By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rath on 20 June 2011
Edit Thread
sethnintendo said:

That wasn't my argument... I was merely pointing out that I didn't understand exactly what the sentence "because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elasto plastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x" meant.


"If you CAN'T gurantee it will implode on itself rather then tip over... you don't get to build... cause you know, otherwise your basically going to play city dominoes."

If your statement was correct then why would we need expert demolition crews to demolish buildings? If all buildings that fail would just "implode" on itself. 

9/11 was nowhere near controlled. It basically demolished the city block around it as well - debris flew far from the towers.

Did you even watch the clip referring to the South tower? So the top part went from an angle of 20 or so degree and then straighten itself out? 

The top part went to an angle of 20 degrees or so and then resistance became too great due to the shear strength meaning that it no longer rotated any further. That's exactly what the paper we've just been talking about said!

The government couldn't even get their story right with the FEMA report.  An amazing $600,000 was spent to investigate it at first (FEMA report).  So the biggest attacks on USA soil and the government barely spends any money investigating (600k is a lot but the government knows how to blow 600k in an eye blink).   They pretty much destroyed all the evidence before any investigation could be completed.  They came to the conclusion of building #7 "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapses remain unknown at this time".  That is a pretty damn good conclusion if you ask me.