22-05-2011, 03:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 22-05-2011, 04:17 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Kyle,
The interactions between the elements, chunks, debris, particles of the avalanche do not negate the gravity energy which remains operative on all the mass. The mass would have to be destroyed to free itself from the force of gravity. The mass of the towers was "transformed", dissociated but still has the destructive potential energy of gravity turned into KE which it was no longer locked inside the matrix of the structure which transferred the loads (gravity PE) to the foundation through the columns.
Engineering is derived from empirical tests/experiments. No need to test what a 10wf31 can support spanning 30'... or what load will cause it to deflect or buckle its web. It's already been established.
While you might be able to model some aspects of the failure, you can't scale such a model and get reliable results. But your call for a repeatable experiments is a straw man argument. Engineering / structural design and forensic analysis of structural failure is pretty much settled science. Forensic reports are made all the time without modeling to prove the analysis.
Was it you who played with models trying to simulate the collapse?
The interactions between the elements, chunks, debris, particles of the avalanche do not negate the gravity energy which remains operative on all the mass. The mass would have to be destroyed to free itself from the force of gravity. The mass of the towers was "transformed", dissociated but still has the destructive potential energy of gravity turned into KE which it was no longer locked inside the matrix of the structure which transferred the loads (gravity PE) to the foundation through the columns.
Engineering is derived from empirical tests/experiments. No need to test what a 10wf31 can support spanning 30'... or what load will cause it to deflect or buckle its web. It's already been established.
While you might be able to model some aspects of the failure, you can't scale such a model and get reliable results. But your call for a repeatable experiments is a straw man argument. Engineering / structural design and forensic analysis of structural failure is pretty much settled science. Forensic reports are made all the time without modeling to prove the analysis.
Was it you who played with models trying to simulate the collapse?