TheCrusader
Member
- Dec 30, 2015
- 682
- 43
- 18
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.
And structurally it was capable of withstanding the impact. What it was not capable of, and the designers had no clue about in the 1960's was the result of a multi story jet fuel powered inferno and the effect that it would have on the steel structure. Add to that the fact that at the altitude where the jets impacted there is a constant high velocity wind blowing and the 1500 degree flames were increased to much higher levels by the blast furnace effect of the blowing wind.
It's all pretty simple.
No, again, absolutely not. First of all I question the concept that you will design a building to withstand a plane impact, then forget about all the jetfuel and forget what temperature it burns at.
Look I'm not disagreeing with you that the WTC came down on its own (without explosives or conspiracies).
What I'm disagreeing with is your mechanism. Look at my other thread and you'll see all the reasons why you think it came down are wrong.
Unless we explain a reason that makes sense, the conspiracy theorists will persist.
I'm crafting a hypothesis currently.
The Biggest reason the jet fuel theory is wrong is because so what?
So what if the jet fuel burns away all the supports on the 93rd-98th floors?
So the top falls over, or collapses onto floor 92 and then falls off like shingles from a high-pitched roof.
It doesn't destroy the whole building that was holding it up the whole time without the whole building itself being some how damaged.
You tell me how you think the other 92 floors became damaged enough that the top collapsed the whole core? I have an answer, but it's not "jet fuel".