Chinese version of a jewish stocktake. | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (18).

[–] • 0 pt

I read what you said but even if what you are saying is true, that damage to the exterior structure was done to one side, and weakened vertical steel supports would fall to one side. and surely the horizontal beams or bolts wouldn't all fail simultaneously, therefore they would fall to one side also. So how did it fall straight down? demolition crews have to be extremely careful to take out structural supports equally. do the twin towers prove all their planning and calculations are for nothing? they can just take any part out and the building will fall perfectly downward?

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Reasonable points.

I would say that the planes did damage to both sides, you can see the exit points on the other side and they were severe. In addition to that, although there is no guarantee they took out beams from the central column, it is highly likely that the plane wreckage took out a bunch, damaged a bunch and exposed a bunch that was left over to the high levels of heat.

Just imagine the entirety of a 757 EMBEDDING it self INSIDE of the building. It MUST have done massive damage. I know the 911 engineers say it was impossible and their word is worth way way way more than mine. I just visualize the entirety of that 757s fuselage and contents embedding it and I CANNOT imagine a situation where it would not have done massive damage in all sorts of ways to the central column.

Could the planes have parked the core of their mass on the floor of that building and miss the central column? I guess, I'm open to the suggestion. There are videos on youtube that purport to simulate some of this, not sure how accurate they are.

With respect to the building falling perfectly down, who knows. People say they have never seen a building pancake, but, regular buildings and the twin towers are NOT the same thing. They are completely different. First, you can do all the calculations you want and even use supercomputers to simulate such a thing, you cannot EVER predict how a complex system and a complex situation like that will work in reality. In order to understand that you have to actually fly 757s into buildings.

However, the point about floors pancaking is INTERESTING. Let's think about this a little more:

1) The first thing that I can say is that the top floors did not fall straight down, they actually leaned to one corner a bit and then the rest just cam crashing down. Technically, the structure above kinda leaned over but did not slide over.

2) You mentioned they were over engineered and over designed. I mentioned they were designed in a donut structure. So let's think about this a bit. Were you surprised by how rigid the buildings were upon impact of the planes? If you look at the videos, the buildings don't sway even a little bit! I never thought about that, but imagine pushing a 757 at full speed into a building. Shouldn't it sway if it is 95 stories tall?

So, WHAT IF one possible way of analysing the problem is as follows:

a) A standard building would probably move / sway more because they have a lattice of support steel closer to the center as opposed to mostly being on the outside like cylinder design in the twin towers.

b) If a is actually true, might it be possible that FORCING all of the load bearing steel to the outside of the building created a situation where the buildings were TOO stiff and did not sway enough to absorb the impact of the plane forcing the mass of the plane to shatter the building like a crystal structure instead of like entering something softer where things bounce around more?

c) If any of that is true, is it possible that the top levels COULD NOT actually get the building to lean over BECAUSE of the extremely stiff outer structure forcing the levels above to pancake?

I bring that up as a thought experiment. I don't know.

How about this as well:

3) The twin towers were so stiff that there was no way to make them lean one way or the other. Does that mean that the CLEAN sheer point high up forced the UPPER SUPPER STRUCTURE to act as a single solid concrete unit when it started to collapse? If this is the case, that ENTIRE upper solid concrete structure only has to penetrate the single floor of concrete below it and force those support beams to buckle?

Oh, I just thought of another issue:

4) Ever watch videos of building demolitions? Ever notice that they implode the building in on it self (as you have said)? So, the other thing to keep in mind, is exactly as you said, you cannot yank outany single steel beam and have the whole thing come down. That would be because the steel beams are laid out in a connected lattice through the entire building. In order to collapse a building like that you have to actually knock out the entire internal lattice in on it self.

Now, think about the twin towers. They did NOT have an inner lattice. They were donuts. The main load bearing beams were on the outside. Watch the videos as they collapse and notice all of the external beams JUST shearing off and flying off like confetti. Do you see what might be actually happening here?

In a normal building with a lattice like steel beam support structure you have to collapse the beams in on them selves. Sometimes if they don't do it right a building remains intact and rolls over. Could something built NOT like a lattice actually roll over? If we put the steel beams on the outside instead of spread throughout the building, doesn't that actually FORCE the upper structure straight down?

