Re: Domande a Danilo Coppe
Inviato da K_Emerson il 4/1/2008 16:34:40
Citazione:
Pian piano sorvoli sulle tue cazzate, e cerchi di rigirare la frittata?
Ma poi, non avevi letto i rapporti?
"the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Ora che ti ho indicato dove viene spiegata la "mia" (che mia proprio no è) teoria, mi spieghi come uno che ha letto i rapporti ufficiali può parlare di colonne riscaldate dal crollo, o addirittura fuse, e come può parlare di colonne in cemento armato? Da dove le hai tirate fuori queste chicche? E soprattutto, dopo aver detto tali genialità, ti senti ancora in grado di sostenere che hai letto i rapporti che tanto critichi?
Ciaolo ha scritto:
Ok, allora spiegami nella tua fanta-realtà chi ha dato questa gigantesca energia al blocco superiore mentre piegava colonne di acciaio e sfondava pavimenti, tanto da distruggere in 15 secondi tonnellate e tonnellate di acciaio.
e rispondi invece di inventarti qualche altra storiella o cambiare discorso o aggrapparti alle virgole
Pian piano sorvoli sulle tue cazzate, e cerchi di rigirare la frittata?
Ma poi, non avevi letto i rapporti?
"the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Ora che ti ho indicato dove viene spiegata la "mia" (che mia proprio no è) teoria, mi spieghi come uno che ha letto i rapporti ufficiali può parlare di colonne riscaldate dal crollo, o addirittura fuse, e come può parlare di colonne in cemento armato? Da dove le hai tirate fuori queste chicche? E soprattutto, dopo aver detto tali genialità, ti senti ancora in grado di sostenere che hai letto i rapporti che tanto critichi?
Messaggio orinale: https://old.luogocomune.net/site/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=4&topic_id=4050&post_id=108546