Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Raytracer
You said: “What is worth considering, is that below impact point the structure was pretty much undamaged, and should have been able to sustain the
weight of the tower as it always did for much longer.”
The weight it always sustained was a static load, not a dynamic load from the collapsing floors above it.
You said: “They are telling us the fires caused the steel structure to weaken, but that's where I got my problems with the official story. I'm not
so convinced the fires were hot enough to do that, or at least not in one hour.”
Why are you not convinced? Are you a metallurgist? Do you have a feeling that the truss failures were not as claimed?
No, I'm not a metallurgist. I'm not convinced because it doesn't make sense to me.
No fire has ever totally collapsed a steel framed building.
We have examples of buildings wrapped in flames for hours without collapsing on themselves.
The towers were not wrapped in flames and only some upper floors burned for one hour before total and sudden collapse.
As to Prof. Jones "evidence" -- where is it? From what I've seen of him, as a CT he is a fine physics professor.
I don't know where is it, you brought him up... you said he had imaginary evidence, so you tell me.
As to the last statement posted by another, about the safety factor of 100, doesn't this seem a little high?
Even considering the over engineered statements it may seem high, but as I said I'm not an engineer, nor a metallurgist, nor a demo expert, nor a
physicist, or whatever. Are you?
All I'm saying is to me some floors not even totally on fire are not enough to heat the 47 huge steel core structure in one hour to the point of
total and sudden failure.
And even if I'm wrong on the heat thing, and the towers indeed collapsed due to the core weakening, I still can't explain the pulverization of
almost all the concrete, and the very fact that from the impact point to the ground there was virtually no resistance.
So which is which? Whether you crush the floors below (and bend/snap all the 47 steel core columns supporting the whole thing, plus the supports for
the floors) slowing down the descent (or possibly going down one side) or you just go down at free fall speed, the pulverizing and the cutting being
done by something else.
Even if I'm wrong on the heat and the pulverization things altogether, I still can't explain why both towers collapsed in the same manner, while
being struck at different heights and only one of them was hit dead on center, the other one being hit near the corner (causing less damage to the
steel core by the way).
