No,it's not..Newtons first law wasn't violated,meaning it acted just the way it was suppposed to.. And the third law acted the same way,the top part of the towers fell creating an equal and opposite reaction on the floors below,all the while picking up momentum as the load from the top increased
Wrong. If the structural integrity of the truss construction is compromised and the dynamic force applied from above is large enough, there can be no "push back" at all. Take for example an aluminum can and a claw hammer. If you simply set the hammer on top of the can, it will hold the hammer up, no problem. But if you take that same hammer and instead swing it with any force from above, it will crush the can... again no problem. Newton's 3rd law is still obeyed. But the can is none the less still crushed. Explain that to the hammer and the tin can. You forgot that as the collapse progressed, what was at one point the "lower portion" became progressively part of the falling upper portion. At the same time the dynamic force of any single falling member was increasing do to gravitational acceleration, more and more material was being added to the fall. Once the collapse commenced, the ability of the lower section to halt it actually became less with every passing fraction of a second. As shown, the only deficit here is in your understanding of material mechanics.
Bad analogy. If you are an engineer, then please tell me who you work for so that I never hire your firm.
That neither requires nor implies any understanding whatsoever about construction engineering. Count yourself fortunate then, since you apparently have none.
Actually, it's very close to a perfect analogy. I note that other than the bald assertion, you make no effort to demonstrate anything wrong with it. I was an engineer, but don't worry. You could never have afforded my firm.
oh, they are VERY important. I spoke to my boss today about this issue. He is a licensed AIA architect. He agrees with my understanding of the collapses. I will speak to my other boss tomorrow, who has a Masters in Civil Engineering from NYU Polytechnic University. On Friday I will talk to my Director who has a Masters in Civil Engineering from Cooper Union, and is a licensed PE. what qualifications do YOU have that I should consider your disputation of their understanding of the collapses, to be with merit?
and no, working on building two story homes in the sticks, doesn't make you more qualified that an AIA certified licensed architect or a PE from Cooper Union with a Masters in Civil Engineering. It is one of THE TOP architectual and engineering schools in the nation.
The reason it was a bad analogy is because WTC columns were not tin cans and there were multiple columns below. They were designed to hold the load. Even so, if you only raised the hammer 1 inch and then dropped the hammer the can will still hold the hammer. Two inches, three inches and maybe the hammer would have to be raised as much as a foot or more to crush the can. In order for your analogy to be somewhat similar to the WTC collapse you would have to include multiple cans under the hammer just like there were multiple floors below the upper portion of the Towers.
Because a good analogy would somewhat resemble the WTC collapse. There were multiple columns under the upper portion of the WTC Towers that were supposedly coming down. He used one can to describe structural fail. The same could not be said about his hammer analogy if there were multiple cans under the hammer.
They were designed to hold a static load. That you do not understand the profound and absolutely crucial difference between a static and a dynamic load after more than 12 years reflects poorly on your capacity to understand pretty much anything else about what happened on 9/11. That said... no. They were not a tin can. If they were, it wouldn't have been an analogy, Einstein. And yet, the can is crushed and Newton's 3rd law is still completely obeyed. Go figure. Actually, no. The depth of your ignorance regarding construction engineering rises to the fore once again. The floors are not separate things each with its own individual structural integrity. The building is essentially a single can with the floors suspended along the load bearing elements. The floors did not hold anything up, they were instead held up themselves. You are clearly in over your head.
each floor of the WTC towers was designed to hold the static load of all upper floors. they were NOT designed to hold the above load collapsing more than 10 feet. do you know the difference between static and dynamic forces?
And the post to which I just previously responded shows that you do not even have that basic understanding. From an engineering perspective, your comments are unrefined gibberish. The law of incredibly large numbers demands that you find a handful of idiots in any large group of supposed experts. It remains true that the number of actually qualified engineers and architects reflected by that group is miniscule.
Then your attempt to improve on my analogy by adding multiple cans is completely incoherent. That's one possibility. Another is that I simply gave you too much credit.
I have to go to dinner. Tomorrow is Thanksgiving. But when I get the opportunity I am going to address all you silly nonsense. If you think I said anything like floors hold structures up you clearly misunderstand what I write.
My boss is a licensed PE with a Masters in Civil Engineering from Cooper Union. My deputy director is a AIA licensed architect. My other deputy has a Masters in Civil Engineering from NYU/Polytechnic University. They all agree that the WTC towers collapsed due to fire damage, weakened steel, impact damage, fuel explosion damage, and gravity.
That's as good an excuse to run away as any other. Trust me... you might as well claim you are going to come back and cure cancer. It would be as likely an outcome. As I said... your attempts at sounding all engineeringish are completely incoherent. If I misunderstand anything you write, it's because your assertions are not understandable.
A dynamic force, Ronstar, would be Perilica grad Ameriku's analogy which I maintain is a poor analogy, yet I will address it in more detail when I have time. A static force is columns holding buildings up against the force of gravity in a normal state. In other words, for a building to go into freefall the columns holding the building up in static conditions have to be removed simultaneously for the mass above to crush the mass below. Do you understand any of that? - - - Updated - - - We'll see how "bright" you are in due time. Your arrogance is unwarranted.
