designed with a crumble zone so that I can survive a car crash. However, that doesn't guarantee that I will survive a car crash.
The buildings were designed to survive a plane crash, but not the kind of plane crash that happened. They were designed to survive an impact of a plan traveling at 300 mph - not a plane intentionally slammed into a building at almost twice that speed.
And the towers did in fact survive the impact. It was the impact and the resulting fires that took down the towers, not the impact itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The truth is, the building was designed to take your airplane hit.
|
No, it wasn't. It was designed to withstand an impact at 180mph, not the 600mph. Planes don't travel 600mph at that height, and at the time it no one imagined someone would intentionally ram the towers at 600mph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
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"....
|
And the Patriot Act did what?
Do you mean to tell me that the US government bombed buildings to enact a law? What exactly did that law accomplish? Can they read my email? Could they read my email before? Now? I'm sure they can.