Science > Physics > Re: The amazing denial what of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Henry" |
| Date: |
04 Jan 2007 06:22:45 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The amazing denial what of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
David Johnston wrote:
Henry <impeachbush@treason.gov> wrote:
It's a fact that there were no floors in the rubble pile, and
it's a fact that the concrete was pulverized into a fine powder
and spread all over Manhattan.
Yes, but those facts do not have any significance. The force of
the collapse was more than enough to pulverise concrete,
That would break it into chunks, not fine powder. There were no
broken up concrete floors in the rubble. They were spread all over Manhattan in a fine powder. Windows in buildings hundreds of feet
away were blown out by force of the shock waves. Hundreds of small
fragments of human bones were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank
Building, which is hundreds of feet away from the nearest tower. How
could "pancaking" cause bodies in the towers to explode into small
pieces and be thrown hundreds of feet? Shouldn't they have been crushed
between the floors?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/aerialdust.html
It would have disappeared in a giant mushroom cloud as it's
parts were flung away in all directiongs.
That's a very accurate description of what took place.
No it isn't.
<links restored because we can't afford to suppress the
evidence and truth about 9-11 any longer>
Photos prove that's exactly what took place. In fact, the word
mushroom in the link.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/mushrooming.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1nenw.html
It's really amazing that some people can view these photos and
try to claim that it's just steel bending and buckling from
being over heated. You can see massive explosions blowing debris
upward. We expect that sort of mindless idiocy from known
psychotics like crazy Petie Roehling, but when seemingly
sane folks do it, it's really weird. Those are obviously not
gravity driven collapses. They are clearly very violent and
powerful explosions.
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial what of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
04 Jan 2007 06:23:47 PM |
|
|
Henry wrote:
[snip conspiracy kookery]
Why bother posting this stuff to sci.physics when folks like yourself
reject science?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
06 Jan 2007 07:56:38 AM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
Henry wrote:
Why bother posting this stuff to sci.physics when folks like yourself
reject science?
You've mistaken me for a magic fire/super Arab conspiracy
theorist. If there were any errors in the science embraced
by those of us who have proved demolition, someone would be
able to point them out. But of course, no one has because
science, physics, eyewitness testimony, and the hard evidence
support demoliton.
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved with
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
Look at the height of WTC7:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
Then look at how it collapsed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
The near free fall speed and perfectly symmetric collapse of a
steel framed building can only be caused by a very well executed
synchronized demolition.
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
Perhaps you should learn more about the extreme (2000%) reserve
strength designed into the steel frames of the towers. How was the
2000% reserve strength of the undamaged steel frame exceeded by only
the force of gravity, in your opinion? And how was it exceeded to such
an extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame with a 2000% reserve
strength capacity offered no measurable resistance with only the force
of gravity working against it?
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
To believe that the towers could fall through themselves at virtual
free fall speed and in perfect symmetry is comical nonsense. What you
are saying, is that falling directly =through= the massive undamaged
steel frames, including the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by the
fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground about the
same time as the debris falling through the towers. Making your
theory even more impossible, is the fact that the steel at the top
of the towers was ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged
steel in the lower section.
Your magic fire conspiracy theory is an utterly idiotic and
comical fantasy - and it violates the laws of physics.
Look at the massive core column cross section in the
bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
Your magic fire theory says that crushing 47 of those bad boys,
all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying all the
perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, produced
about the same kinetic friction as falling though air. That's some
crazy, crazy, *****. It's amazing what some people can programmed
to believe.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the SOuth
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength, fire
resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are being
compressed, and on the opposite side, they're being pulled apart. Why
do you think the steel perimeter frame with no weight above it is
exploding and collapsing at the same rate as the compressed side?
Seems more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information
on the perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.st911.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
"You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" - bu$h, a few days
before his FEMA chief, Micheal Brown was forced to resign
because of his gross incompetence.
"The tools that enable Cuba to save lives and preserve
human dignity during hurricanes are socialist values
and organization." - Dr. W.T. Whitney Jr
Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
.
|
|
|
| User: "kirb" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
11 Jan 2007 11:56:03 AM |
|
|
Henry wrote:
But of course, no one has because
science, physics, eyewitness testimony, and the hard evidence
support demoliton.
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight.
Let's start talking about the physics required to blow up all the
concrete floors to dust (as you state) along with everything needed to
pull off what you think happened.
How much of whatever material you would need would be required?
How much time to place this material would be required?
Where would all this material be placed?
Who would place all this material, set up all the detonations, and pull
this off undetected?
Where is the truth bowel movement stand on research BEFORE the attack,
or whatever you call it
The real physics are that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to haul in that much
explosive undetected, put it in the critical places (every floor,
acording to Hanky), conduct a full building detonation, and pull this
off without ONE person shooting their mouth off.
How is this possible. It's easy to sit here and say the planes could
not have made the twin towers fall, but NO ONE is stating HOW any other
situation could have been pulled off.
How, hanky boy, how?
Kirb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
13 Jan 2007 08:37:38 AM |
|
|
kirb wrote:
Henry wrote:
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
How much of whatever material you would need would be required?
How much time to place this material would be required?
Where would all this material be placed?
Who would place all this material, set up all the detonations, and pull
this off undetected?
Conspiracy kook denial and avoidance tactics #12 & #14.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556
==============================================================
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
via demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, they're being pulled apart.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with no
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that is being compressed? Seems
more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the
perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch the video titled, "Close-up of South Tower collapse
on this page:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
That certainly isn't the gradual bending and buckling of an
over heated steel frame. Those are clearly very powerful
explosions.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "kirb" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
13 Jan 2007 02:28:31 PM |
|
|
Henry wrote:
Conspiracy kook denial and avoidance tactics #12 & #14.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556
Listen, you CANNOT claim a building was demoed without some idea of how
to actually do it. There is no way to explain how your theories could
be pulled off.
You can come up with whatever method to prove your theory, but the
reality of making it happen is impossible.
Quit deflecting, henry. Just come up with more wild theories.
Kirb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
15 Jan 2007 07:11:05 PM |
|
|
kirb wrote:
Henry wrote:
Conspiracy kook denial and avoidance tactics #12 & #14.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556
Listen, you CANNOT claim a building was demoed without some
idea of how to actually do it.
Controlled demolition destroys support structures with precision
placement and timing of varying types of explosives. That causes
the structure to drop straight down at close to free fall speed.
That's exactly what we saw in WTC7. It was a pictire perfect
demolition. If the best demolition team on the planet contracted
to drop WTC7, they could not possibly have dropped it better.
Fires never have and can't possibly cause that sort of collapse,
yet many people who are vulnerable to government propaganda and
lack basic common sense believe it anyway.
