The Steel Down Of 9/11

Originally posted by Snakey

Originally posted by AvadaKedavra14


It is as simple as the floor trusses did sag, So the fire expands the truss steel which pushes against the perimeter columns. initially perimeter columns are strong enough to resist the expansion and cause the expanding truss to sag. When the floor does sag it pulls on both perimeter and core columns but as the core columns are stronger its the perimeter columns that get pulled inward.

This is one of the few things that can be proven. Do you have examples of smilar thermal transformation to a frame structure. There have been lots of fires. If the government is so interested in proving it had no part in it why they don't build a frame similar to the one in WTC, not necessery that high of course, or find and an old one to scrap. We could see how thermal expansion works on the exact same box frame bridged with similar trusses and capped with hat trusses. I wouldn't like calculations or computer animation but real life research would be something. We know today the whole thing has become a matter of believe just like the UFO. Is the government so weak today to be unable to present something more substantial in its defence with respect to WTC than what it has done so far.

edit on 31-7-2012 by Snakey because: (no reason given)

Hi Snakey,


As above the experiment linked by sam shows how thermal expansion effected the metal, would be interested in your view. You say in their defence? Their theory around collapse initiation isn't shared by all but I think it matches what we observe quite well, I'm open to other collapse initiation hypothesis if you know any?

reply to post by AvadaKedavra14

Please watch this vid and try to understand the concept, yes this is a completely different structure to the WTC, which is the point. This structure is concrete, weaker then steel. It has a lot of weight added to the floors, it has core load bearing columns removed. The floors sag from the weight, not heat, so are still rigid. No weight was added to the WTC floors, other than their normal load, no load bearing columns were removed. The floors to columns size ratio was much larger. The trusses were sagging from heat, so were not rigid.

Now using the NIST hypothesis of sagging trusses pulling in columns, this building should have demonstrated that hypothesis much more readily than the WTC. It has everything going against it. But it did not demonstrate that hypothesis...



If someone can demonstrate NISTs collapse initiation hypothesis they will end this debate.