yes psik, I am the one who originally posted the link to the use of visco-elastic dampers as “washers”. I didn’t want to look it up again, but you got the gist. A simple correction would have sufficed. But the observation stands, unless you are willing to address the issue and prove that those washers (dampers) could not fail under the circumstances.
The dampers did not support the weight of the floors. The damper formed one side of a triangle between the bottom of the truss and the perimeter wall, with the actual support being the opposite corner from the damper. As the building swayed the damper would be stretched and compressed as the angle at the support changed. I have seen people imply that the dampers were a weak point before but I have yet to see anyone explain how they were. I get the impression that most people who mention them did not really investigate what they did. I presume fire would affect the elastic material but since they were not actual supports they would not weaken the building.
It is like I am supposed to tolerate being portrayed as stupid while I shoot holes in things that people haven’t bothered to investigate in 11 years and yet they must be right and I am supposed to be so tolerant while reading some physicist say a tower had 80,000 tons of steel in 2011 when the NIST said there was roughly 200,000 tons in both towers in 2005 while neither of them specifies the concrete. But thermodynamic washers is just a trivial error that does not matter.
You think I was supposed to just instantly guess what you meant? Actually I finished the post and was about to submit it when it occurred to me what you might have meant and then I went back and added the line.
You guys can make any ridiculous comments you want but I’m the supposed to be the dummy who is always wrong.
I admitted it was an error, a misnomer (though not quite so far off the mark as you present it to be).
Also, your observation of the importance of the vertical load bearing supports, I agree, but to then dismiss the integrity of the horizontal load bearing structure as somehow a trivial aspect of the equation, you are engaging in an argument from authority.
All stress bearing parts of a structure should be considered in the equation. Both a washer and a damper occupy space. An inherent weak point in any structure is in the spaces, the angles, the joints that keep it all “true”. When compromised for any reason or by any means may cause the entire structure to lose integrity.
I sincerely hope that somebody is going to settle this once and for all and can come up with a model which covers all possible eventualities at both physical and metaphysical, motives, actions, but seriously doubt it. There are too many potentials involved in events of this size and we have seen what a gentle breeze can do to a suspension bridge that is not “well tuned”.
Here we started with a pretty big bomb and a firestorm from the unspent fuels. Several hours later the towers went down.
In reality, I am satisfied with my perhaps a little more than casual knowledge (despite the misnomer) on the chronology of events on that fateful day.
History will record a terrorist attack in the US on 9/11, resulting in the destruction of the WTC towers. The videos show the events as they happened in real time. After having given it some serious thought, it seems entirely possible (and therefore probable) that the events happened as generally accepted by the scientific community. I am satisfied with that. It allows me to move on.