24-09-2013, 02:08 AM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Tony Szamboti Wrote:The measurements show the North Tower continued to accelerate and gain velocity.
It is not apples and oranges to compare the Balzac-Vitry building to the North Tower in the sense that if a solid item hits another solid item in an impact, and causes it to accelerate, the impacting object has to decelerate (slow down). Isaac Newton showed us this a while back. In reality, the North Tower should have decelerated even more before any natural failure would occur because it was a stronger structure.
This works for me. It's a powerful argument.
The WTC towers were not a stronger structures... what collapsed over 10 - 14 seconds was the FLOORS which were likely weaker than a typical office floor system. No columns were crushed and they could have been twice as strong with the same floors and the collapse time would have been the same... it was a runaway floor collapse and had nothing to do with the columns.
The towers were probably twice as strong as the Balzac-Vitry building. I am sure you can't back up what you are saying about the relative strength of those buildings.
You seem to forget that you need to get through a set of columns before floors can be collapsing on floors. You keep putting the cart before the horse and forgetting it can't go anywhere on its own. Of course, I have seen you try to get around that by insisting a 207 foot square 73 million lb. 12 story section of building just shifts sideways somehow so that the columns miss each other. In reality once loosened the upper 12 story section would fall in place as there is no lateral load to shift it.