Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
fastom, who I was originally arguing with, did not state F or C, I assumed he meant F.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
I would agree that it was closer to 1500C
|
As I understood your point, you were assuming a temperature close to 1500C (2732F). That's simply not the case.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Well no. the undamaged columns did offer resistance, a lot of it, how ever, the force of a collapsing building is orders of several orders of magnitude bigger
|
Wouldn't the load of the crashing debris be decreased by the fact that it was demolishing and breaking into smaller pieces as it came down? Do you think that we can actually work out some rough math to compare weight with resistence?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
/snip static vs. dynamic load
|
I understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Never, just showing that a lot of the conspiracy websites are based off of false statements
|
Well I think this will be easier if we work on a case-by-case basis. The point/counterpoint type of discussion seems to be more likely to bear fruit. There are so many stories coming from so many people on both sides that assuming there are only two sides to this is incorrect. I can't be grouped with all conspiracy theorists because some of them blame the illuminati or aliens for the collapse. I see no evidence of this, of course. Likewise, you can't be grouped with all anti-conspiracy people because there are several official explainations out there. FEMA and NIST disagree on many points,for example.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Regardless of the way it is imploded, the resistance is still the same is it not? A building in demolition is falling at nearly free fall speeds once the structural support is compromised.
|
Comparing the theoretical situations at the WTC with demolitions:
Demo: First thing to go is the bottom supports in the building.
-the bottom of the building always has the strongest supports, as it is designed to take the full weight of the building.
-removing the bottom supports first ensures that as the building collapses it has little to no resistence from the frame.
-immediatally after the bottom of the building loses strength, then the middle and top are destroyed to ensure that the building will not fall anywhere but inside it's footprint.
-very few demolitions fall at free fall speeds. Many of them are close, but those are usually smaller.
WTC: The collapses started at the upper middle and top, with no structural strength loss at the lower middle or bottom of the building
-the strongest supports would still have been intact when the building collapsed, which would offer resistence, but more importantly that would cause the building to be more likely to fall well outside of it's footprint
-the building had experienced only moderate fires for a very limited amount of time
-it fell at free fall speed, and the WTC are the largest buildings to collapse in history