Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Webster Groves who wrote (51453)	5/18/2006 10:03:04 AM
From: sciAticA errAticA	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 116555

re: If you think WT7 deserved to go ---------- ... I'm a registered architect, with a backgound in structures, and I specifically studied the structural design of WTTs 1&2, as well, in graduate school... ... the proposition that the planes brought 1&2 down, in the fashion that they collapsed, is pure fantasy. Ironically, the truly massive, central core steel, built-up box columns sheared evenly at each floor - at their very strongest point (at the welds, which are stronger than the column material) where the moment and bending/rotational loads on the columns were the very weakest. Further, these column sections were somehow propelled hundreds of feet horizontally from the core location, and these even section projectiles can be spotted shooting outward in the collapse videos. If there had been bending/rotational forces, they would have deflected and distorted the sections markedly prior to shear loads ever clipping the columns into pieces. This column section distortion process would have taken time, at each successive floor, requiring a longer collapse time than the one recorded -- which was very nearly at freefall speed. Keep in mind that for axial loads, this core column grid was remarkably, remarkably, redundantly strong. The outside walls, which were structural and can be perceived conceptually as a cylinder, was designed to resist horizontal, torsional, rotational, bending loads at the most efficient location - the building's perimeter. The collapse occured in axial fashion -- straight down -- there were minimal bending/rotational forces -- if there were substantial bending/rotational forces present, the buildings would have fallen eccentrically, not directly down. The grid of core columns should have remained standing -- even if all of the light gauge steel floor truss clips had somehow failed, with successive floors pancaking down... ... regarding WTC7, there is no rational reason that it collapsed, aside from controlled demolition.