That would be a fair description of about 90% of your posts, so I'll defer to your expertise on that front. - - - Updated - - - That would be a fair description of about 90% of your posts, so I'll defer to your expertise on that front.
as I have shown they would not detach but drag the exoskeleton toward the center. refer to the last demonstration. nists version is impossible.
sorry but there really is a minimum level of understanding one must have to be capable of discussing these matters, not sure it can be reduced any more simply that I already have.
okay. I got it. Stop the presses. That is what NIST said happened. The "exoskeleton" was no longer able to bear any more of the weight above that point, so the core got over-stressed and broke. Perfectly clear now. You are actually agreeing with NIST.
more of your gross over generalizations, that wind up being completely incorrect. if you think nist said that cite it. nist said this; this is reality and as you can see its impossible. where would have the columns gotten the mega tons of extra load to become over stressed? LOL oh and did you notice nist forgot to add the core! Maybe they investigated some other building and got them mixed up
Looks about right, considering how steel reacts to heat. Then it is an halucination of yours, having nada to do with reality and the events of 9/11/01. Why would we need to add more load when the columns have becime mis-alligned and unable to support the load they already had? No. The core columns were so weakend by the crash and fires that, when the perimeter columns failed, the could no longer hold the load up right. After that moment, they became just another part of the dynamic load of the floors.
so you are blind? cannot see the response when coumns are removed completely. what does it take for you to open your eyes? I am sure most others have their eyes open and are wondering the same thing about you.
If you remove the core columns on any floor, the top breaks apart and starts staving in floors and making the perimeter columns peel away like a banana skin, just like in real life.
that is what demolition does, it simultaneously removes ALL the core columns and down goes fraiser. Just like in real life.
By thew same token, if just enough columns fail under the load, it results in a progressive collapse, which is exactly what happened when they were struct by a couple hundred tons of debris and heated beyond the point at which the surviving columns lost their strength. The ability to transfer loads from one column to another is not infinite.
Yep but it would not fall straight down, the model shows that, however that is a story for another day. this is the way weight distribution works: as you can see with less than 3/4 of the perimeter intact and 5/6ths of the columns has been removed and the building remains standing. Now as you said if you remove enough of them as seen below Now removing 3/4 of the perimeter and 5/6ths of the core then collapse is inevitable. it can easily be shown especially in the case of wtc 2 that it would have been impossible for a plane to do THAT MUCH damage. That is to do ENOUGH damage by ANY means that would COMPLETELY DISABLE that much of the support structure as shown such that a collapse would occur is impossible except in the most fertile imaginations. which is why all yours and others generalizations while partly true under specific circumstances are otherwise complete trash and misleading to those who do not have the experience or education say different. I would have guessed that since you beat your chest out here as an expert that you would not have needed me to explain this to you. All the "inbetween" examples were previously posted.
You are still discounting the thermal damage to the columns and the resulting misallignment and loss of strength.
no actually that is not the case. If you look very very carefully at my last post you will see that the columns are completely removed. Thermally damaged, and/or misaligned columns may still have some strength and the object of the model is to demonstrate performance when columns are TOTALLY DESTROYED and have zero or no strength. That is why they have been removed completely. From that you can see that over 83% of the core and 75% of the perimeter needed to be completely removed before the building was weakened to the point that collapse could have taken place. Being an expert and all I would have thought that you would not have needed something so elementary explained to you.
They were both destroyed and weakened, depending on where they were. Fire weakens steel. It does not have to melt to lose load-bearing capacity. Your knowledge is too limited to employ those skills that you seem to have.
