ok, so you now admit you don't know **** about structural engineering. and nothing about physics. the amount of force required to push over the towers would be tremendous.
Did you weigh the debris? There was over 1 million tons of concrete, and same of structure steel in the buildings, so you are out by 700,000 tons..where did they go? You like Margot are over your head on this one, go and finish watching professional rasslin', that would appear to more to your knowledge level.
tell us again how the towers should have toppled over. LOL!!!! your knowledge of engineering and physics is a joke.
A joke to you engineering and physics illiterate it would be a joke...but to the learned and thinking person it is a fact....so way you go back to rasslin' on TV again..it is more your speed.
Do you understand how little jet fuel there was compared to the volume of those two towers? And that's after most of it burned up in the initial fireball.
You tell me. Also tell me how it would weaken the structure unformly so it would be a "controlled demolition" at free fall speed, from jet fuel? It is impossible, but give it a try anyway. I realize you have nothing to work with, but give it a try.
Why don't you change the subject? Nice try...start a new thread about Larry's insurance.....give him another building to "pull" and collect 7 billion dollars.
Tell us again how a tiny amount of fuel compared to the volume of the buildings, not only burned up the floors of initial impact, but also made its way all the way down to the lobby, causing catastrophic damage. LOL!!!!
Pot calling the kettle black? I believe I challenged you to prove you know something and so far, nothing but hot air opinions. Margot already abdicated because she knows this is way over her head and just spews uninformed and unsupported opinions (crapola) and hopes they will stick to the wall. You can add this question to the questions I asked you. Why don't you explain in physics terms how it's POSSIBLE for the top 20% of the towers to NATURALLY crush the bottom 80% in an unimpeded accelerating fashion at about 2/3 G. The burden of proof is on YOU since you're strongly implying it's possible. And for a bonus question, how were ALL the interlaced core columns destroyed uniformly at the exact same rate of acceleration? Note that NIST never attempted to explain it by their own admission in a footnote. All they did was claim the "collapse was inevitable". But here you go Einstein, show your engineering/physics genius, perhaps you can teach me something other than the word "truther".
what does the volume of liquid fuel compared to the volume of the buildings, have to do with anything? LOL!!!! such a strange question.
LOL!!! I love it. I love it soo much. please post the Richard Gage video with the boxes. I love it. here's a hint: research "dynamic loads vs static loads".
Is that supposed to be your scientifically detailed answer to ALL my questions? Thanks for showing you know zero and you're full of it. Now in your opinion, who would you say the readers are supposed to listen to, an anonymous obvious faker who says nothing (e.g. "I love it") or known experts who have done years of painstaking research and written peer reviewed papers on the subject?
Stop and think for a minute. Planes carry a certain amount of fuel. Very little fuel compared to the volume of the towers. The initial fireball burned up much of the fuel. Then, most of the remaining fuel was on the floors of initial impact. Then, if you believe it was poured down the elevator shafts, some of it would have splashed onto the shaft walls and other floors. That leaves barely any left to hit the lobby and cause significant explosions and visible smoke. How can this tiny amount of fuel weaken that much steel?
i work with many architects and my boss is a PE Civil Engineer with a Masters from Cooper Union. My deputy director has a Masters in Civil Engineering from NYU. how about you? what experts in engineering and architecture do you associate with on a regular basis?
Yes you already made that unsupported claim and I asked you if your job was to shine their shoes or perhaps get their coffee (if it's even true). You still haven't answered a single one of my questions that might maybe show you actually know something other than how to post hot air. Not a single one but I never claimed I did nor is it relevant to anything I asked you.
haha!!! nice strawman. I love it!!! most of the weakened steel that initiated the collapses was at the point of impact and effected floors. once 1/5th of the towers starts moving down at freefall speed, there is nothing that can stop it. the towers were a structural system, each floor worked together to hold up the static load of the building. each floor was designed to hold the load of ALL the floors above them, but statically. no floor was capable of handling the dynamic load of 30 floors moving downwards all at once. 30 floors all moving down at freefall speed, 10 feet? thats enough to get a total progressive collapse going. now, had the towers been built like regular structures, with a structural steel skeleton throughout the entire building, and not a tube within a tube, there is a much better chance the towers would not have collapsed. but, tube in a tube construction? made the matter soo much worse. the fact, the VAST majority of the footprint of each floor had ZERO structural steel. it was mostly in the outer layer and inside the core. looked great, very pretty, great for space, but horrible if impacted by a large plane with a majority of its fuel unused.
