Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
1.) Buildings don't fall straight down at a perfect 90 degree angle unless there is a controlling factor behind it. We've all played Jenga, right? Well, I challenge someone to throw a rock at the top of a Jenga tower and see how it falls. I assure you that it won't be perpendicular to the ground.
|
there is a HUGE difrence, the inertia of the building vs the inertia of the jenja tower. the amount of force required to move the tower is an insane amout, where as the amount to move the jenga tower is marginal. the impact of the planes was just enough to rock the building a few inches, there is no way it could fall over, it has to fall stright down.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
|
... And wait, it did tip a bit too, but not much why? Because the collapse started on one side first
http://www.debunking911.com/pivot.jpg
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
2.) I've always wondered how the fires in the WTC were hot enough to melt reinforced steel beams, but not hot enough to melt the highjackers passports...
|
They were not hot enough to melt steel, no one credible is making that claim, the steel got hot enough to expand and weaken, not melt. So they found a passport, so what, weird shit happens.
After some further reading on the matter, I have some new things to bring to the table, I previously stated that the expanding girders would have dislodged some of the other girders, where as willravel said it would compact into the outer supports and strengthen the structure. Turns out, we were both wrong, it was a mix:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
The mechanics of the collapse are really much simpler than conspiracy theorist would like you to believe. The heat expanded the steel in the truss pushing them into the columns. The trusses sagged in the middle because they couldn't continue to expand horizontally. The trusses cooled and contracted in turn pulling in the perimeter columns.
…
After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weaken core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way.
|