Okay, I didn't read the other 28 pages here so if I repeat somebody please just take it as a sort of restatement. The OP's original post seems to be the idea that the WTC should not have collapsed like it did. That, in fact, it is usually quite difficult to make a building collapse that way. (Some really great pix btw) And that is true, generally, BUT the WTC was a most unusual building. Most tall steel frame buildings are supported mainly by their steel frames and core structures. The WTC was something of an innovation. It was supported mainly by it's WALLS, like most non steel frame buildings had been for millenia. In the latter part of the 19thc mankind got access to steel in quantities large enough to allow it to be used as a building material. Architects realized this could allow them to build self-supporting steel frames and the walls became mere "curtains" used to keep out the elements. The WTC was an innovation that continues to be used today as it allows the building to be built with more automation. Basically, they built one floor of it on ground level, then put in another floor on top of that one and jacked it up. They left the jacks in as supports and built the next floor then repeated the process, and so on. Fireproof Steel Trusses, attached to the steel walls, took the load through the supports to the ground. Unfortunately, the force of the explosion blew off the insulation. This allowed the fire to WEAKEN, (not melt, it wasn't hot enough to melt steel), the trusses. When they bent under the load they were no longer in contact with the walls. The first floors to collapse took the others down and each one was that much heavier than the last. The energy that had been used to erect the walls was, actually, what made them collapse. The WTC COULDN'T have collapsed any other way than it did, that was the way it was built.
except the problem with your ramblings is that they reinforced the fire steel trusses after the 93 bombing with that in mind if an airliner slammed into it,it would stay reinforced and they were designed to take hits from MULTIPLE airliners and be able to stay stand and the lead designer anticipated that when he designed them saying there would be a great loss of life due to the fires but thr structures itself would remain standing and there si no proof of that that they came off and sorry those fires were not hot enough to melt a mashmellow let alone weeken the steel. also you are not aware of witnesses testimony of hearing EXPLOSIONS going off in the basement long before the towers collapsed or building 7.you clearly see explosions took place in the basement just like the witnesses said because in one suppressed video you see black smoke rising from the base of the building and you have many witnesses some being experienced in the sounds of explosioves,firement who were insulted with the lies of the commission that the fires caused the collapsed.that they heard explosiosn going off.the majority of the fire exploded outside the towers when the airliner hit so again,it wasnt hot enough to roast a marshmellow let alone weaken steel. oh and here is that designer of the towers not that you will watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pvEge5HPJU&playnext=1&list=PLE649807EBE8C67C3&feature=results_main oh and this video here spells it out dummies style for you that your rambling as well.hee hee. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZAHp_zSGd8 and one final thing,many witnesses who heard explosions and did not go along with the governments version of events wound up dying in mysterious deaths just like in the kennedy assassination.but let me guess,you believe in THAT fairy tale of the government as well? hahahahahahahahahahahhaaa if so,you have for sure been programmed and are living in denial.
What the the holy heck is a fire steel truss? Steel is a great building material because it is so elastic. This means that when it is deflected, it does a great job of returning to its original shape. This elasticity is dependent on the temperature of the steel. As temperature increases elasticity decreases. As this chart shows, structural steel loses almost half of its elasticity when heated to 600 degrees. As I said to Koko before, the shape of a structural member is critical. If any part of a structural member changes shape, this can result in a loss in structural capacity. Since elasticity is a material's ability to hold its shape, and since heating reduces this ability, what in the holy heck do you think they reinforced within the entire building after the first bombing of the towers? Do you mean the insulation? The fire protection that Aleksander Ulyanov was talking about was a spray on insulation that needs to coat the entire surface of the steel in order to protect it from heat. Since steel is also a great conductor, exposed steel will conduct heat readily to coated steel. The purpose of the spray on insulation was to insulate the steel from heat, not withstand an impact from a jetliner. You could have sprayed it on a foot thick and the impact would still have knocked it off. The floor trusses sagged in areas that insulation had been knocked off by the impact. This reduce their total capacity to transmit load. This is what caused the outer columns to pull inward in the zone of collapse initiation. When a trailer park denizen likens a tornado to the sounds of a freight train, does that mean a train caused the wreckage to his double wide?
Also, if they really were explosions designed to knock the building down...why did the building remain standing for an hour after the explosions were heard?
irrelevant you still need to answer all those questions you ducked out of earlier. The3ir top resident physicist has officially stated that a truss to weak to sustain its own weight has the strength to pull in the exoskeleton. Its a great and memorable day for physics history was made today! omfg
Yes yes captain vague, can you get any more general? You duck every specific challenge put to you as seen above post
You're such a disingenuous sob Koko. You can't address comments or rebuttals in a honest fashion, because, if you did, you'd get owned at every turn. Your tap dance is clear to all who see your bs posts koko, and the only person you're fooling is yourself.
you already blew it when you admitted the boilers are on the maintenance floors OOPS. Damage control wont save your titanic. That was not a maintenance floor and it was not steam. BTW have you stopped beating your wife yet?
cant get more honest, thats the problem. troughers cannot deal with discovering what they think is truth is really lies. [video=youtube;5Jj3wZVc7nw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jj3wZVc7nw[/video] When the truth is found to be lies And all the joy within you dies Don't you want somebody to love Don't you need somebody to love Wouldn't you love somebody to love You better find somebody to love When the garden's flowers, baby, are dead Yes, and your mind, your mind is so full of red Your eyes, I say your eyes may look like his Yeah but in your head, baby I'm afraid you don't know where it is Tears are running, they're all running down your breast And your friends, baby, they treat you like a guest Don't you want somebody to love Don't you need somebody to love Wouldn't you love somebody to love You better find somebody to love
You have yet to ask a question that I don't have an answer for. And for the record, I'm under no obligation to answer any of them.
yeh I know that joke too, and correct answers are a buck, only problem is that I never get my moneys worth.
Honest? You wouldn't know what that word meant if if smashed you across the forehead, and made an impression in your dense brainpain.
You're the one that purports to be able to teach demolition preschool. It's not my fault that you don't know what you're talking about. You tried to make the case that the building should have tipped over. I explained how you were incorrect. I even gave you the means to calculate exactly what it would have taken for the building to have toppled over. Your response was to call the math "meaningless" You tried to make some unintelligible argument that floor trusses weren't strong enough to buckle their supporting columns. I explained how you were incorrect. I even posted the chart for the modulus of elasticity for steel. Your response was to claim I didn't answer any questions and to call my responses vague. It's a pathetic argument you make, Koko. I don't see any great brain trusts buying it.
stop back when you have something beyond attacking the poster to say. Like how about expounding on fangs rotating gravity theory that he has no obligation to answer rebuttals about.
Do you mean you actually think you have something to say with your posts? All those off topic animated gifs? All that ignoring and twisting responses? All those appeals to authority? All that stupidity? Get back to everyone when you've stop being such a disingenuous pos you fVckwit.
Transmission of force is not "rotating gravity theory" or whatever nonsense you made up in your head to try and understand what I wrote. Did you try to drop a ball tethered to a post? Did gravity rotate when you did that?
its not my fault that troughers lack basic comprehension skills. I am sure that is why they rely so heavily on the official story, grossly ridiculous that it is notwithstanding. Here is everything you need to show how wrong you are http://www.ibid.com.au/uploads/english/documents/design and technology/DT_Samp.pdf
Since you have no obligation to respond to those nonsense posts I have no obligation to respond to them either.
Your argument now is that your own posts were nonsense? It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for him.