When asked how fires could have caused WTC7's picture perfect
demolition, they have no plausible explanation. Apparently, they
believe it on blind faith and ignorance alone.
Look at the height of WTC7:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture1.jpg
Then look at how it collapsed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
Small random fires can't possibly make a steel framed building
do that. Not even a raging inferno can cause a steel building to
do anything even remotely close to that. Only a very well executed
controlled demolition can cause the total, instant, and symmetric
failure of all steel support columns that took place in WTC7.
That was very solidly braced and virtually undamaged steel frame.
It was dramatically over engineered to withstand hurricane force
winds and mild earth quakes. Look at the still photos at 1 second
intervals. The building stays perfectly straight and level all the
way down. Every one of the 58 steel perimeter columns failed at
exactly the same time, and they all failed totally, putting up
essentially zero resistance. That's proved by the collapse time of
6.6 seconds compared to 6 seconds free fall. The southwest corner
of WTC7 was damaged by debris from the north tower, and there were
small random fires in the building, although it's anyone's guess how
they were ignited. But asymmetric damage and random fires don't cause
steel framed buildings to collapse even slowly and asymmetrically.
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
More on WTC7's perfectly executed controlled demolition from
experts:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
Sunday, February 05, 2006
The Destruction of WTC 7
Latest updates:
5 Sep 2006: NIST postpones its report until 2007, will consider if
explosions occurred
25 Sep 2006: a demolition expert and two structural design professors:
WTC 7 was a controlled demolition
13 Dec 2006: Heikki Kurttila (DEng): WTC 7 fell even faster than an
object falling the same distance through air
1 Jan 2007: Frank Legge (Ph.D.): The rate of descent of WTC 7 closely
matches gravitational free fall
World Trade Center 7 was a steel-framed skyscraper completed in 1985. It
was located 110 meters (350 feet) away from the closest of the Twin
Towers. The building's tenants included the CIA, the U.S. Securities &
Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, several banks, and
the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management.
No airplane hit WTC 7, but its south facade and southwest corner were
damaged by debris ejected from the North Tower, which collapsed at 10.30
am. It was reported on fire at 4.10 pm by CNN, although the fires seem
to have started hours earlier, evidently before noon. The fires were
detected on a number of floors, and the building collapsed at 5.20 pm.
A high-resolution video of the collapse is available here.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, speculated that office
fires caused the collapse of the building. It, however, acknowledged in
its report in May 2002: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. [...]
the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Later in
2002, Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 7, gave in the America
Rebuilds TV program a famous "pull it" statement that has commonly been
interpreted as meaning that the building was professionally demolished.
Did WTC 7 collapse as a result of office fires, or was it demolished
with explosives? The answer can be sought by examining the way in which
the building collapsed.
Collapse Speed
As one can observe from the videos of WTC 7's collapse, shortly
following the destruction of its penthouse structures, the building fell
to the ground in 6.5 seconds. This is a phenomenally short time: a stone
dropped from the top of the building would have reached the ground
(covering a distance of 174 meters) in 5.95 seconds – if there were no
air resistance! However, in principle the distance analyzed should be
that from the top of the building to the top of the debris pile, not to
the ground. As the exact height of the debris pile is not documented, it
is more useful to examine the early stages of the collapse, during which
the debris pile does not need to be taken into account.
According to the video analysis presented in the 9-11 Eyewitness
documentary, starting from the state of rest, WTC 7 fell 100 meters in
4.5 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2, corresponding
to a free fall.
To verify this, I examined the fall of a corner of the building in one
collapse video using Blaze Media Pro video editing software. The corner
fell 56 meters (=the distance between the Start and End lines in the
picture below) in 3.47 seconds. This results in an acceleration of 9.3
m/s2, which corresponds to a very low resistance factor of the
structural supports: only 5 percent of the force of gravity of the
building's falling upper section.
I also measured an acceleration of 8.5 m/s2 for the middle part of the
wide facade in the picture, which means that the force of resistance of
the structural supports was 13 percent of the force of gravity of the
falling upper section (see the calculation in more detail here).
My measurements therefore support the conclusion presented in 9-11
Eyewitness that the skyscraper fell virtually unimpeded. The lack of
structural resistance seems to be explainable only by the destruction of
the structural supports through the use of explosives.
WTC 7 fell on average 7 floors per second (47 / 6.5). One second after
the onset of the collapse, the speed of descent was almost 10
meters/second; after two seconds, almost 20 meters/second; and at the
end, about 60 meters/second (over 200 kilometers/hour). According to the
analysis of Frank Legge (Ph.D.), the rate of descent of WTC 7 closely
matches the rate of gravitational free fall, which – combined with the
uniformity of the descent throughout the breadth and length of the
building – is irrefutable evidence of controlled demolition.
Heikki Kurttila, a Finnish Doctor of Engineering and accident
researcher, has made detailed calculations about the collapse speed of
WTC 7. According to him, an apple dropped from the height of WTC 7's
roof would have taken about 0.5 seconds longer to reach the ground than
it took WTC 7 to fall completely. Kurttila concludes that the short
collapse time and low structural resistance "strongly suggest controlled
demolition".
Structural Features of the Collapse
A striking feature in the collapse of WTC 7 is symmetry. The collapse
progressed evenly throughout the building, and the debris piled up
almost entirely within the foundations of the building.
The symmetry of WTC 7's collapse means that all of its steel supports –
25 central and 58 peripheral columns – were destroyed almost
simultaneously. Any asymmetry in the damage to structures would have led
to asymmetrical collapse. By contrast, a fully symmetrical collapse
without controlled use of explosives would not have followed the
principle of least resistance. Local fires could not have weakened all
the central and peripheral support structures in a way that would have
caused all of them to give up at the same moment.
A controlled demolition is also suggested by the drop of the center of
the skyscraper moments before the surrounding structures started to
fall, as well as by the fact that the outer walls were pulled inwards.
In a controlled demolition the collapse is caused by first destroying
the weight-carrying core of a building, which "pulls" the exterior walls
inwards ("implosion"). Although the lowest floor with fires was
reportedly the sixth floor, the building seems to have undergone a
traditional demolition, beginning from the bottom floor. An emergency
worker who witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 was interviewed on 9/11. He
described hearing what sounded like a "clap of thunder", followed by
what looked like "a shockwave ripping through the building", with
windows busting out, and "about a second later the bottom floor caved
out and the [rest of] the building followed after that". The videos
showing the collapse support his description.
At least one high-resolution video of the collapse of WTC 7 clearly
shows one more characteristic of controlled demolition: streamers of
dust emerging out of the building.
A Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a demolition company
and has been in the business for 27 years, concluded in September 2006
that WTC 7 "is controlled demolition. [...] A team of experts did this.