5) I just thought of another point: If the oustide beams were the primary load bearing structure, why don't we see squibs blowing those out instead of just peeling off under pressure? If someone wanted to demolish the twin towers they would have a real problem on their hands because they would have to implode the external beams inward without shearing them off into the surrounding area.

What are your thoughts on that?

Btw, thanks for reading! This really is a fun puzzle.

Reasonable points. I would say that the planes did damage to both sides, you can see the exit points on the other side and they were severe. In addition to that, although there is no guarantee they took out beams from the central column, it is highly likely that the plane wreckage took out a bunch, damaged a bunch and exposed a bunch that was left over to the high levels of heat. Just imagine the entirety of a 757 EMBEDDING it self INSIDE of the building. It MUST have done massive damage. I know the 911 engineers say it was impossible and their word is worth way way way more than mine. I just visualize the entirety of that 757s fuselage and contents embedding it and I CANNOT imagine a situation where it would not have done massive damage in all sorts of ways to the central column. Could the planes have parked the core of their mass on the floor of that building and miss the central column? I guess, I'm open to the suggestion. There are videos on youtube that purport to simulate some of this, not sure how accurate they are. With respect to the building falling perfectly down, who knows. People say they have never seen a building pancake, but, regular buildings and the twin towers are NOT the same thing. They are completely different. First, you can do all the calculations you want and even use supercomputers to simulate such a thing, you cannot EVER predict how a complex system and a complex situation like that will work in reality. In order to understand that you have to actually fly 757s into buildings. However, the point about floors pancaking is INTERESTING. Let's think about this a little more: 1) The first thing that I can say is that the top floors did not fall straight down, they actually leaned to one corner a bit and then the rest just cam crashing down. Technically, the structure above kinda leaned over but did not slide over. 2) You mentioned they were over engineered and over designed. I mentioned they were designed in a donut structure. So let's think about this a bit. Were you surprised by how rigid the buildings were upon impact of the planes? If you look at the videos, the buildings don't sway even a little bit! I never thought about that, but imagine pushing a 757 at full speed into a building. Shouldn't it sway if it is 95 stories tall? So, WHAT IF one possible way of analysing the problem is as follows: a) A standard building would probably move / sway more because they have a lattice of support steel closer to the center as opposed to mostly being on the outside like cylinder design in the twin towers. b) If a is actually true, might it be possible that FORCING all of the load bearing steel to the outside of the building created a situation where the buildings were TOO stiff and did not sway enough to absorb the impact of the plane forcing the mass of the plane to shatter the building like a crystal structure instead of like entering something softer where things bounce around more? c) If any of that is true, is it possible that the top levels COULD NOT actually get the building to lean over BECAUSE of the extremely stiff outer structure forcing the levels above to pancake? I bring that up as a thought experiment. I don't know. How about this as well: 3) The twin towers were so stiff that there was no way to make them lean one way or the other. Does that mean that the CLEAN sheer point high up forced the UPPER SUPPER STRUCTURE to act as a single solid concrete unit when it started to collapse? If this is the case, that ENTIRE upper solid concrete structure only has to penetrate the single floor of concrete below it and force those support beams to buckle? Oh, I just thought of another issue: 4) Ever watch videos of building demolitions? Ever notice that they implode the building in on it self (as you have said)? So, the other thing to keep in mind, is exactly as you said, you cannot yank outany single steel beam and have the whole thing come down. That would be because the steel beams are laid out in a connected lattice through the entire building. In order to collapse a building like that you have to actually knock out the entire internal lattice in on it self. Now, think about the twin towers. They did NOT have an inner lattice. They were donuts. The main load bearing beams were on the outside. Watch the videos as they collapse and notice all of the external beams JUST shearing off and flying off like confetti. Do you see what might be actually happening here? In a normal building with a lattice like steel beam support structure you have to collapse the beams in on them selves. Sometimes if they don't do it right a building remains intact and rolls over. Could something built NOT like a lattice actually roll over? If we put the steel beams on the outside instead of spread throughout the building, doesn't that actually FORCE the upper structure straight down? 5) I just thought of another point: If the oustide beams were the primary load bearing structure, why don't we see squibs blowing those out instead of just peeling off under pressure? If someone wanted to demolish the twin towers they would have a real problem on their hands because they would have to implode the external beams inward without shearing them off into the surrounding area. What are your thoughts on that? Btw, thanks for reading! This really is a fun puzzle.

parent
link