Posted: Nov 29, 2010 10:20 pm
by econ41
psikeyhackr wrote:Greetings and salutations,

This is my first post.

I searched for "distribution of steel" and got no hits.

"tons of steel" turned up 29 times.

Obviously skyscrapers have to hold themselves up. So level 1 had to support a lot more weight the level 105. So the designers had to figure out how to distribute the steel from top to bottom to support the weight and withstand the wind.

So why haven't experts been demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on each and every level of the WTC? In order for the north tower to collapse then the top 14 stories would have to crush all of the levels below and accelerate at more than 50% of G in order to come down in less than 18 seconds.

So how can this possibly be analyzed without knowing the tons of steel on every level?

So to model the event:


G'day psik; Welcome aboard.

I see you are sticking with the same old tune about "distribution of steel". It is well and truly outdated now in that the experts seem to have that information even though it is strictly irrelevant to explaining the global collapse.

Then you are well aware that the collapse did not "...have to crush all of the levels below and..."

...I take it you are now familiar with the work by Major_Tom variously titled "ROOSD" or "OOS". It explains the "global collapse" in near enough the same way as I posted on RDNet back in 2007-2008. The thread "OOS Destruction Collapse Model" posted at ... -t264.html explains it quite well and in detail. My version has been re-posted here for the umpteenth time. It still stands scrutiny.

Eric C