Sorry if this has been posted before. I don't frequent the forum, just thought this was interesting and present it for your consideration.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?
Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.
If he pressed down on the bar, it wouldn't have bent as easily.So are you saying that if he had pressed on the bar axially it would not have bent?Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.
If he pressed down on the bar, it wouldn't have bent as easily.So are you saying that if he had pressed on the bar axially it would not have bent?Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.
It did start where the fire was. It didn't give way all the way down. That was the result of added weight of the floors collapsing, not the fire.So, "as easily" isn't the same as not bending at all. So why wouldn't the building sag in the area of the fire instead of suddenly giving way all of the way down?If he pressed down on the bar, it wouldn't have bent as easily.So are you saying that if he had pressed on the bar axially it would not have bent?Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.
Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?
It did start where the fire was. It didn't give way all the way down. That was the result of added weight of the floors collapsing, not the fire.
Weight, gravity, momentum, Mr. Scientist.Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?
And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?
Are you people stupid?
How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.
Weight, gravity, momentum, Mr. Scientist.Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?
And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?
Are you people stupid?
How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.
Weight, gravity, momentum, Mr. Scientist.Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?
And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?
Are you people stupid?
How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.
It works like dominoes. One floor destroys the next. The WTC buildings DID NOT collapse all at once. It was a chain reaction.Gravity only accelerates 9.8m/s/s so how much momentum will be picked up by 16% of the total building weight, as it falls one floor to "theoretically" pancake it?
It works like dominoes. One floor destroys the next. The WTC buildings DID NOT collapse all at once. It was a chain reaction.Gravity only accelerates 9.8m/s/s so how much momentum will be picked up by 16% of the total building weight, as it falls one floor to "theoretically" pancake it?
It works like dominoes. One floor destroys the next. The WTC buildings DID NOT collapse all at once. It was a chain reaction.
Check out my thread where I do offer a plausible explanation.It works like dominoes. One floor destroys the next. The WTC buildings DID NOT collapse all at once. It was a chain reaction.
Ever notice that dominoes do not sustain any damage? The same thing applies to Jenga blocks.
Damaging components requires energy. The only source of energy would be the kinetic energy of the falling mass. But the strength and mass of the lower portion of the towers would increase all of the way down. So the falling mass would slow down.
So the scientific problem of 9/11 is how did the north tower come down in less than 30 seconds if the only destructive force was the falling portion above the aircraft impact point. Why didn't it slow down A LOT?
psik
Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?
And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?
Are you people stupid?
How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.
No, absolutely not, this is standard building practice in New York it's part of a safety system designed to cause floors that collapse not to also collapse wall supports.Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?
And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?
Are you people stupid?
How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.
It happened because of the design of the building. Had it been a conventionally designed structure the collapse would not have happened. As it wasn't the collapse when it began was unstoppable....
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web
No, absolutely not, this is standard building practice in New York it's part of a safety system designed to cause floors that collapse not to also collapse wall supports.Why would you expect that? He bent the bar laterally. The buildings were under vertical stress. So, while the steel would be getting softer, the collapse wouldn't occur until vertical stress reached a critical value.He heated a piece of steel that was NOT UNDER STRESS so it retained its original shape. Then he showed it could bend like taffy. Wasn't the steel in the towers always under the stress of holding up the building. So if it was heated wouldn't it go to 99% strength, then 98%, and down and down. So wouldn't the building slowly sag as the steel got hotter and hotter and weaker and weaker?
And then 18 floors would just bounce off 92 floors unaffected by the whole thing?
Are you people stupid?
How does 18 floors destroy...PULVERIZE the other 92 floors that are STILL STRONG.
It happened because of the design of the building. Had it been a conventionally designed structure the collapse would not have happened. As it wasn't the collapse when it began was unstoppable....
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
You wouldn't understand, but you've never worked around building collapses, I have worked a number of rubble piles in my life.
What they are trying to say is the floors breaking away tore down the core, but as I have said else where this is about as stupid as saying branches falling out of a tree would tear the whole tree down...think about that for a second. How stupid does that sound? That's how dumb this "pancaking floor" theory sounds.
But I do offer an alternative explanation that can explain why the core became so weak on such large scale.
Remember, 18 floors is not a lot of weight or size for a building that is for 92 floors, completely strong and unbroken....
The top SHOULD have just fallen off like a top heavy cake breaking off the base.
All that being said let's criticize your "resource".
They say:
The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web
Are they fucking stupid? Who do they fucking think they are kidding?
The WTC are specifically and WELL KNOWN to have been designed to withstand AT LEAST a 707 Jet impact.