Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mitch cumstein
i just read the entire thing.....what i'm wondering is why they didn't bother to explain how both world trade centers collapsed in under 10 seconds. i'm still waiting for an explanation as to how there was absolutely NO resistance from the floors below as the buildings collapsed. to me, that is the fishiest aspect of this whole saga. that, and what was the big hurry to clean the site up, and why was none of the major debris stored as evidence (you know, so independent forensics experts could study it)?
also.....why haven't we gone back to the moon, especially in light of the major technological advances that have come about in the last 37 years? i'm not making any assertions, just wondering and need real answers....like the PM article talked about....you know, "healthy skepticism"
|
As a structural engineer, I can say with certainty that no multi-story structure could resist the
MOMENTUM of a third of the height of the building collapsing from above. In laymans terms, each floor framing system can support roughly 200 pounds per square foot. If you had 20 floors collapse above, the dead weight alone would account for about 1000 pounds per square foot. That doesn't even include the increase in impact force from the floor dead weight accelerating. So do you think 200 psf of resisting framing could stop 1000 psf of dead weight concrete and steel, accelerating at 32 ft per second squared?
As far as I know all of the WTC debris is still at a NJ landfill. ASCE did a forensic report on the steel used in the building and how it performed.
We haven't gone back to the moon because there has been NO economic advantage to do so.