17-05-2011, 01:46 AM
Kyle Burnett Wrote:Yeah, that was my guess, but I couldn't rule out the possibility that you might have been someone else who posts less and hence I hadn't run across over there. Anyway, in regard to your previous post:
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:...and to most engineers who study this it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck so it IS a duck and that duck is a progressive floor failure from over loading.So where can one find other examples of this supposed duck? Again, I've seen simulations of top-down building collapses, but none that come down anywhere nearly as quickly and completely as the towers did. Most engineers can agree on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for all I care; but absent any semblance of experimental confirmation, you've got nothing to prove your claims of ducks are anything more than a snipe hunt.
In the history of the world, how many buildings have collapsed
FROM THE TOP DOWN? Absent proof of that happening, which
I have been unable to discover, we are left with the unique fact
of TWO BUILDINGS COLLAPSING FROM THE TOP DOWN in a single
hour...and an undamaged building a few hours later from the
BOTTOM UP. Show us an instance of this EVER HAPPENING in the
history of the world. Buildings just do not collapse from the top
down...THEY COLLAPSE BECAUSE THE SUPPORTS UNDERNEATH
CAN NO LONGER BEAR THE WEIGHT ABOVE.
Orling cannot present us with one case of TOP DOWN COLLAPSE,
or he would have by now. It is simply his "theory"...ducks or no
ducks, snipes or no snipes.
Jack