Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[William Rea]

ricochet ???

Bullets ricochet because they take the path of least resistance, a common trait of most processes in Science and Engineering.

 

[einsteen]

Thanks William, never heard that word.

 

[Belz...]

You not condtioned to that degree, but you are conditioned.

So they condition Canadians, too ?

If you were not conditioned you would be responsive to raw evidence and reason

Funny you should say that. How about you beign responsive to dozens of pictures of steel columns you fancifuly label "box columns" ?

and when unable to explain what this is or why the steel core columns are not seen, you would aquiese and admit that the steel core columns probably not exist.

See above.

 

[Belz...]

If we should use 'common sense' I would expect the block wouldn't fall and if it does it takes the way of least resistance, i.e. through air (after breaking some floors) and not through the building itself. But common sense is no science.

Yes. And you DO know that most of the building WAS air, right ?

I can't believe people believe this utter-nonsense as a model and stop
thinking because it has been written black on white in a report.

I can't believe people think the universe is so simplistic that they know better than thousands of experts in their own field.

I can't believe it's not butter, either.

 

[Powa]

So they condition Canadians, too ?

It's worldwide. I'm from Slovenia.

 

[Belz...]

I haven't said it has been done, I haven't said it was done on WTC

Irrelevant. You said it was reasonable. Considering the amount of damage the WTC caused, your notion is ludicrous.

so quit with analysing my psychosis and detach yourself before you disappear up somewhere dark in your bid to try to undermine me!

Can I consider this a threat ?

People don't always do reasonable or logical things because they find them difficult to deal with.

Wiring a building to explode that might go off when people are working inside it is not reasonable. Only a bad fiction writer would consider this a good plot element.

I am putting forward a notion based upon damage limitation that it would preserve the maximum amount of life and real estate if a building were wired to be demolished in case of a disaster that would result in a catastrophic failure.

So you ARE saying that you'd consider it yourself.

If you were trapped in the adjacent building waiting for a tower to topple on you which would you prefer?

Running down the stairs.

Like I said no matter how distasteful you find it my logic is sound.

No, it's not, because you're assuming that nothing can happen to the explosives in the meantime.

In fact you hit the nail on the head, why isn't what we observed logical? I could suggest that the FEMA report is framed to fit what was observed

That's what science usually does.

I've been reading FEMA as directed by several on here and they say there was an imbalance of the forces, they even provide a diagram. Can't have it both ways? Are you agreeing with me now that the official story is wrong?

No, I'm saying that it would've taken much more "imbalance" for the thing to topple. Again, your reading ability is in question.

I know what you're saying and tend to agree but sometimes you've got to put something ridiculous out there to wake people up from this dream that governments act morally ALL the time.

False dichotomy.

I understand that it is a structure and not a solid object as I have done from the start of my posts so I don't understand why you persist with making this point.

Because you keep treating it as such.

The underlying structure of the building was designed with several multiples of safety facor and redundancy and it simply does not make sense that a progressive collapse would undermine that, even taking into account the roof trusses and the trussed floors collapsing.

No, skyscrapers aren't usually designed to handle 20 floors falling onto them.

Bullets ricochet because they take the path of least resistance, a common trait of most processes in Science and Engineering.

REALLY ? Well that's new to me. Admittedly, skin is harder than air. By your logic, no human beign could ever be killed by gunshot. Do you even stop to read your posts ?

 

[Belz...]

The photo of he rebar is taken from 7500 feet. The image of the spire is taken by the same camera one second before so the scale and size of the rebar is apparent.

I'm sure SOMEONE here can calculate how wide a 3" object would appear from that distance, and I'm pretty sure it'd be too small for it to even register on the picture.

 

[Z]

William, here's what I'm trying to understand:

Are you suggesting that the horizontal elements of the upper sections are so heavily reinforced and rigid, that there's no chance of them breaking up as the upper sections tilt into the damaged area of the building? Because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting.

As I understand it - and I fully admit I might be mistaken - the aircraft destroyed several support columns from the inner box, while creating a hole in the outer support. From the diagrams and photographs, my guess is that the total damage on the interior was proportionally larger than the total damage to the exterior. Since the interior was designed to support more weight than the exterior, it's fairly safe to suggest that the exterior facing could not be expected to hold the upper stories safely in place; but at the same time, since the interior was seriously compromised by initial impact and subsequent plasticizing due to fire, the interior was not likely to support the upper stories for long, either.

Now, bear with me here... if the interior supports did give - and, from reading and watching about other building collapses, it's safe to assume that the time between initial column failure and final column failure for the interior was one or two seconds apart at best - then what's keeping the upper floors from sagging in the middle and collapsing into the damaged region? You've made the suggestion, whether intentional or not, that each floor is like a rigid plate that would stay whole whether falling, sliding, or tilting; when, in fact, each floor is made of a variety of materials and, once free from its support, would be likely to suffer torsion damage and failure of cross members in numerous places.

So the interior columns fail. The floors, no longer supported, begin to sag and, ultimately, collapse downward. The outer columns, receiving less damage proportionally, hold up the outer edges of the floors momentarily, but also fail due to increased stress. The result would be a cave-in, essentially. The upper sections, it seems to me, would simply drop into the damaged area - not whole, but as a collection of debris of fairly large size.

The images we see of the collapse are misleading in one way: as the collapse begins, we see what we think are entire, whole floors dropping in sync into the damage zone; but what are we really witnessing? The drop of outer support members, as stresses in the damage zone cause catastrophic failure of those outer supports at that level, allowing those above it to slide down, into the damaged area.

