Nobody is ignoring the jet fuel. However, one who looks at the real facts knows that it was aerosolized at impact and burned up within minutes. All it really did was ignite the fires. The NIST had to admit this and that it did not affect the fire simulation other than igniting the fires.
As for the factor of safety calculations they are for an undamaged building so one knows where to start.
What I never see you talk about is the fact that the collapse initiations occurred above the aircraft impact damage on floors with fires burning but little to no impact damage.
It is obvious that there are serious problems with the official story to any engineer who hears that 99.5% of the steel was never analyzed for temperatures it experienced and no attempt was made at reconstructing the collapse scenario with the actual steel.
To add insult to injury, concerning the present official story, is that the little steel that was saved showed that 99% of it never experienced temperatures where steel loses any strength.
The facts that WTC 7 was in full freefall acceleration for the first 2.25 seconds or eight stories of its fall and that the upper section of WTC 1 never decelerates during the nine stories it is measurable don't help the present official story either. You can complain about the meaning of freefall and near freefall all you want but the reality is that a purely gravity driven collapse needs a dynamic load and that requires deceleration as proven by the Verinage demolitions.
That is what I said fires on multiple floors set in seconds; did you miss the words? No doubt you wave your hands and take the massive heat energy of the jet fuel and then ignore the massive heat of the office fires witch beat all the thermite you can sneak into the WTC with thermite Jones helping your delusional case.
Yes you guys always talk about undamaged stuff and mix it in with your delusional realcddeal junk. Are you guys confused?
Oops, heat rises, where do you expect the first failure, below the impact zone; good one. Good job@!
Real engineers understand the WTC gravity collapse; if I had questions I went to Robertson who calls you and Jones ideas on 911 nonsense. Now Robertson is not the architect who made the WTC look the way it did, he was the structural engineer who designed the structural elements you don't understand failed in a gravity collapse after major damage and major fires destroyed the WTC. But he is the number one expert and you are a 911 truth fantasy manufacturer due to lack of knowledge in engineering.
Good job, you make up some claim about the steel and ignore the heat energy of the fires; please do a paper and simulate the fires and get it published to prove your point; better yet prove there is RDX that is silent and find the steel with some blast effects. Good luck, after 8 years of failure what is holding you back. evidence, you never had any
Freefall? The first 2.25 seconds? lol, need to get help on that one. Good luck again.
Back to the topic!!!!
at least half of the core columns were outside the impact zone, hence can have suffered no significant loss of insulation due to the plane impact. Therefore, at least half of the core columns were totally protected from the fires and could not have been weakened, even by the worst case fire scenario. With half the core columns intact - no way you can generate a collapse.
Yes what a load full of junk. The insulation of the core was wallboard, the impacts of the jet aircraft were equal in kinetic energy to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT, 7 and 11 times greater than the design aircraft impact for the WTC. An aircraft under 200 mph with the energy of about 187 pounds of TNT would have basically done superficial damage to the shell and fallen to the ground.
Here we have a dirt dumb engineer on this issue or a failed poster with paranoid conspiracy tendencies where no stupid idea is too far out to be considered a fact or evidence to make up delusions.
at least half of the core columns were outside the impact zone, hence can have suffered no significant loss of insulation due to the plane impact. Therefore, at least half of the core columns were totally protected from the fires and could not have been weakened, even by the worst case fire scenario. With half the core columns intact - no way you can generate a collapse.
Sure, does he offer some proof? I offer this photo of the impact with the kinetic energy of 2093 pounds of TNT ripping off all the core insulation on a few floors. Wallboard held on with metal brackets surely can't fall off! I mean my brothers head at slow speed only knocked off a small portion of wallboard in our basement, so how could a 590 mph jet with the energy of 2093 pounds of TNT do much damage to drywall?
When you see someone citing the not ever going to win a Pulitzer Prize paper from this source;
Actually, the number 2.25 did not come from me but from Wayne Trumpman, who posted one of the first critical analyses of the NIST Report on the Internet. (here)
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/324507.shtml
You find out the OP involves someone who has no practical knowledge on the subjects they make up lies about using an idiot who says the WTC was destroyed with
It took 1,389 kg (1.4 tons) of HMX to create the unaccounted air volume. This is an above normal quantity of explosives used in controlled demolition. But keep in mind what has been documented in the picture data. The camera does not lie.
The good old calibrated A-1 standard issue eyeball comes up with the delusional 1.4 tons of HMX did the towers in. Think that is what it took for WTC1.
I wonder why Tony can't put numbers to his realcddeal?
