Originally posted by HowardRoark
All Eager talks about is the initiation of the collapse. Just because the building would not have toppled like a tree, doesn’t mean that debris
would not have been strewn about the base of the structure.
"Strewn" is an interesting way to describe debris weighing thousands of tons rocketing out horizontally for 600 feet.
However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes
First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.
Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these
points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Upper floors pancaked down onto lower floors, causing a domino effect that left each building in ruins within ten seconds.
Seems he's clearly implying the buildings imploded down on themselves, rather than exploding and mushrooming out on horizontal trajectories all over
Manhattan like they did. Have you forgotten that it was Eagar who invented the "pancake hypothesis"? His follow-up and much-guffawed-at "zipper"
theory also stated that the trusses "unzipped" on each floor as the floor above collapsed on it, continuing in that pattern all the way down. He has
since removed that theory from circulation after NIST publicly de-pantsed him. In the above quoted text, he also reiterates the "near free-fall
collapse" times. Is Eagar a 9-11 skeptic now? If Eagar spoke to a physicist, he would be told that this is impossible in accordance with conservation
of momentum and given the expected resistance of the structure beneath, unless that resistance was reduced or negated somehow. Eagar should stick to
his area of expertise which is material stresses, and leave the physics to others.
By the way, Eagar also states:
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them
Eagar says the columns bowed outwards. NIST says they bowed inwards. Eagar says the trusses failed, NIST says the columns failed. Eagar says under 10
seconds (0.78s over free-fall) for the collapses, NIST says 12 seconds or more. You personally advocate both Eagar and NIST's stances and
infallibility all over these fora, despite their radically different views. So which is it? Make up your mind. It seems you will support anything
which supports the official story, regardless of the actual content or any inherent contradictions. If Barney the Dinosaur came up with his own
flapjack theory as to why the towers fell under gravity alone, you'd be telling us he's a genius.
A buckling failure, like that which was clearly illustrated in the photographs shortly before the collapse would have produced tremendous
lateral stresses on the individual column trees as the collapse propagated downward.
Are you talking about the pre-collapse buckling, or the mechanical action of the collapse itself. They are unrelated, unless you're suggesting a
massive build up of Bugs Bunny-style rumbling tension, and then a pa-toing!
slingshot action as the columns gave way at the moment of collapse
and spat out into the sky. Amusing.
And on the subject of your buckling columns, funny how the truss connections were strong enough to pull an entire building face-worth of columns
inward, but they were simultaneously so weak that just "zippered" off simultaneously all around the structures and at the core connection, causing
the building to collapse. They were either incredibly strong, or incredibly weak. Which is it? Make up your mind.
Also NIST didn't account for thermal expansion of the truss assemblies with their ridiculous computer projected 1000+C fires (which are NOT supported
in ANY way by the actual physical evidence), which expansion more than negates any projected tensile pulling forces from the trusses acting on the
perimeter columns, as was further stated by the UK's Arup Fire Engineering - an institution which, unlike NIST, is not in the employ of the US
Take a yardstick, stand it upright and push down on the top end until it begins to buckle in the middle. What happens when it breaks? Do the
pieces shoot across the room, or do the fall in a neat little pile at your feet?
Take a ruler, hang half of it over the edge of the table, put a coin on the table side, slap your hand down on the hanging side. What happens to the
coin? Does it drop down with the ruler or does it fly across the room? But hey, this has absolutely zero to do with the collapse of the WTC towers,
just like your quaint analogy. When you want to start talking about steel-framed, multi-component skyscrapers again, let us know.
[edit on 2005-12-16 by wecomeinpeace]