WTC1/WTC2 perimeter columns vs. plane impact, math discussion...

Let's put this into a simple scenario shall we.

Let's say I have a 200' vertical box column. On top of that box column is a 300 lb block of cement. Please explain to me how one might use explosive to control the descent of said concrete block to maintain a consistent descending rate of 64% of g (6.3 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]) until it impacts the ground.

 

Wrong yet again.

What is the impact force of the impacting material in that area vs. the load design of the object being impacted. This is what you fail at genericBob.

What unit of measurement is used to determine how much a floor can hold up within a structure?

 

You seem to be promoting the idea that the upper mass presented such overwhelming force to the lower bit, that it had no other outcome possible but for the whole thing to remain level, thus keeping the bulk of the rubble centered on the tower.

However that is a fairy tale.
Falling stuff, even if it totally overwhelms what is under it, is still subject to the forces that govern the motion of all things.

it is totally improbable that WTC 1, 2
"collapse" in the manner that they did
& into complete destruction.

That is my statement on the subject.

 

Yeah,gravity=Things fall downward.

 

What does "remaining level" have to do with anything? What comprised the descending debris? Columns, chunks of concrete, huge elevator motors, horizontal members, etc. As each and every piece impacted the next floor below, it sheared the floor. It doesn't matter if a column hit one area of the floor in one place and then milliseconds later another column hit another area 208' away. There were probably hundreds of impacts with a second, all of which are applied to the design load of the floor.

I'll ask you again. What unit of measurement is used to show how much a floor can handle?

 

Who said anything about drywall? You are just trying to play ridicule debating games.

The steel had to hold up the concrete so the designers had to know how much concrete to figure out how much steel and the NIST said 200,000 tons of steel. So it is very curious that they use the word 'concrete' 3,000+ times, more than they say 'steel', but then never specify the total amount of concrete in 10,000 pages.

psik

 

Again,why would they need to?

 

The data should be available, there are the "as built" blue prints from the construction of the towers and these things are preserved for at least as
long as the building is in service and in the case of the towers, it would
be criminal to destroy these documents. WHY is it that this INFORMATION
is not available? who ordered that it be kept secret, and for what reason?
In a free society we are free to ask questions, and indeed expect answers.
Secrecy is a tool of tyrants. ( look up JFK's speech about secrecy )

and as for why any sort of need to have INFORMATION,
would you rely on guesses & estimations as to what happened
to WTC 1, 2 & 7?

 

the towers were over 30 years old,with numerous renovations so any 'as built' blueprints would cover very little but the basic structure


there is no 'secrecy' involved.so your whining of 'tyrants' is unwarranted

 

If indeed there were no secrecy,
then you could produce the documents that support your case.

Just one little bit from my point of view,
if the towers were truly 90% air, and I'll buy that figure,
then, when fallen down, the rubble pile could be expected
to be 11 stories tall, why was it not, and is there any accurate
measure of exactly how tall the rubble pile indeed was?

 

Yeah, and with explosives, things go boom.

 

So you agree: since there was no boom, there were no explosives.

 

Lots of witnesses heard 'booms'. Shall I list some of them?

 

List any that heard concussive explosions (like CD explosions) as the buildings fell.

 

Up to you to find them...Not me.

 

after years of asking for documentation,
the obvious conclusion is, it doesn't exist.

 

Probably because you haven't LOOKED for it

 

Be happy too but, before I waste my time doing so, would you accept their testimony as it stands? I guess a better question might be, would you give it any credence at all? I have a guess but, I should let you answer. (or maybe you'll tell me that they didn't hear what they thought they heard, right?)

 

Safe assumption, I'd say.

 

Yes, I'll accept it.
Show us all testimony of people who heard concussive explosives just prior to the buildings' collapses, as is noted in controlled demolitions.

Or keep dancing, Boss. Your choice.

 

Why send robots to Mars?

Just read Edgar Rice Burroughs and BELIEVE that's everything you need to know.

[Sarcasm Alert! Sarcasm Alert!]

psik

 

Sarcasm belies your inability to answer

 

You were answered in post #308 but you are not interested in answers and just want to BS ad infinitum. So I gave a response that amused me.

psik

 

No,I was NOT answered in post 308

It was just a drawn out 'why not?' post.

 

First of all the alleged "why not" post contained INFORMATION
and also, if any modifications were to have been done on any
skyscraper, the mods would have most certainly be documented
and stored with the AS BUILT prints.

My question still stands, WHY is this INFORMATION
not generally available?

My guess is, that if said information were available,
people, even freshman engineering majors, would be able
to calculate the weight of floors & strength of materials
and have evidence beyond any doubt that the towers
where blown up, rather than being the victim of the
alleged airliner crash & fires.