Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Martian · 01-10-2006, 03:34 AM

wllravel,

I read your rebuttal to PM's assertions in the other thread.

It seems your issue with their take on it (which I think we can label as the official explanation) is that the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't look progressive. The problem with that is that assuming that the building is designed the way they say it is a progressive collapse wouldn't be the gradual process you seem to expect. It would appear spontaneous, since the one side coming down would place a high level of strain on the other two columns (due to the crossmembers on the fifth and seventh floors) and pull them down as it went. The whole thing would appear spontaneous. What makes it progressive isn't the duration or appearance of the actual collapse, but the pattern of stresses on the load bearing members.

Obviously, I don't have access to the blueprints for WTC 7 but the design suggested, while unconventional, isn't unfeasible. With four main columns supporting the building, the cross members on the fifth and seventh floors would serve the purpose of equalizing the load, so that no one column is carrying an inordinate amount of the building's weight. By placing the cross members low in the buildings structure, the equalization takes place near the bottom of the main columns, where the load is highest. In the event of a collapse, it would be nearly impossible for only half or even a quarter of the building to come down without taking the rest with it; if one of those columns went, it'd pull the rest of the building down with it.

The building did collapse into it's footprint. This is what any superstructure will do without some outside force. It's a safety measure, to keep undue damage and harm occuring to the surrounding people and property due to one collapse.

I have yet to be convinced that there was anything untoward being perpetrated by the US government on that day. I am a natural skeptic, but it goes both ways. If you're going to cry foul, especially if you're going to suggest something that seems contrary to common sense, you'll need irrefutable evidence before I'll buy it. Suggesting that the United States government would intentionally allow or even perpetrate an attack on it's own people is, to me, contrary to common sense.

01-10-2006, 03:34 AM	#157 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	wllravel, I read your rebuttal to PM's assertions in the other thread. It seems your issue with their take on it (which I think we can label as the official explanation) is that the collapse of WTC 7 doesn't look progressive. The problem with that is that assuming that the building is designed the way they say it is a progressive collapse wouldn't be the gradual process you seem to expect. It would appear spontaneous, since the one side coming down would place a high level of strain on the other two columns (due to the crossmembers on the fifth and seventh floors) and pull them down as it went. The whole thing would appear spontaneous. What makes it progressive isn't the duration or appearance of the actual collapse, but the pattern of stresses on the load bearing members. Obviously, I don't have access to the blueprints for WTC 7 but the design suggested, while unconventional, isn't unfeasible. With four main columns supporting the building, the cross members on the fifth and seventh floors would serve the purpose of equalizing the load, so that no one column is carrying an inordinate amount of the building's weight. By placing the cross members low in the buildings structure, the equalization takes place near the bottom of the main columns, where the load is highest. In the event of a collapse, it would be nearly impossible for only half or even a quarter of the building to come down without taking the rest with it; if one of those columns went, it'd pull the rest of the building down with it. The building did collapse into it's footprint. This is what any superstructure will do without some outside force. It's a safety measure, to keep undue damage and harm occuring to the surrounding people and property due to one collapse. I have yet to be convinced that there was anything untoward being perpetrated by the US government on that day. I am a natural skeptic, but it goes both ways. If you're going to cry foul, especially if you're going to suggest something that seems contrary to common sense, you'll need irrefutable evidence before I'll buy it. Suggesting that the United States government would intentionally allow or even perpetrate an attack on it's own people is, to me, contrary to common sense. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame