Posted September 09, 2016
Last in - First out? What do you want to say with that?
OneFiercePuppy: Of course metals lose strength gradually as they're heated. But what's important isn't the rate of decay, but the critical point at which a support mechanism is so weakened that it not only cannot support itself, but also overburdens neighboring supports. That's why collapses happen so quickly, controlled or otherwise.
The phrase you're looking for is lateral shear, and it's well-covered in the NIST analysis. But you could also look it up separately if you'd rather hear from someone else how shear forces work. You mean a normal, fast collapse like this: Steel Frame Building Collapse? Sure, it's a smaller building but the principle is the same.
OneFiercePuppy: Nothing about that collapse is free fall. First, you see weakening on one side of the building; then, the penthouse begins to visibly collapse. As it collapses, it pushes on the structures below it, and pulls in and down on the structures beside it. Internal collapse is in full swing when the outer walls begin to fall, and since the whole point of a building is that it's all connected, once collapse starts, it propagates rapidly. Would you call a stack collapse free fall? You'd be wrong if you did. [url= Well, I suppose with a truly perfect implosion where it went straight down, that might be free fall. I don't know. But the reason stacks break into pieces when they collapse is because their fall is
exactly NOT free.][/url] As the video shows the main part of the building falls symmetrically for a couple of seconds. Shear forces would rather result in the building collapse distorted if at all because the fire was not in the whole building but a rather small part.
OneFiercePuppy: Again, nothing new or interesting. Slow day, so did go ahead and watch both your videos. The second one isn't terrible. Of course, it's got no substance. There's really no topic where you can't find someone with appropriate credentials to disagree. But, relevantly, there's been a lot of peer review supporting the official findings. Got any for the conspiracy side? Did you watch the complete lecture by Daniele Ganser complete? Then why is there no substance in you opinion and what would you call substance? But you are right about the sheer number of experts who argue for the official version. While there so many who speak for the US government, there are only 2200 architects and engineers who are confident that the official reports doesn't answer all questions.
OneFiercePuppy: There's plenty to compare between this and the antifluoridation nonsense. Both are conspiracy theories based on rejecting overwhelming evidence to the contrary, propagating baseless conjecture which relies upon the credulity of the audience, and making claims which are inherently not falsifiable. (EDIT: Oh, and forgot the most important one - distrust of authority. Silly me.) Just because you're sympathetic to one and not the other doesn't mean you've nothing in common. After I looked what this "antifluoridation" is about I'm even more convinced that this is an unfair comparison. Also I might be naive and biased as you imply but the same could be also said about you.
Anyway, you already have made your judgement therefore I'm not trying anymore to confront you with a different point of view.
The phrase you're looking for is lateral shear, and it's well-covered in the NIST analysis. But you could also look it up separately if you'd rather hear from someone else how shear forces work.
exactly NOT free.][/url]
Anyway, you already have made your judgement therefore I'm not trying anymore to confront you with a different point of view.
