09-02-2012, 12:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2012, 12:34 PM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Phil,
It appears that the core did fail at the impact zones as there were buckled columns recovered from that region. Buckled columns only occur when the columns see loads which exceed its yield strength. Since there were no significant loads added, the excessive loads were the result of some columns being destroyed, others damaged and perhaps weakened by heat resulting in the loads being redistributed to load pathways in the remaining columns. That's how gravity works.
If you get on the scale with 2 feet and it shows you weigh 200 pounds and you lift one foot up and remain standing on the scale with one foot on it... the scale still shows 200 pounds... your weight has not changed. But now your one leg is supporting all 200 pounds... load redistribution has taken place. Your one leg can support the full body weight... obviously.
The core failure likely was progressive and or the result of multiple factors which led to the remaining columns buckling. The factors were:
Load stresses cannot be made disappear. They can only be redistributed. The first part of the twin towers' destruction was led by core failure and then the collapse of the floors above the buckled/failed core. Once the mass of the top was no longer directed to load paths within the columns axially... it was presented to the floor systems which could not support these excessive loads and they failed by shattering and or ripping off their connections to the columns.
The floor collapse was the second phase and did not require any additional explosives as it was a mechanical process of simple over loading each floor in rapid succession.
The collapsed and destroyed floors left the facade columns unbraced and unstable and they were seeing the growing destroyed floor mass pushing outward. The facade's column to column and spandrel to spandrel connections again being the weakest part of the facade failed and the facade assemblies came off in sections of 36'h x 10'w or mulitples. The panels were staggered and there were continuous horizontal seams just below and above the mech floors. There were facade panels of one and two stories as well.
Even if, as engineering explains... the collapse was gravity driven once started it does not rule out that there were devices placed or delivered as payload which would not align with the conventional explanation of the OCT. One would have to rule out the possibilities that heat from the plane caused fires and other features of the structure (design) were not sufficient to cause buckling and core failure. There are multiple possibilities and they seem to require massive core destruction from the plane impact, and enormous heat from plane caused fires to overwhelm the core's strength. This is a complex problem with multiple inputs and little hard data to work with.
It's certainly *easy* to posit that devices were placed and that solves that and no need to develop a model of how the core was made to fail. The issue is to find evidence of this. And that may not be possible because the steel is gone.
Was the destruction of the steel (evidence) part of a plot to cover up the use of explosive and other placed devices... or was it a sweet heart contract to some company? Or both? How can we know?
It appears that the core did fail at the impact zones as there were buckled columns recovered from that region. Buckled columns only occur when the columns see loads which exceed its yield strength. Since there were no significant loads added, the excessive loads were the result of some columns being destroyed, others damaged and perhaps weakened by heat resulting in the loads being redistributed to load pathways in the remaining columns. That's how gravity works.
If you get on the scale with 2 feet and it shows you weigh 200 pounds and you lift one foot up and remain standing on the scale with one foot on it... the scale still shows 200 pounds... your weight has not changed. But now your one leg is supporting all 200 pounds... load redistribution has taken place. Your one leg can support the full body weight... obviously.
The core failure likely was progressive and or the result of multiple factors which led to the remaining columns buckling. The factors were:
destruction of columns from the plane impact (unknown number) destroyed or damaged
some columns were thicker than others and the thinner one were subject to weakening/destruction more easily
heat which weakens steel (unknown temps, duration and location)
splice connections which were 3' above the floor level
weakening from loss of bracing
safety factor (low enough to lead to column failures)
damage from placed devices or plane delivered destruction... *payload* aside from jet fuel
All but the last were a result of the plane impact and only the last cause would support an intervention such as a MIHOP. The nature of the connection splices being substantially weaker and aligned in a single plane 3' above the floor level accounts for the frame breaking apart into neat 36' long sections seen in the debris pile. Euler buckling accounts for columns loss of strength and stability when bracing is removed. Bracing was likely removed from floor collapses partial or in whole as the braces supported the floors.some columns were thicker than others and the thinner one were subject to weakening/destruction more easily
heat which weakens steel (unknown temps, duration and location)
splice connections which were 3' above the floor level
weakening from loss of bracing
safety factor (low enough to lead to column failures)
damage from placed devices or plane delivered destruction... *payload* aside from jet fuel
Load stresses cannot be made disappear. They can only be redistributed. The first part of the twin towers' destruction was led by core failure and then the collapse of the floors above the buckled/failed core. Once the mass of the top was no longer directed to load paths within the columns axially... it was presented to the floor systems which could not support these excessive loads and they failed by shattering and or ripping off their connections to the columns.
The floor collapse was the second phase and did not require any additional explosives as it was a mechanical process of simple over loading each floor in rapid succession.
The collapsed and destroyed floors left the facade columns unbraced and unstable and they were seeing the growing destroyed floor mass pushing outward. The facade's column to column and spandrel to spandrel connections again being the weakest part of the facade failed and the facade assemblies came off in sections of 36'h x 10'w or mulitples. The panels were staggered and there were continuous horizontal seams just below and above the mech floors. There were facade panels of one and two stories as well.
Even if, as engineering explains... the collapse was gravity driven once started it does not rule out that there were devices placed or delivered as payload which would not align with the conventional explanation of the OCT. One would have to rule out the possibilities that heat from the plane caused fires and other features of the structure (design) were not sufficient to cause buckling and core failure. There are multiple possibilities and they seem to require massive core destruction from the plane impact, and enormous heat from plane caused fires to overwhelm the core's strength. This is a complex problem with multiple inputs and little hard data to work with.
It's certainly *easy* to posit that devices were placed and that solves that and no need to develop a model of how the core was made to fail. The issue is to find evidence of this. And that may not be possible because the steel is gone.
Was the destruction of the steel (evidence) part of a plot to cover up the use of explosive and other placed devices... or was it a sweet heart contract to some company? Or both? How can we know?