This is professional work, without any doubt." Hugo Bachmann, a Swiss
professor emeritus for structural design and construction, said in
Tages-Anzeiger : "In my opinion WTC 7 was with great probability brought
down by controlled demolition done by experts". In addition, Jörg
Schneider, another Swiss Professor emeritus for structural design and
construction, interprets the existing videos as indices that "WTC 7 was
with great probability brought down by explosives".
Fire Endurance of Steel
Steel is very fire-resistant material. In tests conducted by Chorus
Construction in several countries, the fire endurance of steel-framed
parking garages was examined by feeding fires with hydrocarbon fuel.
Steel beams and pillars heated to a maximum of 360 degrees Celsius, and
the breaking of steel was not even close. In Cardington fire endurance
tests, modelled on conditions in real buildings, unprotected steel was
subjected to temperatures of up to 1100 degrees Celsius (2012 F), but
there was no collapse. In the Windsor Building in Madrid, an almost
24-hour intensive fire did not collapse the building. Moreover, the
fires in WTC 7 were insignificant compared to fires in Windsor Building
and all other skyscraper fires. The latest case is the all-engulfing
fire in Al Nasr Tower in 2006. Fires have never collapsed a single
steel-framed highrise to the ground. In the picture of WTC 7 above, the
fires are limited to small areas, almost all windows are intact, and no
red heat indicative of temperatures capable of softening steel is
visible. The situation is the same in other photographs taken of the
building in late afternoon. In this video a fair amount of smoke, but no
flames, can be seen. By contrast, WTC 5, which was badly damaged by the
collapse of the North Tower next to it, burned very powerfully: its
floors were covered by a sea of flames and all windows were broken.
However, this building, despite the fact that it had weaker support
structures than WTC 7, did not collapse into a debris pile, but remained
standing.
Characteristics of the Debris
The debris of WTC 7 was extremely hot weeks after the collapse of the
building. Thermal imaging by NASA showed that the top of the debris pile
had a temperature of 730 degrees Celsius five days after the collapse.
Deeper, and immediately after the destruction, temperatures were
probably considerably higher. Residual temperatures like this cannot be
explained by office fires or by an ordinary, gravity-driven collapse.
When the potential energy of a building experiencing an ordinary
gravitational collapse turns into thermal energy, the result is only a
few degrees' average increase in temperature.
According to several reports, molten metal (also suggested by this video
footage) was found under the debris pile of WTC buildings. To melt
structural steel, temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees Celsius are
required. Such temperatures are never achieved in office fires. In
addition to molten metal, partly evaporated steel beams were found in
the debris of WTC 7. As professor Jonathan Barnett pointed out in a New
York Times interview, the fires in the building could not have produced
temperatures capable of evaporating steel. However, the use of
explosives like thermite can produce temperatures (even 3000 degrees
Celsius) that can melt and even evaporate steel.
FEMA's investigators were not allowed to work in the collapse zone
itself. They were allowed to examine the debris of WTC skyscrapers only
in landfill areas used as temporary storage for the steel debris before
its recycling. By May 2005, when FEMA finished its preliminary report
calling for further investigation, all the steel debris had been sold
and shipped into the Far East. Only 156 pieces of steel were chosen for
futher analysis, of which a ridiculous total of 4 were from WTC 7. Even
these no longer seem to exist.
As WTC 7 was evacuated over six hours before its destruction, there were
no grounds for the rapid removal and recycling of the steel debris.
Quite the contrary: as WTC 7 was one of the three greatest building
collapses in recorded history (the other two being the North and South
Towers), the debris of the building should have been meticulously
examined. Many individuals and publications, such as the Fire
Engineering Magazine, protested strongly against the rapid destruction
of the evidence.
Final Words
Was WTC 7 destroyed as a result of controlled demolition? Everyone can
draw their own conclusions from the way in which the building was
destroyed and the temperatures produced in the destruction.
If and when the building was demolished, it must have been wired with
explosives before September 11th. An operation of that magnitude could
not have been accomplished during a couple of chaotic hours. This is why
the official hypotheses have not touched on the most obvious explanation
for the collapse of the skyscraper. It is revealing that the 9/11
Commission, which published its report in 2004, does not mention in a
single sentence the destruction of the third skyscraper resulting from
the terrorist attack in New York.
FEMA's work has been continued by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, which has again postponed its report on WTC 7, this time
until 2007. NIST is now saying that it is also investigating the
hypothesis that explosions initiated the collapse. Interviewed in the
March 2006 issue of New York Magazine, Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST lead
investigator, summed up the present state of the investigation:
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said.
"We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the
structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But
truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on
Building No. 7."
.
|
|
|
| User: "kirb" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
15 Jan 2007 10:20:15 PM |
|
|
Henry wrote:
kirb wrote:
Henry wrote:
Conspiracy kook denial and avoidance tactics #12 & #14.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556
Listen, you CANNOT claim a building was demoed without some
idea of how to actually do it.
Controlled demolition destroys support structures with precision
placement and timing of varying types of explosives. That causes
the structure to drop straight down at close to free fall speed.
OK, now how much and where do you put these? You state that the support
structures are VERY stout, but how much explosive would be required.
Answer- Too much without being noticed by anybody. That is trucks and
trucks of explosives placed in a very well thought out manner and
somehow synced to go off in the exact moment to bring the building down
and do so undetected.
Tall order.
That's exactly what we saw in WTC7. It was a pictire perfect
demolition. If the best demolition team on the planet contracted
to drop WTC7, they could not possibly have dropped it better.
I think that is the problem. Your statement says it all "the best demo
team on the planet could not have possibly have dropped it..." (do you
enjoy the post edits like your bowel movement buddies like to do?)
Kirb
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
10 Jan 2007 07:35:45 PM |
|
|
Henry, so when do your "scientific" simulations show what happens when
a fat 500-mi./h plane crashes into a tower?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
11 Jan 2007 05:23:21 PM |
|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Henry, so when do your "scientific" simulations show
what happens when a fat 500-mi./h plane crashes into a tower?
The real world event was exactly as expected and intended,
so there's no need to simulate it. The towers easily absorbed
the impacts and continued to stand proud. The massive steel
frames performed exactly as expected by the engineers who
designed them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
What has proved to be impossible to explain, or simulate
using computers, is the total, free fall speed, and
symmetric explosion of the towers.
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
The 2000% reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
via demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, they're being pulled apart.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with no
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that is being compressed? Seems
more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the
perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch the video titled, "Close-up of South Tower collapse
on this page:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
That certainly isn't the gradual bending and buckling of an
over heated steel frame. Those are clearly very powerful
explosions.
