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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, can't wade thru all 5 gazillion pages, but in answer to the OP, I presume somebody surely has posted this link already?

NIST said:
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.
Click to expand...

So the answer is, yes, someone has seen a realistic explanation.

Are we done, then?
 
Piggy said:
Sorry, can't wade thru all 5 gazillion pages, but in answer to the OP, I presume somebody surely has posted this link already?

So the answer is, yes, someone has seen a realistic explanation.

Are we done, then?
Click to expand...
Certainly, once Christophera agrees with NIST report, which was compiled by a team of experts in the field with access to powerful computers running advanced modelling software.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Come back next year. He may have left by then.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Certainly, once Christophera agrees with NIST report, which was compiled by a team of experts in the field with access to powerful computers running advanced modelling software.
:
Click to expand...

You mean it wasn't compiled by slaves hypnotised in their childhood by Circassian Druids working for the UN World Government?

You haven't offered any proof...

Chris has proof.

My dad was a copper, therefore everything Chris says must be true.

I think it's medication time again.:covereyes
 
Here's my theory....

Are you ready, cause it's a doozy....

The leaders of the movements claiming that Bush orchestrated 9/11... are on the Bush payroll.

They're like that guy Nixon once paid to dress as a hippie and picket the Whitehouse in order to make Nixon's opponents appear to be allied with radical kooks.

These guys were given money and provided doctored footage. Their experts are on the Bush payroll, too. And their mission is to recruit a bunch of wackos to make a huge ruckus, and make the anti-Bush crowd appear to be complete idiots.
 
I figured others must have already seen the light as well.

But we need to get the word out, y'know. Critical mass, that's what it's about.

And to make sure we're taken seriously, we need lots of big text, and some colored text, and a whole warehouse full of exclamation points!!!!!!!
 
Piggy said:
I figured others must have already seen the light as well.

But we need to get the word out, y'know. Critical mass, that's what it's about.

And to make sure we're taken seriously, we need lots of big text, and some colored text, and a whole warehouse full of exclamation points!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


You're missing something...

:) :D :o ;) :p :( :confused: :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :blush: :boggled: :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :boxedin: :covereyes :crowded:


-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
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:

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_10153450d3ba45e8e2.jpg[/URL]

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
Click to expand...

OK, I'll restate it again.

1. I understand that it is a structure and not a solid object as I have done from the start of my posts so I don't understand why you persist with making this point.

2. As I have said on numerous occasions you are attacking the analogy for behaviours and properties that I have already stated it does not extend to. I have already demonstrated that the density of a material is not on its own an indicator of its strength or toughness. Likewise with the overall density of a structure (mass/volume space occupied by the boundaries of the overall structure).

3. The underlying structure of the building was designed with several multiples of safety facor and redundancy and it simply does not make sense that a progressive collapse would undermine that, even taking into account the roof trusses and the trussed floors collapsing.

4. Unfortunately I am unable to obtain a view of the building core but to put your picture in perspective I have attached a more accurate view of the structure and superimposed as you have. Tells quite a different story doesn't it (the drawing is an extract from the PA drawing).
 

Attachments

  • Image1.jpg
    Image1.jpg
    14.4 KB · Views: 28
Architect said:
Will shows a complete and utter disregard for structural issues. It's almost impressive.
Click to expand...

Not as impressive as some peoples complete inability or unwillingness to absorb the information from previous posts and move on, maybe then we can discuss the structure.

I guess I need to put a couple of pages of caveats to each and every post if this thing is going to flow.
 
einsteen said:
If we should use 'common sense' I would expect the block wouldn't fall and if it does it takes the way of least resistance, i.e. through air (after breaking some floors) and not through the building itself. But common sense is no science.

Let's have a look of the common sense of the offical report,

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/greening-model.gif

I can't believe people believe this utter-nonsense as a model and stop
thinking because it has been written black on white in a report.
Click to expand...

Apparently, bullets don't ricochet Einsteen!
 
chipmunk stew said:
Greening's "block" is nothing like the solid block you drew in your picture. Read the sentence containing your second highlight again, and pay close attention to the following term: non-elastic collision.

Your illustration is a complete misrepresentation of his model.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Please provide me a picture and I am willing to replace it. This is what Greening assumes,each mass is in fact a point mass, although with an area and no height. I'm talking about the first stage of collapse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom