It doesn't matter. The lower structure STILL supported the upper section prior to the upper section being released.
The fact is, it does matter because if the structure was weakened prior to the actual demolition ( and said structure could be weakened in such a way as to support itself, but not any load of office minions on any of the floors ) then the upper part collapsing down upon the lower part would have had the desired effect.
Do you have evidence that the lower floors were weakened, or are you incredulously speculating? Let's see some sources, Bob.
YOU are the one who brought up Verinage and so obviously YOU know very little about how its actually done, the bare physics of the whole thing demands that the lower structure be modified prior to the demolition event for the process to function. you have taken it on blind faith and NO info or research into how structures are built. The lower part of any tall building will be much stronger than the upper parts that are lightweight because they do not have to support the whole skyscraper. In the case of the WTC towers, the steel was as much as 5" thick at the lower stories so as to provide support for the upper structure of the tower.
In my very first mention of Verinage, I supplied you with a link describing exactly how the process takes place. No weakening of the lower floors is needed: the dynamic energy of the smaller upper portion is more than enough to do the job. http://www.randallcontracting.co.uk/demolition-the-meaning
The link you provided was a short article that did not go into great detail and leaves open the question of lower structure preparation. also the quote above relates to the central nature of the collapse initiation, that is if the WTC towers had been broken at the 55th floor, this may be a bit more believable however because we are expected to believe that the upper 15% by linear measure and most probably upper 5% by mass of the structure had the ability to crash down upon all the rest and cause complete and total destruction of the skyscraper. oh my! The official story is a farce!
Show your math as to why the dynamic energy of the top 15% wasn't enough. Anything other than that is just argument from incredulity.
First of all, the top 15% by linear measure was most probably only 5% by mass, and also the official argument depends on a LOT of "what if" sorts of arguments, Note that the ONLY way that the mass from above could cause total catastrophic failure, is to take out the deck & floor trusses in total, if part of a deck or a few floor trusses were left in place, all bets are off in this matter because the "collapse" would become imbalanced and dump major quantities of mass over the side thus stopping the action. the other assumption of the official bit is that the vertical structure that is the outer wall & core of the tower, would destabilize upon removal of the floor trusses and therefore simply "collapse", this is asking a LOT in the case of the structure in the lower third of the building because the central core & outer wall had substantial thickness of steel, and therefore could be relied upon to be free-standing without the need of the floor trusses to tie the structure together. The whole official argument depends on expressing the max live load of the floors, and ignoring the fact that the outer wall and core had there own strength to contend with and these bits would have to have energy expended to break up the structure in order to achieve the documented result.
So there is a load THRESHOLD that a lower section of a structure, even though still intact and supporting the STATIC load of the upper section, will succumb to when that same upper section (that it was just supporting seconds ago) is set in motion?
We are still only getting at the issue of the total destruction of the deck(s) and the condition that must be met in order to achieve the result as documented is the total destruction of any given deck on the way down because if a few floor trusses resisted, the result would be an imbalance and therefore a shifting of the center of gravity of the upper mass resulting in dumping mass over the side of the tower and stopping the action, what magic kept all that stuff perfectly aligned so as to affect complete destruction of each and every deck it encountered all the way down the tower?
Who says it was perfectly aligned? You do see the large amounts of debris flowing over the edges and striking other buildings, don't you? and the answer, as always is: Gravity. Not magic, just science.
So with all of the material leaving the confines of the WTC tower(s) what kept sufficient quantity of material inside in order to keep the "pile driver" going? and in fact, because the "pile driver" was seen to accelerate at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, WHY should there be destruction of the tower at all? what is driving the acceleration?
Every single floor added to the mass. What is driving the acceleration? Ready for it? Gravity. Same as always.
and given that the mass was accelerating that means that it was exerting less than its actual weight against the part below it....
Because it was accelerating AND picking up mass as it went; the force was greater for every floor it descended.
Given that the towers were allegedly 90% air, that would indicate that they were 10% solid stuff, therefore, upon "collapse" the rubble pile should have been 11 stories tall, however that didn't happen, so the question is: what happened to the stuff? and if all that stuff wasn't present in the rubble directly descending into the building footprint, then it was part of what had been ejected. So I ask, how is it to be known if the actual mass descending was increasing or not?
allegedly unaided by any engineered demolition effort..... OK? Bottom line here, the destruction of WTC1,2 & 7 had to have an additional source of energy to do was was seen. - - - Updated - - - How about that 2.25 sec of FREE FALL ACCELERATION? try as you may, to negate it.... its there, its real and its clearly an indication of an engineered event.
It's not proof of controlled demolition, which is what I asked for. Here's a clue: controlled demolitions don't cause the free fall acceleration of a building, either. its a false premise to start from. Do you have any evidence of CD?
The 2.25 sec of free fall is clear indication of an engineered event, the allegation that fire could cause this sort of thing is ludicrous.
