22-05-2011, 06:01 AM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:In fact, the design of the twin towers would not result in a tangled mass being arrested and supported by the columns. WRONG!Well, you just provided a textbook example of a straw man argument. I didn't say top down gravitational collapses of the towers would necessarily "result in a tangled mass being arrested and supported by the columns" but rather only noted that it "limits how quickly and completely such an "avalanche" can destroy a building." In other words, even if the descending mass is such that shreds the building all the way down, with only gravity acting on that mass shredding through all that structure takes time, and the rubble will wind up pulled high within it's footprint like the simulations I've shown. On the other hand, quickly winding up in a vast rubble pile largely outside the footprint of the building takes a lot of force latterly displacing all that structure for gravity to bring it down so quickly and over such a large area, hence the reason I've no doubt that explosives were used all the way down.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:You need to study the structure and some statics before making such "demands" on engineers to "validate" the principles which they use every day.Hah! What exactly are you calling demands here, while telling me what you suppose I "need" to do? It seems to me that you could stand to get a grip. That's a suggestion, not a demand.