I'm asking because it's part of the official hypothesis. So I want to know if it sounds (to you) like something that might happen.
But I'm asking you were to remove a few of the connections, so there's say a 50+ foot length of the column with no lateral support. Could the column fail? I'm just asking if it's possible.
The conditions for that to occur are VERY unlikely given the mild and isolated fires.. but even if that DID occur .. a small local failure of just one element in a NET of interconnected steel would trigger a global failure only in a movie, not in real life. They're trying to insinuate that a tiny, single initiating event can VERY EASILY lead to progressive collapse. Yeah, right...
You have 24 vertical steel core columns in the center interconnected to a network of steel beams every floor, with wall columns and other elements which are designed to share the load if there was just a compromise in the integrity of the structure. I'm not sure you realize how over-engineered this building was. Here's a full description: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Salvarinas-1986.pdf to give you a better picture.
Any proof the fires were mild. The NIST report and other evidence presented on this site prove otherwise.
that is arrant nonsense if not an outright lie.
NIST report claims that a collapse of a single unit within this web can trigger a progressive collapse which is COMPLETELY FALSE due to things like redundancy which ensures this never happens.
You should get out and meet more people.
So that seems to be the critical disagreement here. Is this something we could discuss?
Yet you provide no proof.
Does except you forgot the corrugated deck with about 3 inches of light weight concrete that was welded down to each and every beam, The expansion and contraction of that masonry sub-floor is about zilch, You've also got some serious uneven heating which would tend to dissipate only through individual members which were directly in contact with a heat source, so again a problem with the concept. In a nut shell, sure you can take one beam, heat it and measure just how far it expands. Off the top of my head, for steal I think its 1/8 per 8' every 100°F, so its far more likely that beam develop a bow, than snap off at the connection plate. Did NIST do any construction sample fire tests ? or did they just test using the single beam over a heat source method ?
well they would be multiple times unlikely, so the odds of a series of unique failures gets slimmer and slimmer with each successive expectation of that exact type of failure. And there were how many columns in that building that all let go in an exactly symmetrical manor resulting in a building going straight down at free fall speed directly into its own footprint ?
I don't think you can weld concrete!
That depends where the stress is concentrated and which connections are weakest - the connections holding straight or the connections at the end.
IIRC they modeled it on computer - which is completely adequate since the actual behavior of such construction elements is pretty well known.
The kink is a very good example of a conformity in the wall structure, I see a near perfect symmetry of collapse up until resistance from the rubble pile would normally be expected to begin to influence that fall. IE you get a pile big enough and no amount of controlled collapse can be expected to NOT fall off the pile eventually.
Sagging in middle, right side falls out.
Sagging, left side falls in.
Beating a dead horse people. I just don't see much benefit in going round and round on this one again. I was just kinda pointing out that there are significant flaws in the logicI don't think you can weld concrete!
However you are right - concrete wouldn't expand much - but the steel has to - it cannot be otherwise - so what gives? Well thats kinda the whole point, the concrete soaks up whopping huge amounts of heat bu doesn't deform, or at least nothing like the steel (
It is the connections that give - bolts, or welds to plates or similar.
You don't know that, we may never know that even with direct testing of similar combination's because we don't have the proper data from the rubble pile to analyze.
That depends where the stress is concentrated and which connections are weakest - the connections holding straight or the connections at the end.
It depends on a lot of stuff, so much so that without the proper data there is no really telling exactly how the building came down other than by the photographic evidence. Which to my eye represents a controlled demolition.
IIRC they modeled it on computer - which is completely adequate since the actual behavior of such construction elements is pretty well known.
None of the models I've seen even remotely match the photographic evidence
And again, the computer analysis does not match what is seen in the photographic evidence.
-source
How ironic!
No there isn't. But what we have here are competing hypotheses. There's a vague "maybe some kind of secret silent explosive, somehow", and the "progressive collapse initiated by multiple connection failures due to thermal expansion".
Really? How did they get the penthouse to collapse, and how did they do it all silently?
They were not forced to admit it. They simply described the motion in depth. A portion was essentially at free fall rates.
If a tree falls in the woods ?
The biggest challenge in debunking 9/11 myths is that the physics is a bit complicated, and yet the believers think they understand it. There's several concepts that are difficult to convey, but the biggest two are:
