"no significant resistance" from the core? Because the floors are hanging on the core and shell. The core and shell share the gravity load of the towers. A floor only holds up a floor. A floor fails essentially instantly when overloaded, the connections to the core and shell fail, essentially instantly. The falling towers will fall at about the rate/speed based on simple momentum transfer of falling debris adding mass at each floor in a gravity field. As seen, the core was stripped of floors, as nearly 70 stories of partial core remained standing for seconds, and failed because the lateral support was the shell which was ripped up by the mass of falling floors.This is not a rhetorical question. How does a structure that was designed to carry 250,000 tons provide "no significant resistance" when, let's say, 60,000 tons is dropped on it from about 10 feet?
I get that there were "chaotic interactions", so it's not just one solid mass falling on another. But "no significant resistance"? I mean, the cores were completely destroyed. How does a structure that was designed to carry 250,000 tons get completely destroyed by some fraction of that mass without prodividing significant resistance?
It sounds really strange to talk that way.
I know that's how it looked. But surely the structure that was actually destroyed by the falling debris significantly resisted it? Otherwise it would it not itself have been destroyed.
Like I say, this is not a rhetorical question. If you have the patience to explain it, please do.
https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-ce...on capacity-,(29,000,000 pounds,-) of a floor