High Rise Building "Experts Speak Out" about 9/11

You fail to grasp the concept...neither one happened

The laws of motion are valid,just NOT the way YOU understand them

 

there is only one way to test this.

someone will have to take out 1/4 of the exterior columns and set a massive fire two thirds up the way in the Tulsa, OK building that is an exact replica of the WTC towers.

 

When applied correctly we do. You are using the inertia as if the building was a solid. It wasn't

 

I don't need to spend one second on your trash to know it's wrong..Our government can't keep a secret for anything,and you want us to believe they pulled the caper of the millenium?

Quit playing with airplane glue in a closed room.

 

Those are not the only options.

 

Why would you hallucinate there were only two choices?

Well actually, in the world we live in Newtonian mechanics has actually been replaced by Einstein's special relativity. But that's just piling on.

 

That is not true at all. I understand that the top ten or fifteen stories were already destroyed before they collapsed when WTC Building One was demolished. There was very little, or no, additional mass added to the top floors. There may have been some additional mass from the dynamic force of the collapse. Yet, the buildings had been holding that mass for decades. Some dynamic mass may have increased the load on the static forces; however, there is no reason to believe that the static forces of lower 90 stories could not hold the dynamic forces of 10 to 15 stories in some sort of deceleration to ground zero. That is fairy tale fantasy which I do not believe is physically possible.

[video=youtube;ITa3SzTOY3k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITa3SzTOY3k[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITa3SzTOY3k

 

I do like your desperation and obfuscation. Well done. However, I maintain that Newton's laws of motion are still valid in the 21st century.

 

lol 'experts' speak out, you mean the .01% of the engineers and physicists who haven't been able to convince the scientific community of a conspiracy? Why is that? so many of them with so much evidence, yet nothing to show for it. 99% of the experts just don't even bother paying attention

 

I really would have thought someone arguing the physics of the collapse would familiarize themselves with the construction techniques used to build the structure. None of the floors carried any load bearing other than their own weight. That was the whole point of the design of the buildings. All load bearing was transfered to the outer facade support. The building was designed to be cheap, lightweight and to maximize the rental area of each floor.

 

That false assertion is contradicted by the facts of the design. Building and fire codes are quite demanding as architecture and building engineering has been for centuries. Buildings are designed to stand while on fire. Here is a picture and drawing of the core columns. The columns were huge.

The Structural System of the Twin Towers

5 inch thick steel? and 2 inch thick steel? It could take a welder all day to make one cut in 5 inch steel. Office fires would take years. The people who believe the NIST report must believe in Santa Claus because they are both fairy tales.

 

Unfortunately your own site disagrees with you

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html

 

Good grief. Floors are horizontal structures. Columns are vertical structures. The columns are what are important in structural design concerning vertical collapse. How many years of building construction experience do you have?

 

Long enough to know, you don't actually understand how the towers were built.

 

um, being a carpenter doesn't make one an engineer.

being a lather doesn't make one an architect.

 

Here is how the towers were built.

The Structural System of the Twin Towers

- - - Updated - - -

Staying in the dark about the world in which you live does not make you smart.

 

Yes yes - you have already linked this once. To which I will make the same reply from the same site

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/floors.html

 

Okay. It is obvious that you do not understand the difference between a floor and a column. Here is the 5th grade explanation. Floors are horizontal structures and columns are vertical structures. Big difference especially in a collapse.

 

you constantly flaunt your so-called building construction experience.

what exactly does this experience entail?

be specific.

 

Very good - we have established you know the difference between horizontal and vertical. Now you just need to work on which are the load bearing parts and you should start to make some progress.

 

Sheesh. Columns are vertical load bearing members and floors are horizontal load bearing members. Who does not know that beside Wizard of Oz and Ronstar?

 

It's all connected,and when it's falling there is no difference..the perimiter walls were fastened both ways.

 

And which columns were the load bearing ones?

 

All physical columns are load bearing. That is Newton's third law of motion in opposition to gravity. Take a physics class.

 

um....I defined columns as being load bearing by compression, days ago, buddy.