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
16 Jan 2007 03:52:18 PM |
|
|
In article <45A6C6E9.BFD3F915@bush.gov>, Henry <impeach@bush.gov>
wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Henry, so when do your "scientific" simulations show
what happens when a fat 500-mi./h plane crashes into a tower?
The real world event was exactly as expected and intended,
so there's no need to simulate it. The towers easily absorbed
the impacts and continued to stand proud. The massive steel
frames performed exactly as expected by the engineers who
designed them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
What has proved to be impossible to explain, or simulate
using computers, is the total, free fall speed
***{Those buildings were 1368 feet in height. A free-fall collapse, in
vacuum, would have reached a terminal velocity, Vt, of
Vt = gt, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, and t is the time
required.
The average velocity of the fall would therefore be
Va = (1/2)gt
And thus the distance would be
D = (Va)t = (1/2)gt^2
Thus we have
1368 = (1/2)(32)t^2, and
t = [2(1368/32)]^.5 = 9.24 seconds.
The actual times required by the collapses should have been longer,
since each fall was impeded by air resistance and the time required to
crush the structures of the buildings themselves. The time calculated
above, however, is the free-fall time from the top of the tower to
ground level. Since there would be a pile of debris on the ground when
the top of the tower arrived, it would be impossible for it to actually
reach ground level. So the actual height fallen would be less than 1368
feet, but how much less, and how would that quantity be determined? In
other words, how tall was the debris pile? That number would have to be
subtracted from 1368 and the above calculation re-done, to produce a
really useful lower limit for the collapse time. I see no information
here that bears on that question, or, for that matter, information that
would tell me how long you are claiming it took for the top of the tower
to reach the debris heap below. I don't have time right now to search
through the links you posted, so would you please post that information
directly into the group? If you will do that, perhaps we can get a
discussion going on this topic.
Thanks in advance.
--Mitchell Jones}***
, and
symmetric explosion of the towers.
This is what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging
infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
The 2000% reserve strength designed into the steel frames of
the towers could not possibly have been overcome by the force
of gravity alone. The fact that it was exceeded to such an
extreme degree that the undamaged steel frame offered no
measurable resistance, proves conclusively that the lower
structures were destroyed before being impacted.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
The massive steel frames of the towers were far too strong to
collapse only under their own weight. That's been proved through
physics, and that's why no other steel framed buildings have ever
collapsed that way unless they were demolished. See Gordon Ross'
excellent paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
As common sense would dictate, even if all the perimeter and
core columns near the top of the tower were somehow destroyed
simultaneously so that the top 20 stories or so dropped onto the
remaining undamaged frame, after some bending and compression,
the collapse would have stopped, or the upper block would have
fallen off to the side. Gordon Ross proves that with physics.
The official conspiracy requires us to believe that falling
directly =through= the massive undamaged steel frames, including
the 47 interconnected central core columns:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
provided little more resistance than air. This is proved by
the fact that debris falling outside the towers hit the ground
about the same time as the debris falling through the towers.
Making the government's conspiracy theory even more implausible,
is the fact that the steel at the top of the towers was over
ten times lighter and thinner than the undamaged steel in the
lower section. Look at the massive core column cross section in
the bottom photo.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The official conspiracy theory says that crushing 47 of those
columns, all interconnected with even more steel, =and= destroying
all the perimeter columns, =and= "pancaking" all the floors, and
stairways, produced about the same kinetic friction as falling
though air. That, of course, is not physically possible.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
via demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, they're being pulled apart.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with no
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that is being compressed? Seems
more than a little odd, doesn't it? Here's some information on the
perimeter columns.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
Now watch the video titled, "Close-up of South Tower collapse
on this page:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
That certainly isn't the gradual bending and buckling of an
over heated steel frame. Those are clearly very powerful
explosions.
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21
"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
17 Jan 2007 05:24:46 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article <45A6C6E9.BFD3F915@bush.gov>, Henry <impeach@bush.gov>
What has proved to be impossible to explain, or simulate
using computers, is the total, free fall speed
***{Those buildings were 1368 feet in height.
Thus we have
1368 = (1/2)(32)t^2, and
t = [2(1368/32)]^.5 = 9.24 seconds.
The actual times required by the collapses should have been longer,
since each fall was impeded by air resistance and the time required to
crush the structures of the buildings themselves. The time calculated
above, however, is the free-fall time from the top of the tower to
ground level.
The fact that debris falling outside the towers reached the ground
at virtually the same time as debris falling =through= the undamaged
steel frame of the towers proves that the massive steel frames put up
essentially no more resistance than air, which of course is impossible
unless the frames were destroyed before being impacted by falling
debris. Collapse times are generally agreed to be 15 seconds, give
or take a little.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html
Also, physics has proved that a gravity collapse is impossible
anyway. The massive steel frames, especially the central cores,
were far too strong to collapse under their own weights. See Gordon
Ross' paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
Since there would be a pile of debris on the ground when
the top of the tower arrived, it would be impossible for it to actually
reach ground level. So the actual height fallen would be less than 1368
feet, but how much less, and how would that quantity be determined? In
other words, how tall was the debris pile? That number would have to be
subtracted from 1368 and the above calculation re-done, to produce a
really useful lower limit for the collapse time.
Actually, another fact that contradicts the "official" gravity collapse
and pancaking floors theory, is that "ground zero" was more of a crater
than a pile. The perimeter columns literally exploded out the sides of
the towers and were thrown hundreds of feet away.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/gallery/04-wtc-Biggart5-24.jpg
The four inch thick concrete floors were pulverized into fine powder
from the force of the demolition charges. There were no floors at the
base of the towers.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
So about all remained at the base of the towers was steel from
the massive central cores, much of it molten and glowing for weeks
after the collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
The fall speed of WTC7 is easier to time accurately than the
towers because it wasn't obscured by as much dust. This is
analyzed in detail by various experts in the paper linked
below. Demolition is the only explanation for WTC7's collapse,
too.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
--
http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.911truth.org
Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html
On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
18 Jan 2007 01:01:27 PM |
|
|
In article <45AEB03E.B705BBB3@insidejob.gov>, Henry <911@insidejob.gov>
wrote:
Mitchell Jones wrote:
In article <45A6C6E9.BFD3F915@bush.gov>, Henry <impeach@bush.gov>
What has proved to be impossible to explain, or simulate
using computers, is the total, free fall speed
***{Those buildings were 1368 feet in height.
Thus we have
1368 = (1/2)(32)t^2, and
t = [2(1368/32)]^.5 = 9.24 seconds.
The actual times required by the collapses should have been longer,
since each fall was impeded by air resistance and the time required to
crush the structures of the buildings themselves. The time calculated
above, however, is the free-fall time from the top of the tower to
ground level.
