07-02-2011, 04:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 16-05-2012, 10:49 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
This thread underscores how those who do take down building carefully engineer how it will be done.
It could be argued that the demolition of the WTC site would demand the same sort of concerns about damage to adjacent properties or it could be precisely the reverse... don't let it look too much like a recognizable CD.
I would say in the case of the twins there was no concern about what the destruction would do to neighboring properties and it shows... debris is scattered hundreds of feet from the location of the twin towers.
I don't think anyone could predict the moment the plane strikes that the towers would collapse and the remark that the south tower would come down first because it was hit lower down is not logically consistent with a top down gravity driven collapse unless there was some mechanism to move the axial load off the columns.
The claim could be justified by proposing that the plane strike damaged columns and took them out of service and this began a progressive sequence which required more and more columns to be unload leaving fewer and fewer to carry the axial loads until their yield point was reached, they buckled and the top descended.
Why would the unloading and overloading proceed 2 times as fast in the south tower? What was the mechanism which unloaded one column after the next? The only thing going on of a natural cause was fire and the accelerants were being consumed at presumably the same rate. It can even be argued that less jet fuel entered the south tower leaving only office contents to fuel the fire to weaken and unload a column.
But it should be noted that a weakened column at 80 would take significantly more heat that to weaken one at 97 as they were more massive on 80. Further the WTC1 strike was aligned with the center of the long axis of the core... hitting columns 503, 504, 505 and 505... while at WTC 2 it stuck the short side at the corner involving 1007, 1008, 907 and 908.
Further the prevailing wind was fanning the flames of the north tower fires and the opening of the south tower was in the lee of the wind and absent a fresh supply of air to fuel the flames.
I see no natural reason for the south tower to fall first. I think Loiseaux knows something and he is not letting on.
It could be argued that the demolition of the WTC site would demand the same sort of concerns about damage to adjacent properties or it could be precisely the reverse... don't let it look too much like a recognizable CD.
I would say in the case of the twins there was no concern about what the destruction would do to neighboring properties and it shows... debris is scattered hundreds of feet from the location of the twin towers.
I don't think anyone could predict the moment the plane strikes that the towers would collapse and the remark that the south tower would come down first because it was hit lower down is not logically consistent with a top down gravity driven collapse unless there was some mechanism to move the axial load off the columns.
The claim could be justified by proposing that the plane strike damaged columns and took them out of service and this began a progressive sequence which required more and more columns to be unload leaving fewer and fewer to carry the axial loads until their yield point was reached, they buckled and the top descended.
Why would the unloading and overloading proceed 2 times as fast in the south tower? What was the mechanism which unloaded one column after the next? The only thing going on of a natural cause was fire and the accelerants were being consumed at presumably the same rate. It can even be argued that less jet fuel entered the south tower leaving only office contents to fuel the fire to weaken and unload a column.
But it should be noted that a weakened column at 80 would take significantly more heat that to weaken one at 97 as they were more massive on 80. Further the WTC1 strike was aligned with the center of the long axis of the core... hitting columns 503, 504, 505 and 505... while at WTC 2 it stuck the short side at the corner involving 1007, 1008, 907 and 908.
Further the prevailing wind was fanning the flames of the north tower fires and the opening of the south tower was in the lee of the wind and absent a fresh supply of air to fuel the flames.
I see no natural reason for the south tower to fall first. I think Loiseaux knows something and he is not letting on.