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

[Oliver]

OK, everyone, stay focused.

Oliver, as current owner of the socks, does this post by Nobby sum up the answers so far?

Shall the socks now pass to another, Ollie?

Huh??? What socks? Who´s Nobby? What sum´s up?
I guess i missed the train...

I´m sorry. I just post a dumb question from time to
time without any meaning. I thought this is what this
thread is about.

Take the socks - i have no use for them...

 

[Big Al]

There would be no sideways movement of the upper floors. The impact of the airliners had been spent some time before. The only force then acting on the upper floors would be gravity - which acts downwards only.

I saw a film of the 1968 Ronan Point tower block collapse in this country (U.K.), caused by an initial gas explosion. The fire weakened the upper structure in one part of the building, and the floors began to collapse. The top one fell onto the next lower, which fell onto the next... it was all over very quickly, it fell vertically and there was an impresive debris plume. The building was perhaps 10 storeys, absolutely nowhere near the size of the WTC, so the acting forces were much less.

The building was constructed of post-stressed steel-reinforced concrete, which expanded and shattered with the heat of the gas fire. The collapse led to a change in legislation.

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

That article even mentions the WTC!

OK, so I know the buildings are dissimilar, but my point is that a relatively small initial blast (gas/airliner) caused a catastrophic and VERY fast collapse.

 

[Bell]

You mean like me answering the same lame questions a bunch of times for bozos who have to pretend like it's okay to ask over and over because they have no raw evidence of anything they fail to assert.

Get real, then seek evidence.

The towers had a steel reinforced tubular cast concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

Monk, it looks like you're getting aggitated. But Monk, we would not be asking the same justiviable questions over and over again, if you cared to address them, instead of ignorantly evading them.

 

[bonavada]

A small quibble, if I may:

I would suggest the collapse began when each airplane struck each building. At those points the respective structures were reduced in their ability to maintain relative integrity against gravity's relentless pull.

So, each "collapse" did take quite some time. I know that people are referring here to each building's "fall" from its erect state to a pile of scrap, but I think the clarification is worth making.

i have to agree. call it pedantry if you like but like you i think collapse initiated at the time of impacts and the towers were both doomed at that point. collapse began with the shifting of loads onto the remaining capable load-bearing elements, the load bearing capabilities of these was then further lessened over time by the resultant fires. the steady deterioration continued until the catastophic failure brought the structures down. the basic answers are straight-forward.

the sad problem is that CT'ers like christophera abhor this simplicity and must weave a web of tangled falsehoods around what is essentially an uncomplicated sequence of events.

BV

 

[bonavada]

who's got the socks?
if no-one then i'm grabbing them and quoting christophera's OP:-

So far no explanation in existence explains free fall and total pulverization of the towers appears to exist. Has anyone seen one?

and asking:-

please show evidence of the "total pulverisation of the towers"

BV

 

[Belz...]

Realistically, as a hypothetical alternative to demolition, or a collapse, I would expect only the top of the towers above the impact pints to fall and they would topple with that piece falling at near free fall.

A collapse doe not go all the way to the ground unless the structure topples.

An answer! Good.

Now, why do you think a building cannot collapse the way the WTC towers did ? You claim it would have had to topple, but my question is this : once 20+ floors fall onto the rest of the building, what's going to stop it ?

What we saww was not a collapse and this image clearly shows it was not. The image shows what can only be a high speed series of well contained detonations by high explosives which are optimally placed and dsitributed which progresses from the top down.

That is not obvious at all unless you can answer my above question.

 

[Belz...]

A collapse of a tower with those proportions with steel core columns will have the core columns toppling and bending/breaking usually in one direction as they were mostly damaged on one side. Core columns of those dimensions will be VERY visible and would be seen toppling then bending/breaking while attached to outer framework which drags them down destroying them. Columns in the center may stand at great heights after outer framework has fallen away.

They will never appear as this does.

That's dust. You said so yourself.

I'm the only one employing common sense here.

And it fails you miserably.

The proper appearance would have taken minutes.

This alone shows your ignorance of buildings and demolitions. A chain-reaction collapse CANNOT take minutes. If it was going to take minutes, it wouldn't be happening at all.

If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different and therefore have a completly different duration.

I'd like to see your version of what should have happened and your calculations that support it. No "common sense" appeal, here. Common sense cannot tell you how complex collapses can occur.

After all, it tells you that the Earth is flat and that heavier objects fall faster.

Based on the fact that if the towers were going to collapse they would have done it at impact, or shortly therafter, and only the portion above would have fallen.

