Creative Speculation

hack89

(39,181 posts)

37. Too many damaged columns further weakened by fire

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:05 PM

Jan 2012

the towers were hit by fully loaded 767s at top speed. They had to have inflected significant damage to some core columns. Which meant you have fewer columns supporting the same amount of weight. You then heat those columns until they are weakened - not melted but weakened. The fires were plenty hot and it doesn't take that long before the weight carrying capacity of the columns were degraded.

Once the first column sagged it was all over. All that massive PE was instantly converted to KE and the collapsed began. The lower floors were not designed to withstand such massive dynamic loads.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

74 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cutter Charges in the North Tower... [View all] wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP

and a kick! nt wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #1

FDNY firefighters... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #2

NIST explains them as pressurized puffs of air gyroscope Jan 2012 #3

so you can tell from that picture that the puff is "exiting out of a single window"? zappaman Jan 2012 #4

Since they are actually explosives gyroscope Jan 2012 #5

how and when exactly sabbat hunter Mar 2012 #60

"they would be blowing out of ALL the windows of the floor" - No. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #6

So this 'jetting material' just happens to resemble gyroscope Jan 2012 #7

As I explained, they do NOT resemble precisely timed explosions Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #8

Do you require glasses? gyroscope Jan 2012 #11

Please stop the sarcasm. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #12

Why would they need to cut the outer walls? hack89 Jan 2012 #17

there were in fact a lot of renovations going on in the towers NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #68

Feel free to back this up with some evidence. nt hack89 Apr 2012 #69

are you saying there weren't a lot of renovations going on? NoMoreWarNow Apr 2012 #70

But you haven't found it yet: keep looking. That link proves NOTHING. n/t. apocalypsehow Jun 2012 #71

LOL! Politicalboi Mar 2012 #65

"But of course I'm the nut." zappaman Mar 2012 #66

Post removed Post removed Jun 2012 #72

thanks for posting this! nt wildbilln864 Jul 2012 #73

. jesters Jan 2012 #9

There are reports of the air blowing down much further than that during the collapse. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #10

Something else they can't to explain gyroscope Jan 2012 #14

See my post #15 nt hack89 Jan 2012 #16

When the volume of a single floor went from 400K cubic feet to zero in fractions of seconds hack89 Jan 2012 #15

So these 'puffs of air' as you call them gyroscope Jan 2012 #18

Do you understand compression? hack89 Jan 2012 #19

Compression requires an airtight seal. gyroscope Jan 2012 #20

No, it doesn't. AZCat Jan 2012 #21

"the installation of the charges took place at night and/or on the weekends when people weren't work zappaman Jan 2012 #22

There was video Politicalboi Mar 2012 #51

"There was video" zappaman Mar 2012 #53

The WTC was a sealed building - all the windows were closed hack89 Jan 2012 #23

No. jesters Jan 2012 #24

Because of where the elevator and HVAC shafts terminated? hack89 Jan 2012 #28

maybe you and gyroscope can settle this and then get back to the rest of us OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #29

the 'puffs' come out of the windows in regular demolitions - see Rosa Luxemburg Mar 2012 #56

But the venting in the WTC buildings don't "puff," they jet Bolo Boffin Mar 2012 #62

Why weren't the plotters smart enough to put the cutter chargers hack89 Jan 2012 #13

There would have been some destructive devices along the core. Obviously. jesters Jan 2012 #25

more importantly zappaman Jan 2012 #26

Why would they need them on the exterior walls? hack89 Jan 2012 #27

Simple. gyroscope Jan 2012 #30

So a table can stand with only two legs on one side? hack89 Jan 2012 #31

Don't you forget what you said gyroscope Jan 2012 #32

So if you "need all four 'legs' to hold the table up" hack89 Jan 2012 #33

But it wont come straight down gyroscope Jan 2012 #34

If the core of the tower collapses straight down while the perimeter remains stationary hack89 Jan 2012 #35

So you agree that the core sank first. jesters Jan 2012 #36

Too many damaged columns further weakened by fire hack89 Jan 2012 #37

Lol. jesters Jan 2012 #38

The professional building community has been discussing these issues for some time. AZCat Jan 2012 #39

You do understand why highrises have fireproofing and sprinkler systems? hack89 Jan 2012 #40

Lol. jesters Jan 2012 #41

Only one needed to sag. hack89 Jan 2012 #42

Hack says that "Buildings are not designed with vertical static loads in mind." jesters Jan 2012 #43

Levitation? gyroscope Jan 2012 #46

Sorry - meant vertical dynamic loads. Now answer my question. nt hack89 Jan 2012 #49

The fires weren't massive Politicalboi Mar 2012 #52

He was right at the edge of fire and below the impact floor hack89 Mar 2012 #57

The inner core isn't going to give very easily if at all gyroscope Jan 2012 #44

"it doesn't work without removing the resistance. " jesters Jan 2012 #45

Maybe I'll start my own CD company gyroscope Jan 2012 #47

You cut out a big chunk of the core hack89 Jan 2012 #48

I seem to recall... ryan_cats Mar 2012 #58

LOL! Politicalboi Mar 2012 #50

It's a trip back in the time machine LARED Mar 2012 #54

Amazing, right? zappaman Mar 2012 #55

Do we now have a magic smoke theory? ryan_cats Mar 2012 #63

Good one, Bill jberryhill Mar 2012 #59

I'm glad you're proud! wildbilln864 Mar 2012 #61

Riddle me this, billman... cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #64

kick! nt wildbilln864 Apr 2012 #67

a blast from the past! n/t wildbilln864 Sep 2016 #74