The fact that debris falling outside the towers reached the ground
at virtually the same time as debris falling =through= the undamaged
steel frame of the towers proves that the massive steel frames put up
essentially no more resistance than air, which of course is impossible
unless the frames were destroyed before being impacted by falling
debris. Collapse times are generally agreed to be 15 seconds, give
or take a little.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html
***{At the above link I found the following information:
"... it is possible to time the fall of the South Tower's top up to the
moment it gets swallowed up by the dust cloud. At that point the dust
cloud rises only slightly above the level of the 78th-floor sky lobby
visible as a two-story band on the adjacent North Tower. A small
extrapolation gives a good estimate of the time of fall of the South
Tower's roof to the level of the 78th floor of five seconds. That
distance is about 384 feet (12 feet per story times 32 stories)."
Using D = (1/2)gt^2 and plugging in the above figures, we obtain:
t = (2D/g)^.5 = [2(384)/(32)]^.5 = 4.9 sec.
Thus, accepting the figures given, the collapse seems to be a good
approximation of free-fall behavior. You find that to be rather strange,
and yet you do not appear to find it strange if the building were taken
down by a controlled demolition. But why not? Even in a controlled
demolition, the entire building is not blown up. Only the support
members at the bottom are taken out, and yet those sorts of collapses
are also a good approximation of free fall. Doesn't that seem rather
strange to you?
Here is why it really isn't strange at all, in either case: once a
collapse of a structure gets underway, the plane in which the
disintegration is occurring offers essentially no resistance to the fall
of the upper part of the structure. Of course, the action of the upper
part of the structure on the lower part, applied across the plane of
disintegration, constitutes an application of force. And of course
Newton's 3rd law applies: there must be an equal and opposite force
directed upward, which opposes the force of gravity pulling the
structure down. And, surely, the net downward force, hence the net
downward acceleration, will be reduced, with a net increase in the time
of descent above what would be seen if a free fall in a vacuum were
taking place.
The problem, however, is that the equal and oppositely directed force is
negligible, when compared to the weight of the structure above the
disintegration plane.
How can that be?
Simple: vastly less force is required to keep a collapse going, after
the supporting members have already been deformed past their failure
points, than was required to induce the failures in the first place. The
weight, for example, that an I-beam can support after it has begun to
fail is a tiny fraction of the weight that must be applied to cause it
to fail.
To see why that is important, let's suppose that a structural member can
only support 1/1000th the weight, after failure is underway, that it
could support before failure began. If so, then the downward
acceleration of the upper part of the structure would be reduced by one
thousandth part below the free-fall value, and its behavior during
collapse would be a good approximation of free-fall. This would apply
regardless of whether a controlled demolition had occurred or merely a
structural failure engendered by an airplane crash and subsequent fire.
If you ask why the structure was vulnerable to the airplane crash, I
would remind you (a) that a fire doesn't have to melt steel to weaken it
to the point of failure, and (b) that asbestos was banned while the
towers were under construction. The original design called for asbestos
cladding to protect the steel support members from the effects of fire,
but, due to the ban, the upper stories were built without it. As I
recall, in fact, the fellow who designed the Twin Towers stated
publicly, at that time, that if either building ever had a fire above
the level where use of asbestos had been terminated, the tower in
question would come down.
To sum up: structural members lose the vastly greater part of their
strength, once failure has begun. After that the upward resistive force
slowing a collapse is negligible, considered as a proportion of the
weight of the overlying structure, and the resulting collapse thus is a
good approximation of free fall in terms of the time that it requires.
Bottom line: it is entirely believable that it was airheaded
environmentalists and the idiotic regulations they caused to be enacted,
rather than the deliberate actions of George Bush, which brought the
Twin Towers down.
--Mitchell Jones}***
Also, physics has proved that a gravity collapse is impossible
anyway.
***{No collapse of a structure will ever be *exactly* at the free-fall
rate, but for the reasons explained above, they tend to approximate that
rate rather closely. Based on the numbers given at your link, above, the
top of the South Tower took 5 seconds to fall to the 78th floor, whereas
a free fall collapse would have taken 4.9 seconds. Thus your statement
that a "gravity collapse" is impossible, while true, does you no good.
You would have to say that it is impossible for the fall of a building
to *approximate* a "gravity collapse," for the claim to be relevant to
this discussion. And I don't think you can successfully defend such a
claim. --MJ}***
The massive steel frames, especially the central cores,
were far too strong to collapse under their own weights.
***{They didn't. The support members in the plane of disintegration had
to withstand the enormous weight of all the floors above that level. A
number of them were sheared off by the jetliner as it crashed, and most
of the others were severely weakened by fire. Once some of them began to
buckle, nearby members were overstressed and buckled as well, and the
slumping movement quickly propagated across the entire width of the
structure. Once failure was underway, most of the strength of the
support members disappeared, and resistance to the downward movement of
the upper part of the building became negligible, as a proportion of its
weight. Thereafter, a good approximation of a free-fall collapse got
underway. --MJ}***
See Gordon
Ross' paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
***{He was disputing an argument made by a Professor who was focused on
a completely different approach than mine. My view is that the same
reasoning which explains how a controlled demolition produces a good
approximation of free fall also explains why the Twin Towers gave a good
approximation of free fall. The key idea is that once the point of
failure has been passed, the resistance of supporting structures is
vastly reduced. Disintegrative resistance is vastly less than intact
resistance. It is so much less, in fact, that it can be regarded as
negligible, for practical purposes. --MJ}***
Since there would be a pile of debris on the ground when
the top of the tower arrived, it would be impossible for it to actually
reach ground level. So the actual height fallen would be less than 1368
feet, but how much less, and how would that quantity be determined? In
other words, how tall was the debris pile? That number would have to be
subtracted from 1368 and the above calculation re-done, to produce a
really useful lower limit for the collapse time.
Actually, another fact that contradicts the "official" gravity collapse
and pancaking floors theory, is that "ground zero" was more of a crater
than a pile. The perimeter columns literally exploded out the sides of
the towers and were thrown hundreds of feet away.
***{During the collapse, you had an intact upper structure and an intact
lower structure, but they were not in contact with one another at any
point. Instead, you had a zone of disintegration sandwiched between
them. That zone contained steel support members in the process of
deformation, masonry being torn apart, furniture, air conditioning
ducts, electric wiring, computers, coffee makers, ceilings, floors,
people, etc., in the process of being crushed and pulverized. It was the
zone of deformation that was resisting the downward movement of the
upper part of the structure, rather than the lower part of the
structure. And the resistance offered by the zone of deformation was
vastly less than the resistance which its contents offered before they
passed the point of failure. Structural failure is not merely an empty
term: it describes a real phenomenon with very real consequences.
