14-05-2011, 12:43 AM
No one is clutching at straws and the steel columns at the top of the twin towers whether 4% or 24% of the mass of the bottom one did not.... I repeat did NOT crush the columns in the lower section.
The collapse of the twin towers was a runaway collapse and destruction of the rather flimsy floors which were designed to support 58 pounds per square foot. Whatever the mechanism was which caused the top section's floors to "break apart" or be severed from the columns which held them up... and carried their dead and live loads... one the dynamic threshold mass of floor "debris" came down upon an intact, stone cold undamaged floor... that floor shattered... unable to support the imposed load. It's that simple.
This process repeated rather rapidly... at the rate of 60 mph of 10 floors per second until all the floors were destroyed, crushed, fractured and they and the contents pulverized by the aggregate weight of the debris. Even is 20% (which is way way way too high) turned to fine powder and was carried aloft in the air... the remain 80% of the floors mass was more than enough to crush anything except steel and a few other strong materials... toilets, telephones, wall board, carpet, ceiling tiles, and so forth was crushed beyond recognition. If you don't think it would happen.... drop a few hundred thousand tons of debris on any of those items and see if you can find them intact.
The very strong columns... increasingly strong as you move down the towers toppled over when they lost the bracing which the floors system had provided. Basic science and Judy Wood should know Euler if she is an engineer. But she's a self promoter of fairly tales. Gage is completely out of his league when it comes to structures and physics as is apparently Cole and David Chandler, who refuse to acknowledge the observations of the towers' collapse.
The mystery is what kicked off the floor collapse... not if the floors collapsed. The floors collapsed... sequentially from top to bottom by the driving mass of the floors above the crash zone.
Fetzer is not an engineer and clearly doesn't understand these basic engineering principles as does Boldwyn... who both refuse to believe their eyes.
The problem is that figuring out what started the collapse is the hard part because one can't see THAT as one can see the collapse. And accordingly all the theories arise which are not based on any ob or are supported by any observations. Gage points to the towers exploding sequentially and being pulverized in mid air... and makes no distinction between initiation and collapse. It's all explosive to him and his ilk.
Judy Wood has her blinders on and can't see all the steel which came down mostly intact and with no signs of explosives. Yes yes... there was some steel with eutectic burning and this likely was from the initiation up top where the steel was considerably thinner. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the steel below the crash zone had eutectic burning.
If you simply honestly describe the observations, you can begin to understand what happened if you understand engineering and how buildings.. and this one in particular... which was a very unique design...are built. Chuck Boldwyn apparently hasn't a clue about how those buildings were built and I suspect the same of Judy Wood.
Considering how strong the belief that the towers couldn't collapse are held by people who don't know much about them... it doesn't say much for the truth investigators. Tony Szamboti at least has some understanding of their structure.
Most of the rest of the truth advocates are nothing more than parrots who haven't a clue what they are talking about. Of course you couldn't know that if you are not an engineer or a physicist.
The collapse of the twin towers was a runaway collapse and destruction of the rather flimsy floors which were designed to support 58 pounds per square foot. Whatever the mechanism was which caused the top section's floors to "break apart" or be severed from the columns which held them up... and carried their dead and live loads... one the dynamic threshold mass of floor "debris" came down upon an intact, stone cold undamaged floor... that floor shattered... unable to support the imposed load. It's that simple.
This process repeated rather rapidly... at the rate of 60 mph of 10 floors per second until all the floors were destroyed, crushed, fractured and they and the contents pulverized by the aggregate weight of the debris. Even is 20% (which is way way way too high) turned to fine powder and was carried aloft in the air... the remain 80% of the floors mass was more than enough to crush anything except steel and a few other strong materials... toilets, telephones, wall board, carpet, ceiling tiles, and so forth was crushed beyond recognition. If you don't think it would happen.... drop a few hundred thousand tons of debris on any of those items and see if you can find them intact.
The very strong columns... increasingly strong as you move down the towers toppled over when they lost the bracing which the floors system had provided. Basic science and Judy Wood should know Euler if she is an engineer. But she's a self promoter of fairly tales. Gage is completely out of his league when it comes to structures and physics as is apparently Cole and David Chandler, who refuse to acknowledge the observations of the towers' collapse.
The mystery is what kicked off the floor collapse... not if the floors collapsed. The floors collapsed... sequentially from top to bottom by the driving mass of the floors above the crash zone.
Fetzer is not an engineer and clearly doesn't understand these basic engineering principles as does Boldwyn... who both refuse to believe their eyes.
The problem is that figuring out what started the collapse is the hard part because one can't see THAT as one can see the collapse. And accordingly all the theories arise which are not based on any ob or are supported by any observations. Gage points to the towers exploding sequentially and being pulverized in mid air... and makes no distinction between initiation and collapse. It's all explosive to him and his ilk.
Judy Wood has her blinders on and can't see all the steel which came down mostly intact and with no signs of explosives. Yes yes... there was some steel with eutectic burning and this likely was from the initiation up top where the steel was considerably thinner. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the steel below the crash zone had eutectic burning.
If you simply honestly describe the observations, you can begin to understand what happened if you understand engineering and how buildings.. and this one in particular... which was a very unique design...are built. Chuck Boldwyn apparently hasn't a clue about how those buildings were built and I suspect the same of Judy Wood.
Considering how strong the belief that the towers couldn't collapse are held by people who don't know much about them... it doesn't say much for the truth investigators. Tony Szamboti at least has some understanding of their structure.
Most of the rest of the truth advocates are nothing more than parrots who haven't a clue what they are talking about. Of course you couldn't know that if you are not an engineer or a physicist.