21-05-2011, 05:52 AM
Jeffrey,
I've been following your posts in both this and the first "Judy Wood" thread, and I'd like to thank you for your input it has set me straight on quite a few things, and given me the impression that I'm starting to think more clearly about the whole demolition issue. Thank you!
I have a few questions I'd like to run past you to see if you might have any comments to make.
First, to me the towers seem as if they may have been designed so that this sort of catastrophic collapse might be possible. Or perhaps I just don't know enough about metal frame architecture. When we build a wooden house where I come from, we rest the joists on the bearers for the most part, whereas with the wtc towers the joists were bolted flush to the sides of the bearers around the perimeter of the core, and bolted to brackets welded to the side of the perimeter framework. Could the wtc architects have chosen to opt for a "joist upon bearer" design which would then have made a catastrophic collapse like the one we saw a far less likely proposition?
And the other question I have is to do with the core of the towers. I can see how the floors outside the core might be made to collapse catastrophically with no assistance except for the weight of the falling floors above, but I can't so easily see how the core could have been so thoroughly destroyed without the assistance of demolition activity at levels below that of the initial point of failure where the planes hit. I can see how the floors outside the core could collapse to the ground in 10-15 seconds, but I can't quite get my head around the idea that the core could be stripped of its horizontal members in the same short amount of time, with only gravity as the motivator after the initial failure set the collapse in motion. Because, after all, there were lots of heavy metal beams bolted very securely to lots of other heavy metal beams in the core, but none of the joins attaching the core structure to the perimeter structure were anywhere near as strong in comparison. So I guess the question is, are you quite confident that the core could be destroyed by gravity alone, in the observed time, once the collapse had been initiated?
Thanks,
Jason.
I've been following your posts in both this and the first "Judy Wood" thread, and I'd like to thank you for your input it has set me straight on quite a few things, and given me the impression that I'm starting to think more clearly about the whole demolition issue. Thank you!
I have a few questions I'd like to run past you to see if you might have any comments to make.
First, to me the towers seem as if they may have been designed so that this sort of catastrophic collapse might be possible. Or perhaps I just don't know enough about metal frame architecture. When we build a wooden house where I come from, we rest the joists on the bearers for the most part, whereas with the wtc towers the joists were bolted flush to the sides of the bearers around the perimeter of the core, and bolted to brackets welded to the side of the perimeter framework. Could the wtc architects have chosen to opt for a "joist upon bearer" design which would then have made a catastrophic collapse like the one we saw a far less likely proposition?
And the other question I have is to do with the core of the towers. I can see how the floors outside the core might be made to collapse catastrophically with no assistance except for the weight of the falling floors above, but I can't so easily see how the core could have been so thoroughly destroyed without the assistance of demolition activity at levels below that of the initial point of failure where the planes hit. I can see how the floors outside the core could collapse to the ground in 10-15 seconds, but I can't quite get my head around the idea that the core could be stripped of its horizontal members in the same short amount of time, with only gravity as the motivator after the initial failure set the collapse in motion. Because, after all, there were lots of heavy metal beams bolted very securely to lots of other heavy metal beams in the core, but none of the joins attaching the core structure to the perimeter structure were anywhere near as strong in comparison. So I guess the question is, are you quite confident that the core could be destroyed by gravity alone, in the observed time, once the collapse had been initiated?
Thanks,
Jason.