Originally posted by baumusc
There you go again with the asinine, 'no fire could cause a collapse' argument when it is obvious that it wasn't just fire that caused the WTC 1, 2 and 7 to collapse but was instead a combination of massive structural damage and fire.You are perhaps the worst of them. I will quote NIST for you (again)
Originally posted by nist
After gravity initialization, debris impact damage
from the collapse of WTC 1 was applied to the global
model. The damage applied was isolated to two zones on the southern side of the building. The analysis
demonstrated that the remaining structure was able
to redistribute the loads from the damaged zone and
the building developed an equilibrium state. debris did not cause the collapse, nor did structural damage have much effect.
Originally posted by nist
The initial failure event was the buckling of Column
79. This event was followed by the buckling of
adjacent Columns 80 and 81.
The floor framing structure was thermally weakened at
Floors 8 to 14, with the most substantial damage
occurring in the east region of Floors 12, 13, and
14. During the LS-DYNA temperature application
cycle, combined thermal expansion and thermally de
graded material properties resulted in beam and
girder connection damage throughout the heated fl
oor structures.
The global analysis without debris impact damage showed that WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due
to the effects of the fires. The
initiation of collapse was virtually the
same as for the global analysis with
debris impact damage. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861612Baum, please read facts, instead of making up your own theories.
Even NIST agrees that the debris had nothing to do with the collapse, with the exception of starting a fire.
