Momentum Transfer in WTC

[TruthSeeker1234]

1. You'd have to calculate the loads

2. On the outer frame the staggered, linked loadbearing panels would effectively spread point loadings away to a certain extent, such that the failure mechanism you talk about would be localised.

3. Ditto the core frame's cross-bracing and horizontal members.

I too thought the core section was cross-braced. All the pictures show it. I thought it had its own flooring system. According to JREF consensus, including RMAckey, the core structure was not cross-braced, and only got lateral support from the floor assemblies.

 

[stateofgrace]

I too thought the core section was cross-braced. All the pictures show it. I thought it had its own flooring system. According to JREF consensus, including RMAckey, the core structure was not cross-braced, and only got lateral support from the floor assemblies.

BS do you actually understand what cross bracing is ?

Let me give you a clue.

 

[beachnut]

Consider Gordon Ross' paper:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
(remove space after h)

Frank Greening's attempted criticism:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_2_Greening.pdf
(remove space after h)
and Ross' reply to Greening:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
(remove space after h)

NIST, of course, did not attempt to do any calculations showing the possibility that the upper part of a damaged tower could cause the phenomenon we observe in the videos (i.e. the shredding of the steel and near total-pulverization of all other matter into fine powder).

Thus it appears that, at present, Ross is the last word on the subject.

Can anyone provide a refutation of Ross? I am not interested in the planes, or the fires. I am only interested in seeing calculations that show the possibility that the upper part of a skyscraper can crush the lower part, and itself, under the force of gravity.

.

Yes Ross is only short 10 percent of the energy required to make the global collapse start.

He was off. I would show you the math but you have zero ability to comprehend math and physics.

You must be a LC guy lost, thinking you are on the LC forum.

So Ross was proven wrong because the WTC tower did fail and fall.

funny, not much need for math, and in your case you have made that a science

Were you even alive 5 years ago?