jerzee_guy at hotmail.com
Sun Sep 12 12:04:30 EDT 2010
I and I'm sure everyone else appreciate the outline you presented. I've read a few websites that bring to light what you purpose. And everything purposed is if this were an ideal world.
Along the lines of physics what is not accounted for is the stresses that were exerted by the concussion of the exploding jet fuel also adding to the the overall i.e. systemic shock to the buildings structure. However, I know that redundaacy is built into most structures and the twin towers load systems that account for wind of I think 30mph are what resulted in the twin towers being able to withstand the incredible "ballistic" impact of the jets liners. I stand in awe of that. Here's where it gets tricky regarding the explosion.
Heat and temperature are not the same thing in physics. The temperature was not hot enough to melt steel. Fact. However at 425C it does cause steel to soften. This causes "distortion" to different areas of the towers floors were the temperature was most intense. I think everyone is familiar with a bridges expansion in the summer known as "thermal expansion". Imagine this happening in a very fast moment to a couple floors of a building. This resulted in buckling causing a loss of structural integrity. In regular fires that you mention this kind of systemic shock and intense heat and temperature are not factors as they were here and in a much large area.
Regarding the collapse of the twin towers not being similar to how other buildings collapse. I hope I'm not stating the obvious but the World Trade Center was one of the first buildings to use a single main column in each tower with what was in essence a "cage" structure around the outside encasing the building. I'm not a in any way an expert on building collapses but I can see how the collapse fell inward as a result of the unique way it was built.
If you would like to discuss more let's take this off line.
More information about the ma-nyc-soc