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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Huntsman said:
Yes it could.

But your wiring inside the house is connected to external lines, and is a likely source for spillover to go to (because it has a circuit back to the power station...provide a route to ground). Electrical demolition cables would not be connected into the power grid, and could be insulated and isolate to a degree. Of course, the more you want to protect it, the more obvious it will be these aren't standard equipment should anyone notice them (and the more likely they are to be noticed).

It's a possibility that lightning would set them off, but not a garauntee.
Click to expand...

The current in a lightning strike is measured in the hundreds of kiloamperes. Even when the current is safely diverted to ground, the current pulse flowing in structural steel can induce, via transformer action, destructive voltages and currents in nearby wiring.

I have seen something like this happen. On the morning of July 31, 1992 (I remember it well because it was such a lovely 35th birthday present for me) there was a violent thunderstorm in Philly. The Pennsylvania Convention Center, which was still under construction at the time, took a direct hit. I worked in a recording studio which was across Arch street and one building up from the PCC.

When I got to work, I discovered that all the console power supplies in our two music rooms were down; the overvoltage protection circuits had been tripped and crowbarred the outputs. This wasn't so bad; all I had to do to bring them back up was to power cycle them.

But both of the multitrack machines in our main music room were showing obvious signs of significant damage. Basically, in each machine, every IC that had a connection to the synchronizer port was blown, and in the synchronizer they were connected to all the optoisolators on the interface board were blowed up. It took me the better part of two days to get everything fixed.

The cabling running between the machines and the synchronizer was a bit long and the excess length had been coiled up in the bass trap at the back of the room. Apparently, the magnetic field produced by the lightning strike had induced a sufficient voltage in that coiled portion to blow out components at both ends of the cables.

And it did this from at least a hundred feet away.
 
Belz... said:
Sir, if this means that you'd consider wiring a building in this fashion, I suggest that you seek professional help as this would be an indication of possible psychosis.

What if the explosives blow while there are people working in the building ?

Have you considered the useful life of explosives ?



No, it's not. When does a high-rise building collapse on its own ? That's why they do controlled demolitions, by the way. Because that's the way to do it.

1) It's much safer than wiring it beforehand.
2) Wiring the buildings during construction is somewhat conspicuous and someone would have noticed.
3) If it were "reasonable" or "logical", people would do it more often, engineers would learn about that in school and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

I haven't said it has been done, I haven't said it was done on WTC so quit with analysing my psychosis and detach yourself before you disappear up somewhere dark in your bid to try to undermine me!

People don't always do reasonable or logical things because they find them difficult to deal with.

I am putting forward a notion based upon damage limitation that it would preserve the maximum amount of life and real estate if a building were wired to be demolished in case of a disaster that would result in a catastrophic failure.

If you were trapped in the adjacent building waiting for a tower to topple on you which would you prefer?

Like I said no matter how distasteful you find it my logic is sound.
 
Christophera said:
You still haven't shown that you do know WHY, and you also haven't answered the questions about the flex of long steel members and their resistence to torsion.
Click to expand...

That's because (a) you're talking bollocks and (b) you're mentally ill.
 
zaayrdragon said:
But that's the problem - from the available evidence (which, admittedly, isn't great), the central core was NOT largely sound. Not by a long shot.

After all, simple observation - that the top did, in fact, flatten/collapse - should bear out that the central core failed.

It's kind of funny - you're looking at two different situations: in one, the central core fails, and the top pancakes down onto the bottom, causing catastrophic failure; in the other, the core remains sound, the top topples onto the damaged side of the building, and that side undergoes partial collapse or damage. You're arguing that the second is what should have happened, and assuming that the core was sound; while a rational person would, instead observe what did happen, and infer that the core, in fact, failed.

In other words, you're trying to fit the facts to your theories, rather than the other way around.

Tell me, Willie, in your diagrams, which represents what we observed happen that day?
Click to expand...

The apparent difference between the weaker damaged core at the top and the sound structure beneath is not a paradox, why do you suggest that it is? What is a paradox is why the central core which is specifically designed to handle compressive loads should fail when an imbalance of the damaged core structure could easily "topple" the top of the tower into the weaker outer wall?

In fact you hit the nail on the head, why isn't what we observed logical? I could suggest that the FEMA report is framed to fit what was observed and was not independent?

I will re post the pictures to clarify for you.
 

Attachments

  • WR Version.JPG
    WR Version.JPG
    68.1 KB · Views: 9
  • FEMA Version.JPG
    FEMA Version.JPG
    61.5 KB · Views: 7
Belz... said:
No, the remaining supports would take the load until they failed due to heat. From what knowledgeable people here have said, it would be a long way from the necessary conditions for a "toppling". Or haven't you been reading ?
Click to expand...

