Wtc 7 Leaning Against Verizon Building, cut column with molten slag Options

[Paul]

Hi found this photo of the wall columns of wtc 7 leaning against the verizon building where it landed as wtc 7 fell at freefall speed and leaned
back just hitting the verizon building causing some structural damage to the other building as it fell now look at the cut column with the molten
metal iron slag covering part of the top of the building as it fell, i dont know whether this is demolition cut by as thermite demolition charge because
of the molten metal that was produced when it was cut ot whether it is part of a clean up cut, what kind of torch used for cutting steel would produce
so much heat that it would leave messy iron slag dripping down the top of the column where it was cut if it was done by a clean up crew?
The funny thing i dont understand about all of this is if you look at the column which have been cut by clean up crews at ground zero and even
the columns that where cut up after they where removed is that none of them except for one of them a core columsn at ground zero appear to have
and molten metal slag where they where cut during the clean up process, so what kind of torch would leave such a messy cut? And would they use such a torch to make this kind of cut? I am interested to hear what you all have to say about this piece.

(IMG:http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/3769/37debrisofwtc7againstve.jpg)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

http://img710.imageshack.us/i/37debrisofwtc7againstve.jpg/

Cheers Paul S

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[SanderO]

Dan,

The twin towers structure was unique for sure and this is the reason it came down as it did. The tube design concept of the core did not make it self supporting. It simply could not be constructed that all without the floors for bracing. It would literally buckle from its own weight without the bracing.

This is easily tested in a scale model or a mathematical model. If you build a 1/100 scale model it would be 13' -6" tall. The tube would be 24"x24" at its base and the facade panels would be about 1/8" thick... with the column connections being 1/8" x 1/8" spaced 1/4" apart and each one being 4 3/8" high. Now stack those up and see if your can get it to 13'6" tall and see if it will stand on its own. It will not last but an instant if you managed to get it to stand at all.

One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason that the facade was destroyed was that the floors collapsed first and they were not able to stand without bracing AND there was some horizontal impulse from the lateral pressure of the collapsing floors. You can think of this as pouring sand and gravel into a thin cardboard container. You see the sides bulge out from the horizontal forces of the gravel. This is what pushed the facade away. Without that the facade would probably buckle and drop straight down were the floors to instantly be made to disappear.

Both the core...most of it... and the facade... most of it... succumbed to instability from the absence of lateral bracing... not excessive loading or load redistribution beyond its yield strength. The core "spire" is clearly seen collapsing from "Euler" buckling. So once the floor mass up top was "freed" and dissociated from the axial support the columns provided it began a runaway collapse which created the instability in the remaining core columns by stripping its bracing and they then collapsed.

I don't think there was any specific attack of the facade, perhaps some weakening at some points to initiate the gravity driven collapse which would leave the facade unable to stand. Why would they have to attack it if it was going to fall anyway without the floor bracing it?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Mar 5 2011, 06:41 AM