I can understand that you may be confused by these initial numbers however
even if we use em your still ignoring that the buildings mass and wind load required a significant safety factor be calculated into the design parameters
You are aware that full speed, fully loaded airliners are alot stronger than wind right?
so lets just run the calculations using your own numbers and see if it adds up
wind load
please see
Wind Load Design Analysis: ASCE 7-98
and
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...DvO0pRlDxiiIfdytg&sig2=fA4mb0li4n8gadRFAOQvYw
every high rise is subject to high winds and this consideration is a major environmental force resisted by such a structure
The tower's were'nt hit by wind...what's your point?
with a maximum area subjected to wind being aprox each of the four 300,000 sq ft sides of the building
the average wind load for a building of this height in a city is ~76 mph however in its location unprotected by surrounding structures from storm influences required architects to have calculated a significant safety margin into the buildings would be the worst case 100 year storm or hurricane
if you can find the actual number considered for wind loading
they are welcome to correct me
152 mph which would be about the min sustained winds in a category 5 hurricane which is generous
so Im going to up this number to 200 mph and calculate from there
for simplification Im going to consider one side only subject to a perpendicular wind
the simple formula is
F= A x P x CD
where
F= force
A= area
P= wind preasure or .00256 x V*2 ( V = velocity )
CD = drag coeficient or ( 2.0 for a flat surface )
F = 300,000 X ( .00256 x 200*2 ) or 300,000 x 102.4 x 2 = a whopping 61,440,000 lbs ttl or 30,720 tons
this force represents the minimum design strength for lateral thrust
thats a ****ing lot of lateral thrust and adds significantly to the structural loading
which is calculated at a safety factor of 2 usually but just for the sake of arguement lets just call it 40,000 tons
and then lets break that down to the number of floors above the actual area do damage or 0.109% of the total so
4,360 tons for wind loading
now lets look at the structural loading
so as seen in the beginning there are about 54 tons being held up in mass
so call it engineered to hold that plus the square footage of each floor times its load bearing requirement of say 40 lbs a square foot
each floor above the 66th floor was of ~37,000 square feet
37,000sq ft x 40lbs per foot = 1.554,000 lbs or 777 tons per floor
for the north tower thats 12 floors above the damaged areas or
12 x 777 = 9,324 tons
times three as the required safety margin or
27,972
plus the wind load and that definitely low because I didnt figure in more than a 25% safety factor nor did I consider other than for one side in a direct wind
4,360 tons
plus the structural load of 54 tons
and you get a very conservative number of a building designed to hold
32,386 tons in the damaged area
one huge ****ing number man
and the steel was designed to hold it
now knock out what even 25% of the steel and then take out 50% of its strength because of fire
using your numbers and assuming it was normal milled steel ( and its not ) and that it would have had to heat evenly and then consider that there was no wind that day and you get a section of building loaded to
40lbs a foot or 9,324 tons
weighing 54 tons for a total of 9,378 designed to withstand a load of 32,386 tons
and thats dam generous of me to only say 32,386
its probably more like 25% higher
lets knock 25% off the integrity for structural damage or say
32,386 lbs potential max load x 0.75 = 24,290 tons
now lets knock 50% off for fire and you get
24,490 x 0.5 = 12,145 tons
now lets compare that to the 9,378 tons actually on the damaged area and maybe you can begin to appreciate why the folks asking questions are wondering how the gov cover story can be even close to accurate
it doesnt ****ing add up
thing should have been able to hold up another ~three thousand tons and thats assuming everything your saying is correct
and I forgot the roof load of another say 40 lbs a square foot or another 777 tons bringing your discrepancy up to a whopping 3,544 tons
probably more like 4,430 or higher
giving you everything in the numbers it just doesnt add up to failure
your wrong dude
and your never going to admit it
it does not consider the malleability of steel or that all structural columns were in compression load and as such would have "gained" strength as malleability increased and required more and more heat to deform
it doesnt consider that all the steel would have had to be heated evenly in order to form a symmetrical collapse
it does not consider that seel does not shatter under heat and strain or stress
it does not consider that there was most likely less than 25% total damage to the steel both perimeter and core
it does not consider that there is no evidence for fires hotter than 600C and that only in about 2% of the samples tested
it does not consider a lot of things most of which make the gov story less and less plausible with each consideration
even giving you everything in your argument
the buildings still would not have even budged
best
B
Maybe point out to him that 54 tons amounts to about 3 ounces per square foot for steel, concrete, metal deck, and rebar, not allowing for the exterior walls. (Since even lightweight concrete weighs around 110 psf, a square foot weight 3 ounces would be about 1/44 inches thick?)