Suppose, for example, you are sitting on a large coffee table, the
surface of which consists of a flat pane of glass, and the glass
shatters. Will you perceive, at that point, that the support offered by
the pane of glass was slightly reduced, or will you perceive that the
support essentially vanished? You know the answer, and it is the same
answer for the support offered by the zone of disintegration, once the
collapse is underway: it essentially disappears, which means that as a
practical matter the downward motion of the upper part of the structure
is now unimpeded.
What happens to the crushed and pulverized material? It spews out the
sides of the zone of disintegration as the upper portion of the
structure falls, behaving in the process more like a liquid than like a
solid. The point of highest pressure is in the center, and the lowest
pressure is that offered by the air around the building. Result: the
material flows down the pressure gradient, from the center of the zone
of disintegration toward the edges. Thus the perimeter support columns
are forced outward, causing both the upper and lower portions of the
structure to open up around the zone of deformation as it progresses
toward the ground.
Bottom line: it is entirely to be expected that, in your words, "The
perimeter columns literally exploded out the sides of the towers and
were thrown hundreds of feet away."
--Mitchell Jones}***
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/gallery/04-wtc-Biggart5-24.jpg
The four inch thick concrete floors were pulverized into fine powder
from the force of the demolition charges. There were no floors at the
base of the towers.
***{Again, entirely in line with reasonable expectations. --MJ}***
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html
So about all remained at the base of the towers was steel from
the massive central cores, much of it molten and glowing for weeks
after the collapse.
***{The temperature of steel rises as a result of persistent hammering
and bending. Thus if a steel support member remained within the zone of
disintegration for very long, it would heat up past its melting point,
and become molten. No thermite would be needed to produce that result.
--MJ}***
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
The fall speed of WTC7 is easier to time accurately than the
towers because it wasn't obscured by as much dust. This is
analyzed in detail by various experts in the paper linked
below. Demolition is the only explanation for WTC7's collapse,
too.
***{As I recall, the basement of building 7 was used to store diesel
fuel. There were vast tanks of the stuff down there, and enough debris
from the Twin Towers fell into it to rupture those tanks. Result: a fire
in the basement of that structure. With the New York Fire Department
spread thin due to the earlier disaster and given the fact that building
7 was built after the asbestos ban, it is plausible that the steel
support members in its basement would eventually be so weakened by
overheating that it, too, would begin to collapse. And once a zone of
disintegration formed under the building, it would also do a good
imitation of free fall. --MJ}***
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
***{For the record: (a) I consider Bush and his minions to be scum; (b)
I consider Hillary and her minions to be scum; (c) I consider any
political party that would elevate scum to leadership positions to be
utterly unworthy of support; (d) I wouldn't put it past Bush or Hillary
to do precisely what you are claiming that Bush has done.
So why am I arguing with you? Because the evidence you are citing and
the reasoning you are using doesn't work. The democratic and republican
leaders may or may not be conspiring to take us into a fascist "New
World Order," but they are most certainly idiots, and when you have
idiots running things, disasters are entirely to be expected, whether
there is a conspiracy or not.
--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
.
|
|
|
| User: "Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
18 Jan 2007 06:20:54 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Jones wrote:
Henry <911@insidejob.gov> wrote:
The fact that debris falling outside the towers reached the ground
at virtually the same time as debris falling =through= the undamaged
steel frame of the towers proves that the massive steel frames put up
essentially no more resistance than air, which of course is impossible
unless the frames were destroyed before being impacted by falling
debris. Collapse times are generally agreed to be 15 seconds, give
or take a little.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html
Thus, accepting the figures given, the collapse seems to be a good
approximation of free-fall behavior. You find that to be rather strange,
and yet you do not appear to find it strange if the building were taken
down by a controlled demolition. But why not? Even in a controlled
demolition, the entire building is not blown up. Only the support
members at the bottom are taken out,
That's not how the towers were demolished. They were demolished
from the top down. WTC7 was demolished from the bottom up. The
charges can be detonated in any sequence desired. Take a look at
the video clip titled "demolition wave" on this page:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
There are other videos that show the demolition wave traveling
down the sides of the tower faster than debris in free fall.
Tha, of course, is impossible unless it was caused by demolition
charges.
Of course, the action of the upper part of the structure on
thelower part, applied across the plane of disintegration,
constitutes an application of force. And of course
Newton's 3rd law applies: there must be an equal and opposite force
directed upward, which opposes the force of gravity pulling the
structure down. And, surely, the net downward force, hence the net
downward acceleration, will be reduced, with a net increase in the time
of descent above what would be seen if a free fall in a vacuum were
taking place.
The problem, however, is that the equal and oppositely directed
force is negligible, when compared to the weight of the structure
above the = disintegration plane.
How can that be?
It can't and isn't. The towers, like all steel structures,
were built with a huge reserve load carrying capacity.
Simple: vastly less force is required to keep a collapse going, after
the supporting members have already been deformed past their failure
points, than was required to induce the failures in the first place.
Each undamaged, column all the way down the frame, has to
be pushed beyond the failure point. It's a process that needs
to be repeated dozens of times. It's not a matter of exceeding
the failure point at one level and everything below suddenly
does the same. The failure poins of hundreds of coluns must be
exceeded repeatedly throughout the entire structure. To sugesst
that exceeding these failure points should produce no more
kinetic friction than falling through air is beyod reason.
Also, the force required to reach each failure point is far,
far greater than the force of gravity. The central cores alone
could easily support several times the weight of a tower. Are
you familiar with the construction of the towers? The cores
consisted of 47 massive steel columns all interconnected and
braced with more steel.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The weight, for example, that an I-beam can support after it has begun to
fail is a tiny fraction of the weight that must be applied to cause it
to fail.
To see why that is important, let's suppose that a structural member can
only support 1/1000th the weight, after failure is underway, that it
could support before failure began.
Sorry, I can't suppose that. The term "failure underway" is far too
vague. If we're talking about one of the 47 central core columns with
4 inch think walls, measuring about 54" by 22" even if the angle
at the bucking point reached ten degrees, it would still require a
very strong force to bend it further. But there's evidence that
the core columns never did buckle. These photos and some videos
show most of the core still standing after the building was gone.
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/spire/The%20Strange%20Collapse%20of%20the%20Spire.htm
Also, what force could possibly be great enough to buckle those
columns to begin with? Certainly not gravity.
If so, then the downward acceleration of the upper part of the
structure would be reduced by one thousandth part below the
free-fall value
Even if your 1/1000th figure were correct, you're omitting the
incredible force needed to repeatedly exceed the failure points
to begin with.
