Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[SezMe]

What controls the rate of fall and if it can fall like we saw, is the towers construction. So the explanation for the high fall rate is based in that rather than the exact vagaries of the fall rate.

Is there some way I can nominate this for gibberish-of-the-month award?

 

[The_Fire]

You can always suggest a thread/feature with that description.....

 

[westphalia]

My compliments to you all.

I don't know how you all can entertain this obtuse idiot without ramming your heads through your monitors, as I am want to do.

You folks have the patience of the mythical Job.

 

[Gravy]

I'm not involved in this thread, get it. I'm not here. But will somebody tell this moonbat troll that this link he posted that supposedly shows a nonexistent concrete core still standing, actually shows the very real 1 Liberty Plaza building, at Church & Liberty Street, right across from the south tower

eta: scratch that. 1 Liberty is back there but we can't see it. We're looking at the dust plume only. 800' of core did not remain standing. There was no concrete core to the Twin Towers. They did not fall at free-fall speeds, nor did they take "20 seconds" to fall, moonbat troll.

 

[hipparchia]

Like others have said, it didn't fall at free fall.

And as the engineers have said about the collapse, it was due to something called pancaking, which i'm not going to get into since its easily looked up and the engineers can explain it much better then me.

Once its explained well, it sounds VERY reasonable.

My mother is a construction engineer. When she watched the towers collapse, her comment was "Those buildings were perfectly calculated, falling only downward. THat's the way a building should fall" About pancaking- we have a type of building block construction in Bulgaria (sort of experimental design) that do pancake- their floors stack up upon each other. Maybe an engineer may explain it better. This is a layman explanation.

 

[Kent1]

You can't reason with him.
He was just banned at democraticunderground
He's is a VERY prolific poster.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The exact dimensions are unknown, the construction method itself, is known.

Construction of the towers began in 1968 and was completed in 1972 and 1973. During the period, implementation of an innovative elevator system halved the number of elevator shafts. The express elevators took people to "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, where they could board local elevators. Also unique was the grouping of columns into the core and perimeter of the building, a structural system called a "tube".

To meet the challenges of wind load, gravity load and related architectural stresses, the WTC's structural engineers took a then-unusual approach in its construction: instead of employing a traditional grid-like plan with beams evenly spaced throughout a floor, the WTCs columns were grouped in the building's core and perimeter. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 133 feet (27 by 41 meter) and consisted of steel box columns running from the bedrock to the tops of the tower. The columns tapered to the top, where they transitioned to lightweight H-beams, but the exact dimensions are unknown as the blueprints are under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority and are not public domain. Each tower had 240 steel perimeter columns (from 2.5 inches thick at the bottom tapering to .25 inch at the top [6.3 to 0.6 cm]) placed 14 inches (36 cm) around the perimeter. This signature feature of columns grouped in the core and perimeter allowed large tracts of uninterrupted floorspace, a significant marketing feature for the towers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

Various estimates of collapse times:
The Twin Towers collapsed in about 8 & 10 seconds respectively
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/TwinTowersandGravity.htm

8.4 - 12 seconds
The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.
http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm

This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds...
Page 305, the 9/11 Commission Report

According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm

Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

...video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

Both demolitions took place in about 15 seconds, which is about the time it would take for a free-fall from that height.
http://911review.org/Wiki/TwinTowers.shtml

(thanks to 911myths.com for the above summarize info)

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html analyzes various sources for estimates of collapse times.

We tried looking at the audio of each collapse, and came up with a minimum of 14 seconds in each case (see our South Tower and North Tower pages for more), and the potential for them to have taken several seconds longer. Calculating these times involves far too many judgement calls for us to claim proof of anything, but we do think it adds significantly more support to the 15+ seconds collapse time, and makes the 8.4 second end of the spectrum look particularly unlikely.

We can cross-check this by looking at the seismic evidence. Although often presented as supporting the shortest 8-point-something time, in our view there’s a case for arguing that this, too, indicates the collapse time was much, much longer.

And if you look carefully, then you will find some videos that also back us up. Here’s one indicating to us that the first collapse took more than 13 seconds.

Recognising the disagreement over collapse times, some people say it really doesn’t matter. 15 or 16 seconds aren’t that much more than our 9.22 second freefall-in-a-vacuum rate. Before deciding whether you agree, keep in mind that the freefall calculation involves acceleration, and so a relatively small increase in time is enough to allow a major increase in the distance fallen; if the WTC were twice its height, for instance, the freefall time would only rise from 9.22 to 13.05 seconds.

 

[CurtC]

Christophera, your style is very obtuse and uncooperative. I think the implication that you're (very slowly) working toward is that the towers were not actually constructed with a steel core of 47 steel columns, containing all the elvators and stairwells. I think you're saying that the construction diagrams we're all familiar with were invented by FEMA, to explain how the building could have fallen, when actually (you say) there was a very solid concrete core to the buildings instead. This core would not collapse in the manner we saw, so FEMA had to invent the other, weaker, one to explain it. And the photos that you've posted somehow show this concrete core still standing.

