Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been temporarily enabled; take advantage of it!
It appears that even Yarimer had t(0) problems!
Major_Tom wrote:Say we agree that the fall was too fast. What does that really mean?
Doesn't it show that the upper block had even less structural intergity than many buildings in actual demolitions?
Aren't crush-down equations very applicable to demolitions?
Couldn't one test the usefulness of crush-down equations by studying known demolitions?
I bet similar general equations would apply to allow someone to predict fall times.
Isn't an extreme loss of the "upper block" structural integrity the only thing that can account for "too fast"?
in my opinion, this does not mean the entire inside of the building had "lost structural integrity" prior to global collapse.
Maybe the exterior was dragged down a bit by the already moving interior.
OneWhiteEye wrote:Here it is:
It was "ip" instead of "jp", very hard to notice with the proportional font.
I say the top had little integrity because we're going to need some high res data just to distinguish between the resistance it afforded - and zero.
But, I would expect any slumping of the roof to occur more or less concurrently with the downward motion of the entire upper block.
Thus we see experimental and theoretical confirmation that the global collapse of a 20-story building would take at least 10 seconds to partially collapse from deliberate man-made explosive or natural seismic trauma to lower portions of its structure.
One can only wonder what mysterious combination of forces brought down a 47 story building in less than 8 seconds.....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest