If the building tipped over like a tree being cut, it's obviously more clear cut. But the structure was damage up high, not at it's base.
According to the little bit I've watch from the popular mechanics guys, the WTC 7 building had about 25% of its lower support obliterated from debris of the falling towers. They also say in layman's terms, that it had very little axial redundancy at its base due to being built over an adjacent structure, so it had only a few main columns at it's base
That's how I see it and it makes sense to me.
-g
On 5/25/07, ECVAl3@aol.com < ECVAl3@aol.com> wrote:
Lets say the floors give way instantaneously due to the increase in mass plus increase in acceleration and it all falls to the ground as if in free fall. Weren't the interior and exterior columns designed to support the total weight (live + dead load) of the structure above each level and if the floor structure instantaneously separated from the columns wouldn't the majority of the columns still be standing, even momentarily, after the floors collapsed? Wouldn't the steel columns on the exterior of the building flex and twist, possibly snapping and fly considerable distance from the building or fall away from the building mostly intact?The videos don't show this type of behavior. Why not?S.Macie, CA.P.E., HI.S.E.
See what's free at AOL.com.
--
-gm