Trump Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, page-58

First 58 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
KickingGoals

1,372 Posts.

04/07/17

17:28

Post #: 25661508
Share

Originally posted by Crom Valen ↑

You embarrass yourself with this nonsense.

No, I don't think so. You are the one posting dodgy YouTube videos, while I posted an article by the esteemed magazine Popular Mechanics.

Here's more science for you -

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.¹ It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Expand

To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

This is literally the opposite of the truth. Which is why the 9-11 remains to this day the 1 and only example of that ever happening. I challenge you to show me and 1 example. Ever. You can't. Never in the history of building has it happened and never has it happened since. Because it is absolutely impossible. There is only 3 example in the entire history of building where this happened. And all 3 examples happened on the same day. Same site. Same attack. The impossible happened 3 times on the same day. Amazing.
Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

CBA

CBA down as BHP goes up – what's going on, and, will CBA stocks correct?

CCO

The Calmer Co FY25 revenue hits $8 million, up 86% on FY24

ASX Market Open: Oz shares dip back (very slightly) after Wed's record close | July 3

SFM

Why is Santa Fe Minerals up 370% on Thursday?

Trump chides Powell as Goldman call for calm. The RBA must be nervous

GLF

Gemlife used the ASX's new IPO fast-track. Is this the start of a new cycle?

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 016 – FY25 ended up not so bad... but Trump unpause is coming

ASX Market Close: Local bourse dips red as CBA profit takers swoop

RML

Resolution looks to 'strong historical data' as Horse Heaven search begins

Thursday's HotCopper trends: Vault Q4 miss, Peak raise | July 3