In your discourse above you have ignored the plastic deformation of the steel near the floors where the planes crashed and the fuel feed fires. The Ultimate Tensile Strength, the UTS of the steel become lower around 300° C and as the temperature rises the UTS increases until around 600° C when the UTS heads south rapidly. You have stated that the steel was not hot enough to melt the steel columns but have not spoken about the effect of temperature on its UTS and ductile failure. Now the initial failure was a ductile failure when the weight of the floors above where the planes entered the buildings caused the initial collapse. Because the upper floors of the respective buildings were falling, the failure mechanism become an energy related problem to solve and not a static structural mechanism which was the initial failure model.
Where the planes struct the building, was an important input to cause the buildings to collapse as they did. It should be noted that because the second building was struck by the plane at a lower level which resulted in second tower failure happening first.
Providing a heat source around the planes in the buildings was also critical as the heat released by the fuel from the planes only needed to raise the bulk temperatures of the steel structures a couple of hundred degrees until the initial plastic failure occurred in the respective towers.
I totally acknowledge that the steel around the area of impact would of got hot enough for it to loose strength.
But the steel below the impact was not heat effected which is why I don't believe the buildings could collapse in a free fall onto its own footprint. Also building 7 was not hit by a plane and still came down in a free fall onto its own footprint.
No building has ever done that without explosives.
I've shown examples of whole buildings engulfed in flames that didn't collapse.
Given the damage was on one side of the building I believe that side would of sagged down causing the top to start tilting and eventually tipped over. I've shown examples of that with other buildings
With the building collapsing downwards, loud noises like a gun shot or explosion was heard coming from the building as the steel was failing at each floor as the towers collapsed.
Many witnesses reported hearing explosions moments before the buildings started collapsing.
but your belittling of me and my engineering understanding is not becoming of you
Cmon now.
How exactly have I belittled you?
All I've done is challenged your theory.
I never slandered you like you did with me, calling me ignorant. I could say the same to you but I never did. I read everything you wrote and responded respectfully and with decorum.
What we should be focusing upon is does Rev 16:12-16 accurately describe what occurred when the three pillars of our idolisation were attacked on 2001-9-11 and is this prophecy still unfolding and moving towards the Armageddon assembly of all of the kings of the earth to be judged.
Does Isaiah 24:21-22 describe the mechanism that God will use to honour His Covenant of Peace with Israel after they turn back to Worship Him after the completion of His Exodus 20:4-6 prophecy embedded within this commandment at the end of the fourth age of the Nation of Israel's existence
I'm not here to debate scripture.
Only the physics and engineering regarding the collapse of the 3 buildings.
A good engineer will learn from his mistakes. I for one during my engineering work life made mistakes that I learned from that added to my engineering understanding. Your claim that I had personally slandered you by stating that many people have ignorantly proposed an explanation of the mechanisms that cause the twin towers to collapse as they did when the statement was a global statement of fact given the many varying explanation of how the twin towers collapsed.
Are you an ignorant Engineer proposing an explanation of how the towers collapsed? That will be proved by others as the actual truths are exposed.
Will I also be included among these ignorant people who have penned their respective explanation of the collapse mechanisms? Perhaps/possibly. But I will be judged by the experts who have a more detailed understanding of how the buildings collapsed. What I understand is that the twin towers confirmed that towers can be designed to collapse in a manner that causes the least collateral damage to the surrounding buildings around them.
Thousands of engineers, architects, physicists, professors and other experts disagree with the mainstream explanation. Calling us all ignorant is just and ad hominem fallacy. It's a personal attack. It's a poor argument.
One thing I'd like to add is that you actually admit that the buildings came down in a gravitational acceleration. Because many documentaries and sources deny that. It's not a matter of debate or opinion. Its easily calculated and is very basic physics. So it really frustrates me when I hear that lie. So I applaud your honesty regarding that fact.
I still have my main objections.
1 - The physics that we calculated does not allow for the building to collapse onto its own footprint.
2 - Molten metal found at the wreckage that cannot be possibly produced by jet fuel fire, points to demo charges shearing colums at extremely high temps. The report denies this but many fire men reported seeing molten metal and there arecimages of it.
3 - Thermite being found in the wreckage. The planes aluminium structure cannot account for this. Building 7 was not hit by a plane and still had thermite. The report actually admits finding this but calls it a mystery.
4 - The fact that we've never seen a building free fall onto its own footprint.
Nothing you have produced has refuted these points.
- You claim the physics works out but you never calculated it yourself like we did so I have nothing to doubt our calculations.
- I think you said a jet fuel fire can melt steel but thats incorrect.
- You said the planes aluminium structure could cause the finding of thermite but it can't. Plus building 7 had no plane anyway
- And you haven't been able to show me any examples of buildings free falling into their own footprint.
You can have your opinion but I'm still confident with the conclusion that was made 25 years ago by me, my colleagues and my professors.
God bless