In your concept, if I understand correctly, you suggest that the weight of the upper portions remains evenly distributed around the building in spite of the loss of columns, and that the upper sections remain fixed and rigid during structural failure; that those columns not damaged could continue to support their share of the load even as the building top fell, causing it to hinge into the damaged area, and slide through the damage, toward the ground, without significantly damaging the lower portions of the building. Is that about right? I hope you'll correct me, because that makes no sense at all - but that seems to me to be what you're claiming.

As for why the core isn't still standing, isn't it pretty understandable? I mean, there's a pretty good reason we don't build cores like that first, then make the building around them. Without their cross-supports, they topple and crush themselves under their own weight in the wind. Anyone who says otherwise never tried stacking LEGO when they were kids.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

As for why the core isn't still standing, isn't it pretty understandable? I mean, there's a pretty good reason we don't build cores like that first, then make the building around them. Without their cross-supports, they topple and crush themselves under their own weight in the wind. Anyone who says otherwise never tried stacking LEGO when they were kids.

The wind wouldn't be needed.

The floor trusses have two ends - outer and inner. As the progressive collapse moves downwards, each failing floor pulls the wall columns inwards and the core columns outwards. The core columns are heavier and have more stability, so remain standing a little longer. However, they weren't intended to be stable on their own, so the bracing against lateral forces is limited. Add the outwards wrench from the main collapse, and they're bound to go. Which they did.

 

[William Rea]

William, here's what I'm trying to understand:
Are you suggesting that the horizontal elements of the upper sections are so heavily reinforced and rigid, that there's no chance of them breaking up as the upper sections tilt into the damaged area of the building? Because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting.

Do you mean vertical here? Just clarifying.

 

[William Rea]

The wind wouldn't be needed.

The floor trusses have two ends - outer and inner. As the progressive collapse moves downwards, each failing floor pulls the wall columns inwards and the core columns outwards. The core columns are heavier and have more stability, so remain standing a little longer. However, they weren't intended to be stable on their own, so the bracing against lateral forces is limited. Add the outwards wrench from the main collapse, and they're bound to go. Which they did.

What lateral forces?

 

[Z]

Do you mean vertical here? Just clarifying.

No, horizontal. The floors, and their braces.

 

[William Rea]

Can I consider this a threat ?

REALLY ? Well that's new to me. Admittedly, skin is harder than air. By your logic, no human beign could ever be killed by gunshot. Do you even stop to read your posts ?

You can consider it what you like but I would find it unlikely that I could force you to disappear up your own backside! Especially when you voluntarily do it so well.

I think you need to learn to read other people's posts more thoroughly and think before replying. If you did you might notice I didn't mention skin anywhere, try considering the observation of a bullet ricocheting off of a wall.

BTW, smartass sarcasm requires an element of truth about the subject to be effective, so I suggest you read posts and think before trying to belittle someone so errantly to massage your own ego.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I'm obviously guesstimating here, but my hypothesis is that the falling trusses pulled the core columns outwards, so that they're no longer perfectly vertical. Gravity will then introduce a component that's not oriented along the columns' length. Even a small shift would be enough, given that the entire support structure now went down. Welds and rivets can only hold so much force.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. I am aware from other sources exactly how the towers were designed and NIST is a waste of time. They do not explain free fall. They do not explain free fall to the ground of the entire structure. They do not explain how this happened twice and why the impact/fall sequence is backwards/ The wrong tower fell first if itwas a collapse.

The second tower to be hit was hit much lower down. The weight of the tower above the damaged part on the second tower was therefore MUCH greater, and so it is not, in fact, at all surprising that it collapsed sooner. You are an idiot.

P.S. I used to work at NIST. I drove by the building where they did the analysis on the steel girders, and I saw those twisted I-beams every single day. I don't know the people who did that work personally, but I know NIST. And you're basically calling my former colleagues liars and accomplices to murder. You can go to hell.

 

[Z]

EDIT: Never mind. My ASCII skills suck.

Anyway, the question remains.

 

[William Rea]

No, horizontal. The floors, and their braces.

OK, thanks for making such a considered reply.

I'll need a little time before replying.

 

[Z]

No problem - not like I have a life anyway.

 

[Belz...]

I think you need to learn to read other people's posts more thoroughly and think before replying. If you did you might notice I didn't mention skin anywhere, try considering the observation of a bullet ricocheting off of a wall.

Unfortunately I seem to understand the implications of your own posts better than you do:

Bullets ricochet because they take the path of least resistance, a common trait of most processes in Science and Engineering.

You said that bullets ricochet BECAUSE they take the path of least resistance. I objected, because even when the bullet hits someone's skin, the path of least resistance is STILL the air. Obviously, the bullet doesn't ricochet, so your assertion is wrong.

BTW, smartass sarcasm requires an element of truth about the subject to be effective, so I suggest you read posts and think before trying to belittle someone so errantly to massage your own ego.

Unlike you, at least I adressed your points. Have you anything besides insults ? 'Cause I can dish out those all day.

 

[Christophera]

The wind wouldn't be needed.

The floor trusses have two ends - outer and inner. As the progressive collapse moves downwards, each failing floor pulls the wall columns inwards and the core columns outwards. The core columns are heavier and have more stability, so remain standing a little longer. However, they weren't intended to be stable on their own, so the bracing against lateral forces is limited. Add the outwards wrench from the main collapse, and they're bound to go. Which they did.

What lateral forces?

Yea,

and what core columns?

http://concretecore.741.com