If you ask why the structure was vulnerable to the airplane crash, I
would remind you (a) that a fire doesn't have to melt steel to weaken it
to the point of failure,
Very true, but gradual, asymmetric heating of a steel frame cannot
result in a sudden and total failure. That's not how steel behaves
when it's gradually heated. Gradual heating will cause gradual failure.
Gradual asymmetric heating will cause gradual, asymmetric failure.
Bottom line: it is entirely believable that it was airheaded
environmentalists and the idiotic regulations they caused to be enacted,
rather than the deliberate actions of George Bush, which brought the
Twin Towers down.
Banning asbestos is idiotic?
The massive steel frames, especially the central cores,
were far too strong to collapse under their own weights.
***{They didn't. The support members in the plane of disintegration had
to withstand the enormous weight of all the floors above that level.
And they were designed to do that and more.
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060327100957690
"The Twin Towers and Why They Fell
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers
in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award
judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates
the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest
contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that
"the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to
resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of
special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns
were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on
these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
More on the incredible strength of the towers can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
"There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even
greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings.
According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers'
design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well
as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and
the building would still be strong enough to withstand a
100-mile-per-hour wind. 3"
A number of them were sheared off by the jetliner as it crashed, and most
of the others were severely weakened by fire.
Actually, the fires were not hot enough to severely weaken
the steel frames, and of course, the steel frames below the
impact weren't damaged by impact or exposed to fire.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
Once some of them began to buckle, nearby members were overstressed and
buckled as well, and the slumping movement quickly propagated across
the entire width of the structure.
In the south tower, impact damage and fire were restricted to
one corner of the building.
Observe the rotating and disintegrating block on the South
Tower.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html
Notice that the corners are curved, as the block's internal
destruction is already taking place. If it had not been destroyed
by demolition, it would have continued to rotate and fall off
the building as an intact block. Also, notice that the block is
tilting towards the corner where it was impacted. The opposite
corner was undamaged by impact or fire, as proved by photo
evidence.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp1.html
As the top section of that tower is rotating, the high strength,
fire resistant perimeter columns on one side of the building are
being compressed, and on the opposite side, where the building
was not damaged by fire or impact, they're being pulled apart.
Why do you think the undamaged steel perimeter frame with no
weight above it is exploding and collapsing at the same rate as
the fire and impact damaged side that is being compressed? Seems
more than a little odd, doesn't it?
See Gordon
Ross' paper on momentum transfer on this page:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/
***{He was disputing an argument made by a Professor who was focused on
a completely different approach than mine.
He's proving that even if a twelve foot section of the steel
frame had been completely removed so that the intact block above
it dropped at free fall speed, the force of the impact would be
nowhere near enough to destroy the undamaged frame below. Of
course, in reality, there would have been no impact, since a
failure caused by gradual heating of the steel frame would have
caused it to bend and settle very slowly.
The key idea is that once the point of
failure has been passed, the resistance of supporting structures is
vastly reduced. Disintegrative resistance is vastly less than intact
resistance. It is so much less, in fact, that it can be regarded as
negligible, for practical purposes. --MJ}***
Not only is your claim of negligible disputed by many qualified
experts, but you're still omitting the immense force required
to repeatedly reach the point of failure through the entire
length of the structure. Also, since the perimeter columns were
violently exploded out and away from the towers, and the concrete
floors were pulverized into fine dust, there was little to no accumulation of weight during the collapse. If you take a snap
shot of either tower two thirds of the way through its demolition,
the top two thirds is gone, and there is no longer any weight for
the remaining, massive, over engineered undamaged steel frame to
support, yet not only is it continuing to disintegrate and explode,
but it does so at a rap[idly increasing rate of speed. Very bizarre
behavior considering that the lower portion of the towers is where
the steel frames were thickest, heaviest, strongest, and undamaged
by fire or impact.
Actually, another fact that contradicts the "official" gravity collapse
and pancaking floors theory, is that "ground zero" was more of a crater
than a pile. The perimeter columns literally exploded out the sides of
the towers and were thrown hundreds of feet away.
Structural failure is not merely an empty
term: it describes a real phenomenon with very real consequences.
Suppose, for example, you are sitting on a large coffee table, the
surface of which consists of a flat pane of glass, and the glass
shatters. Will you perceive, at that point, that the support offered by
the pane of glass was slightly reduced, or will you perceive that the
support essentially vanished?
If the massive frames of the towers had been made of glass, their
collapse would make some sense. But the physical properties of glass
and structural steel are so vastly different that I'm surprised you
would make such a comparison. A better analogy would be one person
sitting on a steel coffee table with dozens of legs that's designed
to support the wieght of ten people. Someone with a propane torch
heats up the legs on one corner of the table. Would you expect it
suddenly disintegrate without first bending or sagging in the
heated area?
So about all remained at the base of the towers was steel from
the massive central cores, much of it molten and glowing for weeks
after the collapse.
***{The temperature of steel rises as a result of persistent hammering
and bending. Thus if a steel support member remained within the zone of
disintegration for very long, it would heat up past its melting point,
and become molten.
I hope you don't actually believe that. I work with various
metals for a living. The increase in temperature even if it's
bent quickly 180 degrees is barely detectable.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
The fall speed of WTC7 is easier to time accurately than the
towers because it wasn't obscured by as much dust. This is
analyzed in detail by various experts in the paper linked
below. Demolition is the only explanation for WTC7's collapse,
too.
***{As I recall, the basement of building 7 was used to store diesel
fuel. There were vast tanks of the stuff down there, and enough debris
from the Twin Towers fell into it to rupture those tanks. Result: a fire
in the basement of that structure.
The fires in WTC7 were minor and isolated as prioved by photo
evidence. Even if there had been a raging inferno that covered
the entire structure, it could not possibly achieve a perfectly
symmetric free fall speed collapse.
That requires the instant, total, and simultaneous failure of
all 58 perimeter columns. Again, when steel is gradually heated,
if it fails at all, the failure will also be gradual. It doesn't
reach some set temperature and suddenly go from full strength to
none like flipping a switch. This is explained by experts below.
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/02/destruction-of-wtc-7.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means.... |
19 Jan 2007 07:12:04 PM |
|
|
In article <45B00EE6.72699481@insidejob.gov>, Henry <911@insidejob.gov>
wrote:
Mitchell Jones wrote:
Henry <911@insidejob.gov> wrote:
The fact that debris falling outside the towers reached the ground
at virtually the same time as debris falling =through= the undamaged
steel frame of the towers proves that the massive steel frames put up
essentially no more resistance than air, which of course is impossible
unless the frames were destroyed before being impacted by falling
debris. Collapse times are generally agreed to be 15 seconds, give
or take a little.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html
Thus, accepting the figures given, the collapse seems to be a good
approximation of free-fall behavior. You find that to be rather strange,
and yet you do not appear to find it strange if the building were taken
down by a controlled demolition. But why not? Even in a controlled
demolition, the entire building is not blown up. Only the support
members at the bottom are taken out,
That's not how the towers were demolished. They were demolished
from the top down. WTC7 was demolished from the bottom up.