I've been reading FEMA as directed by several on here and they say there was an imbalance of the forces, they even provide a diagram. Can't have it both ways? Are you agreeing with me now that the official story is wrong?
 
Architect said:
Will,

Tall buildings are not prewired and primed for demolition. Trust me, I'd remember putting it on the drawings.......and how would we hush it all up? Hell we work in an industry so litigous that we'd only do it if there was a BS EN anyway!
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying and tend to agree but sometimes you've got to put something ridiculous out there to wake people up from this dream that governments act morally ALL the time.

BTW, in my job I am constantly amazed at how things are when I take the drawing down to do a reality check. Maintenance guys are a pain for updating drawings!
 
Blue Mountain said:
Second, it is very strange to assume that the WTC was brought down in a "controlled" demolition by explosives, given the extensive damage it did cause. For example, WTC-3 (the Marriott Hotel) was destroyed by the collapse of WTC-1 and-2, killing two employees, two guests and several firefighters. Video evidence shows WTC-7 sustained a direct hit from a massive plume of debris from WTC-1 (or was it 2?) as it went down. So if 1 and 2 were brought down by a controlled demolition to prevent damage to other buildings, the strategy failed miserably.
Click to expand...

So it did topple then? If so how was the structure undermined to topple?
 
This is as near scale as I can get of the towers. Does it look like a structure that will pancake on itself?
 

Attachments

  • Heights.JPG
    Heights.JPG
    21.3 KB · Views: 4
William Rea said:
This is as near scale as I can get of the towers. Does it look like a structure that will pancake on itself?
Click to expand...

You're looking at a solid structure.

You're imagining a huge big block, and trying to imagine a small bit of that block compressing the rest.

But it's not. It's not a single object, it is, as you say, a STRUCTURE.

Imagine the exterior of a skyscraper was removed, so you could see all the floors, and all the empty space between. Still think it couldn't collapse on itself?

-Andrew
 
Will shows a complete and utter disregard for structural issues. It's almost impressive.
 
Architect said:
Just so you know, it's called sideflash and the "wires" are downtapes.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we might have someone more familiar with this type of demolition :). Please help keep me honest if I mis-state anything. My demolition is more along the lines of "we need to blow a 20' hole in this reinforced concrete wall to drive the tanks through, then we need to drop that bridge so the enemy gets stalled". I've been extrapolating from my basic knowledge into areas of building demolition, but I could well be off because of particular conditions or concerns (with building demo) I'm not aware of.
 
William Rea said:
This is as near scale as I can get of the towers. Does it look like a structure that will pancake on itself?
Click to expand...


I've decided to make it easy for you...

The reason common sense makes you say what you do above is because you're applying common sense to what you're seeing as an outside observer.

This is a bad idea. You need to apply common sense to the SYSTEM involved, and what is happening to it...

Apply common sense to each of these pictures:



Note:

In the first picture, it really doesn't look like such a solid object could collapse on itself from such small amount of damage, does it?

But then look at the second...

Makes a difference doesn't it?

No, these are not meant as accurate representations, they are intended to show to you, in a clear graphic way, how much difference it makes depending on whether you apply common sense to what you can SEE, or to what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING.

-Andrew
 
Huntsman said:
Sounds like we might have someone more familiar with this type of demolition :). Please help keep me honest if I mis-state anything. My demolition is more along the lines of "we need to blow a 20' hole in this reinforced concrete wall to drive the tanks through, then we need to drop that bridge so the enemy gets stalled". I've been extrapolating from my basic knowledge into areas of building demolition, but I could well be off because of particular conditions or concerns (with building demo) I'm not aware of.
Click to expand...

Aha. No. I'm still on the lightning issue. If there's a defect in the conductor installation - poor joints, say, or badly laid out - or in a particularly heavy strike it can sideflash. Very dangerous, esp. in inhabited structures, and one of the reasons that we essentially base conductor design on a Faraday Cage. And the "wires" which earth it are called downtapes.
 
Andrew;

Nice sketch, mate.

Now lets consider the increased loading on the surviving structural members. Let's also remember that the floors are starting to sag...
 
Architect said:
Aha. No. I'm still on the lightning issue. If there's a defect in the conductor installation - poor joints, say, or badly laid out - or in a particularly heavy strike it can sideflash. Very dangerous, esp. in inhabited structures, and one of the reasons that we essentially base conductor design on a Faraday Cage. And the "wires" which earth it are called downtapes.
Click to expand...

Ah, okay :)

I assumed sideflash and downtapes were specific to electric bleedover in demolition...heh. Wondered why they'd have specific names for it.

So I guess the explosives questions are still up to me...I'll do my best :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom