25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
I said absolutely NOTHING about fire not weakening steel, what I am questioning is the complete & total destruction of both towers. Total destruction is most often the result of a planned operation, not some unfocused fires & chaotic damage ( I still say ALLEGED airliner crash )
are you really trying to pass off the fires at the WTC towers as "focused" by what stretch of the imagination do you even attempt this?
Chaotic damage?! Are you saying that tons and tons of debris falling downward due to gravity, within a 208' x 208' area, is chaotic? Ridiculous! - - - Updated - - - Answer me something n0spam. As those fires in that area weaken the support columns, where does the load that they support go? - - - Updated - - - Right! And you said the complete and total destruction was caused by fires, did you not? I replied that you were wrong and showed you why. You totally bypassed that part.
There is an assumption in what you believe about the "collapse" events if the towers construction was PERFECT, that is all of the connections & joints in the tower were completely consistent with their counterparts in all other parts of the structure. and IF the falling mass from above was completely symmetrical and applied a uniform & consistent load upon the floors below, then you may have the result observed. However, the tower(s) being the work of human hands can not possibly be totally consistent in the strength of connections, + the fact that the falling mass from above could not possibly be consistent in the load applied to the floors it allegedly crushed. In the case of non-consistent structure/load, it is a huge stretch to assume that the crushing of floors would progress straight down without at any point along the way loosing so much mass over the side of the tower so as to stop the action because the remaining mass would not be sufficient to continue the process.
so you believe that fires, fueled by paper and office furniture, could distribute heat in a manner that caused not one, but two office towers to be completely destroyed. did I get it?
... and carpeting and drywall and heating oil and any number of other flammables IN ADDITION TO the damage done to the structure by the plane. The FDNY certainly believes it.
No, you didn't "get it". You keep repeating the same mantra. The fire did not cause the complete destruction of the towers. The fires weakened structural components on a few certain floors. Floors on which other perimeter and core columns were severed/damaged by the impact. That's it. The fires were the final stage of an already ongoing structural failure mechanism STARTED by the impact. After the planes severed/damaged perimeter and core columns, what happened to the load distribution of the section above that previously went through those severed columns? It had to be redistributed to other, functioning structural columns right? Now weaken certain columns further with fire? Now what?
It doesn't matter what you "think". The fact that the upper section created a PSI force that far exceeded the PSI resistance of the floor connections to the perimeter and core columns is what needs to be considered. I don't care if the upper section hit the floor directly in a nonuniform manner or not. It still created a force greater then what the floor could handle.
FDNY is under the boot of BIG BROTHER. Problem with the official explanation is that it depends on special woo to maintain the mass of material above the as yet undamaged part of the WTC tower in order to have sufficient mass to crush the lower floors. WHY didn't it end with an approximation of a cone shape in the damaged but still standing lower part of the building, and all of the rubble would have slid off the sides of it and gone away, and so there would be only minimal mass if rubble on top of the remaining structure. There are tens of thousands of ways for it to go in a manner that would not result in total destruction of the tower.
WRONG!!!! The lower floors weren't crushed. They were SHEARED from their connections to the perimeter and core columns. t has been explained to you that one floor was not enough to resist the descending mass. The floors did not hold up everything above. Why can't you get this right?[/QUOTE]
WHY should there be perfect uniformity in the breakage of the connections for each deck? Fact is, that if the majority of connections to the outside of any given floor, broke before the connections to the central core, the net effect would be to create a ramp toward the outside and so many tons of material would slide off and away and therefore no longer be available to crush the lower floors. What special woo kept all of the stuff in place on top of the as yet undamaged floors of the tower?
[/QUOTE] OK, to go with your version, if the shearing off of the connections for any given floor happened in such a way as to have the outer wall connections fail before the connections to the central core, the deck would tip and form a ramp for tons of rubble to exit the tower and thus be out of the picture for instigating the destruction of the lower bits of the tower.
You think think the descending debris front, impacting each floor in less than a second, would TIP the floors instead of completely shearing them from their connections? You HAVE to be kidding me!
wow man "you have to be kidding......." OK, please do consider this, the distribution of rubble could not possibly have been uniform, therefore its a crap-shoot, what chance would there be for the distribution of material from above to manifest its weigh with a bias toward the outside of the building thus breaking the outer connections first and then under those conditions the floor would tip, and tons of material would slide off and exit the scene.
Using words like "uniform" and "distribution" have no place in describing an impact that was less than a second long. The impacts happen quickly genericBob. The debris hitting the floors wasn't poured onto each floor in slow motion.
Speed is not an excuse, in the realm of machine tools, say a hardened steel punch is being used to make holes in sheet metal, a miss-alignment of a few thousandths of an inch is ( that is a punch strike that is a tiny fraction of a second off, one side to another ) significant, that is VERY significant. & yes it is completely supportable in good science that an event that may be measured in milliseconds, can have features of the event that are off-center, and therefore cause effects that are asymmetrical.
Oh genericBob, how wrong you are. Go look up how to figure out the forces generated by an impact. Make sure to pay attention to the "length of time of the actual impact" part of the equation. Then come back here and tell me the the speed/length of impact time is not an excuse.
I said speed is not an EXCUSE, please note that speed is a factor, but does not rule out the feature of a collision that has an asymmetrical distribution of forces causing asymmetrical damage. Now do you see?
It doesn't matter when the asymmetrical impact load against another object is less than a second. That's like me shooting a water balloon at an angle at your face from a cannon and you telling me you could actually feel the force of the load spread across your face. The impact would happen so fast that you wouldn't notice the asymmetrical load differences.