***{The collapse of the towers, like that of building 7, involved the
structure being consumed by a zone of disintegration. The zone of
disintegration comprises the horizontal, roughly rectangular region in
which structural failure begins, and which loses its capability to
support the structure above it. At the moment of failure, the overlying
structure begins to move downward under the influence of gravity, and
its substance is thereafter consumed by the zone of disintegration. In
the case of the Twin Towers, the zone of disintegration formed where the
planes crashed, and thus initially was not at ground level. Result: the
zone of disintegration did not merely consume the structure above it
from the bottom up, but also consumed the structure below it from the
top down. In the case of building 7, on the other hand, the fuel storage
was in the basement, and after a fire raged out of control there for
awhile, structural failure occurred at that level. Result: the zone of
disintegration formed in the basement, and consumed the entire structure
from the bottom up, in precisely the same manner as if there had been a
controlled demolition. --MJ}***
The
charges can be detonated in any sequence desired. Take a look at
the video clip titled "demolition wave" on this page:
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/#videos
***{At the above link we read the following:
"... there are what appear to be rows of explosions on the east face at
the level of the initial collapse ..."
That's to be expected in the zone of disintegration. Before the failure
of the support structures at that level, the space was filled with air
and lots of movable items. When the support members failed, the ceiling
moved down toward the floor, compressing the air and creating a zone of
very high pressure that could only be relieved by venting the air
outward through the sides of the building. Naturally, as the air vented,
it carried concrete dust, paper, cloth, crushed wood, and other
materials with it. Result: there was the visible appearance of material
being ejected out the sides of the building, as if explosions were
occurring. And, indeed, what was happening was, in fact, an outward
explosion of debris, driven by compressed air. It was not, however,
driven by demolition charges, as no such charges were required: when the
ceiling slams into the floor, the air in the room has no place to go but
outward, through the collapsing walls.
--Mitchell Jones}***
There are other videos that show the demolition wave traveling
down the sides of the tower faster than debris in free fall.
Tha, of course, is impossible unless it was caused by demolition
charges.
***{Without a reference, I can only guess what you are talking about. My
guess is that some of the compressed air vented upward and downward,
through stairwells and elevator shafts, and blew out windows several
floors above and below the zone of disintegration, and you are taking
those emissions as indications of demolition charges going off. --MJ}***
Of course, the action of the upper part of the structure on
thelower part, applied across the plane of disintegration,
constitutes an application of force. And of course
Newton's 3rd law applies: there must be an equal and opposite force
directed upward, which opposes the force of gravity pulling the
structure down. And, surely, the net downward force, hence the net
downward acceleration, will be reduced, with a net increase in the time
of descent above what would be seen if a free fall in a vacuum were
taking place.
The problem, however, is that the equal and oppositely directed
force is negligible, when compared to the weight of the structure
above the = disintegration plane.
How can that be?
It can't and isn't. The towers, like all steel structures,
were built with a huge reserve load carrying capacity.
***{Once failure begins, the situation changes. For example, consider
one of the vertical supports along the perimeter of the building. Those
were vertical I-beams, as I recall, that had been squared off with
masonry for decorative purposes. Before that was done, however, during
the construction phase, the entire series of such beams, from the bottom
of the building to the top, were linked together, either by rivets or by
welds. Result: when failure occurs at one level, and the ceiling slams
down onto the floor, those perimeter beams bend outwards, and, since
they are directly physically attached to the beams below and above them,
the beams on the stories below and above are pulled away from the walls.
Result: the peripheral support vanishes on the adjacent stories, due to
the collapse of one story, and those stories then collapse as well. But
then, when they collapse, the peripheral supports on the stories below
and above also bulge outwards and are stripped away from the floors to
which they were attached. And so it goes. Once failure occurs at any
level, the entire structure unravels. And, importantly, a similar
analysis applies to the central supports: once they bulge in any
direction due to the collapse of a particular story, they also move out
of line on the stories above and below the story where the failure
occurred--which means: they become detached from those floors, and cease
to provide them with support. Result: the collapse propagates upwards
and downwards from the level where it began, until the entire structure
has been consumed. --MJ}***
Simple: vastly less force is required to keep a collapse going, after
the supporting members have already been deformed past their failure
points, than was required to induce the failures in the first place.
Each undamaged, column all the way down the frame, has to
be pushed beyond the failure point. It's a process that needs
to be repeated dozens of times. It's not a matter of exceeding
the failure point at one level and everything below suddenly
does the same.
***{Everything above and below doesn't lose its support all at once. It
is a sequential process: the collapse of one story removes support from
the adjacent stories, and, when they collapse, support is removed at the
next levels above or below the zone of disintegration, and so on. It
appears as if the zone of disintegration is "eating" the building, as,
in fact, it is. --MJ}***
The failure poins of hundreds of coluns must be
exceeded repeatedly throughout the entire structure. To sugesst
that exceeding these failure points should produce no more
kinetic friction than falling through air is beyod reason.
***{The suggestion is that when the vertical supports in the floors
above and below the collapsing level squirm loose from those floors,
virtually all support is removed. Result: the upward resistive force
opposing the downwardly directed, enormous, weight of the upper part of
the building, becomes negligible by comparison to its weight. Result:
the net downward force is negligibly less than the force of gravity.
Result: the downward acceleration is negligibly less than g, and the
resulting downward movement is a good approximation of free fall.
--MJ}***
Also, the force required to reach each failure point is far,
far greater than the force of gravity. The central cores alone
could easily support several times the weight of a tower.
***{Yup. But they can't even support one floor, once they have squirmed
away from the points where they were attached to that floor. --MJ}***
Are
you familiar with the construction of the towers?
***{Yup. We had a lengthy discussion of the causes of the collapse in
this group, in the months immediately following 911. I argued then as I
am arguing now, that the critical factor leading to the collapse was the
fact that asbestos cladding was not placed around the support members
above the 64th floor.
The cores
consisted of 47 massive steel columns all interconnected and
braced with more steel.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
The weight, for example, that an I-beam can support after it has begun to
fail is a tiny fraction of the weight that must be applied to cause it
to fail.
To see why that is important, let's suppose that a structural member can
only support 1/1000th the weight, after failure is underway, that it
could support before failure began.
Sorry, I can't suppose that. The term "failure underway" is far too
vague.
***{See the detailed explanations given above. --MJ}***
If we're talking about one of the 47 central core columns with
4 inch think walls, measuring about 5 | | | | | | | | | |