Is this summary of your view correct? If that's it, I agree that it's a waste of time for us to talk about free-fall rates, the discussion should be centered around this idea. But you won't actually come out and say it, and that is a very annoying way to be a citizen at a discussion forum.

 

[Hutch]

CurtC, you beat me too it by a half-hour, I believe the task for Chrsitophera is to provide firm evidence (he has alluded to a fim he saw during the construction of the WTC) that these were constructed using Concrete cores. I concur that the free fall issue should be tabled for the moment until we get this issue hashed out.

Take another look at the picture he posted (asking what is wrong with this picture?) based on the above to see if one can image a concrete core there (post #80 on page 2)

Edited to add: Looking at the picture, I think (pending confirmation from Christopherea) that he may be arguing that the tall spire in the background behind the dust clouds is the "concrete core". I think that he is wrong, it is another building, but that may be the gist of his argument. However, I am willing to wait for his confirmation or further explanation.

Further: Lets not jump to LC-conclusions folks; they are visiting and registering, but I have not seen this particualr argument at the LC Board--I wonder how it would play there...

 

[CurtC]

Edited to add: Looking at the picture, I think (pending confirmation from Christopherea) that he may be arguing that the tall spire in the background behind the dust clouds is the "concrete core". I think that he is wrong, it is another building, but that may be the gist of his argument.

I've seen videos of the South Tower collapse where you can see the core of the building through the dust, then it falls. The picture that Christophera posted is clearer than the videos that I had seen.

 

[brodski]

Is there some way I can nominate this for gibberish-of-the-month award?

we sometimes have "woo of the week" threads (usually won by Kumar other someone else at H'pathy forums) maybe you could start one.

 

[Manny]

I've seen videos of the South Tower collapse where you can see the core of the building through the dust, then it falls. The picture that Christophera posted is clearer than the videos that I had seen.

As it happens if indeed the center columns of the lower part of the building survived longer than the floors around them and the exterior of the building that would be as powerful argument against controlled demolition as can be imagined.

 

[Hellbound]

Am I the only one getting suspicious when reading the syntax of Christophera's posts?

Perhaps I'm a bit premature, though, but it sounds very similar to someone else that was here a while back.

Of course, all woo starts to sound alike after a while. You can only hear "It's true because I say so!" so many times before tuning it out (which is how you survive when you have a four year old).

 

[Darat]

I've seen videos of the South Tower collapse where you can see the core of the building through the dust, then it falls. The picture that Christophera posted is clearer than the videos that I had seen.

Is this "core" what I've tried to highlight in this image:

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As it happens if indeed the center columns of the lower part of the building survived longer than the floors around them and the exterior of the building that would be as powerful argument against controlled demolition as can be imagined.

How would that affect the NIST theory of the core failing below the "collapse wave"(1)?

(1) I have no idea what the technical term would be.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How would that affect the NIST theory of the core failing below the "collapse wave"(1)?

(1) I have no idea what the technical term would be.

NM, just thought of an answer on my own. NIST didn't say that the entirety of the core failed, therefore you can still have part of the core (the part attached to the ground) standing even if part of it failed higher up, before the collapse wave reached it.

 

[kookbreaker]

NM, just thought of an answer on my own. NIST didn't say that the entirety of the core failed, therefore you can still have part of the core (the part attached to the ground) standing even if part of it failed higher up, before the collapse wave reached it.

Parts at the bottom also would have been thicker and stronger according to the designers of the WTC. So they might well have had a better chance of staying up for a few seconds longer, before giving up themselves.

 

[chipmunk stew]

The important thing is an actual explanation for the event. Have you seen one?

Photographic Proof of What REALLY Happened:

 

[roger]

What controls the rate of fall and if it can fall like we saw, is the towers construction. So the explanation for the high fall rate is based in that rather than the exact vagaries of the fall rate.

Show your math.

Yes, I need assistance. Just go ahead and post your evidence supporting the tower design FEMA presents.

As for the exact rate of fall, free fall or not, we cannot tell, it is not a primary matter, what is primary is HOW the rate of fall, whatever it was, was created.

Show your math.

I think that we are generally past that in the real world. It is well established that they fell too fast for a collapse, even a normal controlled demolition. What is more important is that they fell all the way to the ground identically. Collapses do not happen like that. No steel building has ever collapsed.

Show your math.

 

[Christophera]

Unlike you, I actually posted pictures from Ground Zero itself.
That is NOT gravel.

Well, ................ I asked for images showing the structure that NIST states existed and you didn't post any and neither did whathistext. Here is 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS that is not supposed to be there, ......... and the steel core columns that you should be able to support are not shown.