06-02-2012, 04:37 AM
I have a degree and a license in architecture. I had a business a few blocks north of the towers and was there many times. I even worked for the architects of the towers Emery Roth & Sons in 1970. I am somewhat trained as an observer as an architect and captain. I've studied meteorology.
I am not an expert.
But I have found some researchers who have very methodically and rigorously studied the videos and stills from the event and presented their findings.
I have been studying the structure of the twin towers in great detail and probably know as much if not more about them than any 9/11 researcher. I certainly know more than Gage or the people at AE911T where I served as a board member for a brief time in 2009-2010.
One does not need an advanced degree in civil or structural engineering to understand that the floors system outside the core was very lightweight. It was down spec'ed to support a live load of 58#/SF from the 100#/SF required by the NYC building code for office use. No typical office floor could support the dynamic loads of over 2000#/SF let along one's designed for 58#/SF.
So this is not a mystery and the floors below the plane impact zone were not exploded but collapsed...because they could do nothing but with the huge mass descending down up them.
There is no evidence of exploding steel... or steel showing blast effects in the debris as far as what I've seen. There were buckled columns from the floor of the impact zone... but none from below or above. The vast majority of the steel came apart at the splice from one section to another. The facade assemblies show pull out of bolts and ripped splice plates. Much of the steel is bent from the impact of falling from heights as high as 1,300 feet. Box column welds were ripped apart in those falls.
The steel at the impact zone was heated and made somewhat weaker and there were columns at the impact zone which DID buckle such as the famous horseshoe column and others. Buckled columns only manifest when the load on them exceeds their yield strength. And this happened because SOME of the columns were destroyed and the loads redistributed to the remaining columns until the remaining columns were seeing loads exceeding their yield strength and buckled.
I don't see any other cause to explain a buckled column.
Do you?
I am not an expert.
But I have found some researchers who have very methodically and rigorously studied the videos and stills from the event and presented their findings.
I have been studying the structure of the twin towers in great detail and probably know as much if not more about them than any 9/11 researcher. I certainly know more than Gage or the people at AE911T where I served as a board member for a brief time in 2009-2010.
One does not need an advanced degree in civil or structural engineering to understand that the floors system outside the core was very lightweight. It was down spec'ed to support a live load of 58#/SF from the 100#/SF required by the NYC building code for office use. No typical office floor could support the dynamic loads of over 2000#/SF let along one's designed for 58#/SF.
So this is not a mystery and the floors below the plane impact zone were not exploded but collapsed...because they could do nothing but with the huge mass descending down up them.
There is no evidence of exploding steel... or steel showing blast effects in the debris as far as what I've seen. There were buckled columns from the floor of the impact zone... but none from below or above. The vast majority of the steel came apart at the splice from one section to another. The facade assemblies show pull out of bolts and ripped splice plates. Much of the steel is bent from the impact of falling from heights as high as 1,300 feet. Box column welds were ripped apart in those falls.
The steel at the impact zone was heated and made somewhat weaker and there were columns at the impact zone which DID buckle such as the famous horseshoe column and others. Buckled columns only manifest when the load on them exceeds their yield strength. And this happened because SOME of the columns were destroyed and the loads redistributed to the remaining columns until the remaining columns were seeing loads exceeding their yield strength and buckled.
I don't see any other cause to explain a buckled column.
Do you?