posted on May, 29 2014 @ 04:28 AM
This may have been dead for a few years now, but I couldn't find a more fitting thread. And the comments so far have been quite illustrative of the
open nature of the discussion here. So I just want to give my 2 cents... I think it's still a very valid question, and should not be put aside
although 13 years have passed.
I have no engineering background whatsoever, but I believe in most fields there is some kind of intuition that everyone has of how things should
behave. My background is in law, and when a layman tells me a certain court decision cannot be right by his gut feeling, there's usually something to
That's how I think about the WTC coming down as it did. From what I understand, every floor was capable of holding up several times its weight, 3-5
times is mentioned regularly, and that sounds right. So when the 100th floor had the weight of 15 floor above it, it should have carried at least 40
floors and still be stable. But that means that say the 15th floor was able to carry at least another 300 floors. And when I look at the tower coming
down, much of it is clearly seen blowing off to the sides. This fits very well with the end result (there's an aerial view afterwards showing most of
the debris scattered around at least 9 times outside the footprint). So when much of the stuff has not even touched the lower part of the building,
and when it had reached say the 50th floor, there couldn't have been more than a few floors worth of material hitting it. And that's already at a
point where the columns are much stronger than in the top 20 floors. It seems like I'm asked to believe a small car could hit and crush a 40-ton
truck. And the buildings were not even designed to do anything else than keep standing there.
Also as I see it and understand the structure, there was really nothing like a floor in the WTC. Of course they had floors to walk on, but it seems
the buildings were not really built on a floor-to-floor-basis, but were more like a 3d-net of steel beams, and the core columns were each at least
spanning several floors, and also the outside columns were 2-3 floors long. So the floors were more like interwoven with the rest of the structure.
Could this really allow for some kind of pancaking effect as discussed earlier?!
What I get the least is why Nist has done a collapse simulation of WTC7, but not of the towers. The wtc7 analysis as I understand was already highly
suspicious because they didn't release the data. But someone said that demolition firms have computer programs to simulate the collapse beforehand.
It should be possible to put all this data in a computer model and try to bring down the towers that way. Intuitively I would bet my right hand that
it would never come down the way it did, without explosives.
So given the implicitness of the downward progression and the almost exact way they fell down - at least just seeing the result would not enable one
to conclude any difference in the collapse itself - it should be possible with some simulator to produce any kind of similarity to the real example.