In the late 90s scientist finally started to make headway in stopping the Leaning Tower of Pisa from reaching a point of collapse. Why did I say “collapse”? Well because that was the danger, as the southward lean of the tower increased it was putting loads on the structure it was not designed to take. At a point these load would cause the tower to break apart and crumble. And that is exactly what happened to the WTC towers on 9/11.
To the people who are not well versed in physics the idea something as massive as the twin towers would fall over like a tree might sound reasonable. But to the scientific literate this kind of observation sounds childish at best. It speaks volumes to the state of scientific education in this country. You wonder where people get these ideas, perhaps watching old Godliza movies or the recent Cloverfield flick where one tall building is seen leaning over onto another, great special effects but most likely, not realistic. OR they get it from reading conspiracy theorist sites who tell them the towers should have fallen over. Sites who get their ideas not from scientist or real structural engineers, but from a theologian like David Ray Griffin. Even Griffin had decided to stop arguing points of science because he is only now realizing how wrong he tends to be on the subject.
These towers were not solid one piece structures like a tree, but were made up of hundreds of thousands of smaller components some of them welded and bolted together. Each one of these connection points offered a spot that was weaker than the component itself. Two columns held together with four bolts in a compression loaded state could hold together indefinitely, but put a sheer load on that same column and the bolts will break with relative ease.
These people think just because something is big it is conversely strong, when in fact the strength to mass ratio is never exponential equal. This little fact was observed by none other than Galileo long ago.
Galileo on Scaling
Galileo addressed this misconception long ago in a lectures on scaling. Addressing the idea that imperfections in the material not size would make large scale object weaker he said
Yet I shall say it and will affirm that, even if the imperfections did not exist and matter were absolutely perfect, unalterable and free from all accidental variations, still the mere fact that it is matter makes the larger machine, built of the same material and in the same proportion as the smaller, correspond with exactness to the smaller in every respect except that it will not be so strong or so resistant against violent treatment; the larger the machine, the greater its weakness.
Basically he is saying what we all know, The bigger they are the harder thy fall. It’s impossible to build two similar structures of the same material, but of different sizes and have them proportionately strong. The mater that makes up steel will be the same irregardless of the amount, the atomic bond is the same big or small.
He goes on.
And to make sure that we understand each other, I say that if we take a wooden rod of a certain length and size, fitted, say, into a wall at right angles, i. e., parallel to the horizon, it may be reduced to such a length that it will just support itself; so that if a hair’s breadth be added to its length it will break under its own weight and will be the only rod of the kind in the world.* Thus if, for instance, its length be a hundred times its breadth, you will not be able to find another rod whose length is also a hundred times its breadth and which, like the former, is just able to sustain its own weight and no more: all the larger ones will break while all the shorter ones will be strong enough to support something more than their own weight. And this which I have said about the ability to support itself must be understood to apply also to other tests; so that if a piece of scantling will carry the weight of ten similar to itself, a beam having the same proportions will not be able to support ten similar beams.
Your perceptions of things you deal with on a daily basis is not the same in the world of giants such as the WTC. You can build a desk of wood or even steel with reasonable size legs and put what to you is huge amounts of books on it and it will not fail. You can consider it common sense that a desk a thousands time bigger would be a thousands time stronger BUT you would be wrong.
The WTC were a delicate balancing act the taller you make it the stronger you need to make the supports, the bigger the supports the more weight you add and you have to now add strength to hold this extra weight. But on the other hand you build with eye towards lightness and depend on a clever distribution of loads rather then super strong (heavy) construction you can build super tall with lots of open office space.
The WTC achieved its strength not by over engineering but by a clever design that made optimum use of a center core and an outer box wall design. Unfortunately when those two elements were compromised by aircraft impacts and fire we all saw what happened, 911 would have been no surprise to Galileo.
davekyte 9/11 Truth, General
Sad to say but NOT knowing shit has become very popular with a certain segment of society. You see it in hillbilly types who will shun “Book learn’en” and their polar opposites Rappers. The deeply religious are finding their precious bible stories of creation and Adam and Eve being relegated to quaint bed time stories by the science of evolution and cosmology. So it becomes a situation of not knowing these cold enlightened studies and accepting the warm folktales.
