Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14
People such as Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant.
Lol yeah I should have guessed. You should try doing your own research and ignore those shills.
I dont think the hat trusses would survive the collapse in one piece do you? All the connections are going to withstand the collapse?
I think it would. What would cause the massive hat truss to be destroyed?
But you miss the point, if the collapse happened as claimed by Greening et al, the hat truss and all the floor assemblies would have to be in the footprint as his hypothesis is based on the mass of the floors causing the crushing. If mass was lost during the collapses, then his hypothesis is nonsense.
Each floor was not destroyed as one if you like, as I say there would more likely be local crush fronts some ahead of others. The mass although some is being ejected laterally is gaining as each floor and its contents gets destroyed. The momentum increases and each floor is subjected to a bigger mass than the one before it.
But again the mass would not be enough to overcome resistance. The building was designed to hold the weight.
The core columns get larger towards the bottom, an increasing resistance. If it was simply floors pancaking then the core would not have been effected. The increase in resistance, and the loss of Ke, would be more significant that the build up of mass from the floors.
But having said that you only have to look at the collapses and see that the top sections started collapsing ahead of the bottom sections, proving the tops did not cause the bottoms to collapse. Many floors are being crushed before the bottoms even started, that is why WTC 2 tilted so much before the bottom started to collapse.
Lets go back to basics, how do you expect the top floor on the lower section, knowing its not designed to deal with even one floor falling onto it, to survive several floors (the whole top section) falling on it? How are the connections supposed to withstand this dynamic loading?
How do you know it was not able to resist the weight of another floor falling on it? That is simply speculation.
Remember according to NIST the connections were strong enough to allow the sagging trusses to pull in the columns. That would take an enormous amount of force. So why would they fail from another light-weight floor assembly falling on them? (and no, dynamic loading is not the answer). Remember for a floor to fall, as they did, it would take every connection to fail instantly. The top of WTC 2 was tilting at an angle, how did it manage to hit the lower floor squarely enough for all the connections to fail at the same time? It couldn't, think about it.