Based on common sense.

Common sense again. How about the fires ? Do you claim they can't possibly have damaged the structure further ?

They do not have enough energy to crush more than a floor or 2 before the mass decentralizes, especially considering the fact the damege was on one side, and rolls off to the side.

You're assuming a tower of LEGO blocks, now. The whole thing breaks apart as it falls. It doesn't stay in one block. How can it possibly "roll" to the side ?

Intuitive parameters for loading and bearing capacities are at the basis of the algabraic origin of the formulas used to determine such things. It is sufficient for the needs here to say that there is no where near enough loading to do this.

So, you're saying that your layman observation is better than actual calculations ? You don't "need" calculations because you think you're right, but in order to be right, you should have something to back your conclusion.

 

[skeptifem]

if the people arguing with you are paid by the government to refute you arent you just helping them confuse people by continuing to argue?

 

[Hellbound]

.


















cheese

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...But back to the question. What was the weight of the parts of the buildings above the impact points?

If others are allow to provide answers, which can be agreed or disagreed with;

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf Section
2.2.1.1
American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors
2.2.1.5
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy over the
1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x10^9 joules of potential energy were stored in the
upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.
2.2.2.1
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors.

For WTC 1, the top 12 floors of the tower translates into 8x10^9 joules of the total 4x10^11 joules. So, the top ~10.9% of WTC 1 contained ~2% of the entire PE of WTC 1. Extrapolating this on to WTC 2 (since the above mentioned report does not specify the amount PE contained above the WTC 2 impact point) we get the following:
WTC 2 => top 26 floors => ~23.6% of WTC 2.
If ~10.9% of WTC 1 translates into 8x10^9 joules PE
Then ~23.6% of WTC 2 translates into N joules PE
Therefore 10.9/8*10^9 = 23.6/N
=> 10.9*N/8*10^9 = 23.6
=> 10.9*N = 23.6*(8*10^9)
=> N = 23.6*(8*10^9)/10.9
=> N = 17321100917.431192660550458715596
=> N = 17.3*10^9 joules PE
=> ~34.7% of the entire PE of WTC 2
What does this mean? It means for WTC 1, that ~2% (8x10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 94-98. It means for WTC 2, that ~34.7% (17.3*10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 78-84.

 

[milesalpha]

Wait a minute dude. You ain't reading. "Algabraic origins" does not constitute what you suggest I've said it does.

Engineers definately gain an intuitive sense of loading and evaluate things with rather amazing accuracy in minutes, if not seconds and often their calcs bear the intuition out.


Get some raw evidence of somthing, sometime or get out of the way.

Your analysis of engineer's "intuition" seems pretty far off to me. They may "guess" at a loading but you would have to qualify this as an "educated guess". Somehow it seems a lot more likely that they apply some basic calculations and methodology to a situation to come up with a quick answer. You may call that intuition but it's really just a product of years of advanced education . Science tends to trump intuition and common sense (a funny term to use in a debate like this since its completely subjective).

 

[uruk]

I do fine. Perhaps you cannot or willnot understand it. Firstly, those here attempt to term what happened to the twni towers as a collapse. That is so erroneous that no estimate of wat it should be is possible. If it were a collapse caused by plane impacts it would appear completely different and therefore have a completly different duration. Basically, given the actual damage and actual towers structure that stood, no collapse whatsoever would have happened. Had any occured only the floors above would have fallen off.

See, this is exactly my point as to the quality and nature of your "raw" evidence. Here you are making unsubstantiated claims without backing them up. How do you know that a plane impact on the twin tower would have looked or behaived differently? On what evidence or previous data do you base that claim on. What other 1,300 foot building with the same architecture as the towers had passenger liners crash into them?
The fact is that you don't know. We all don't know. This is the first time it happened.
The bomber crash on the Empire State building does not apply because the bomber was smaller, slower and lighter than the 767s and the architecture of the building was different.

All we have to go on is whatever information we can obtain from data such as the parameters and characteristics of the plane, fuel, architecture and materials that were present and the laws of physics and compare them the outcome that we observed (building collapse).
That is something that the NIST did.
and MIT: http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ ..Who is not a government agency btw.

The truth is you have no data, you have no facts, you do not have any credible or reliable sources for your info. Your use of a Canadian highschool web site as a source is one example and constanlty refering to a documenatary for which there is no evidence of ever existing is another.
This is also the reason your court cases keep getting dissmissed. The court papers you posted on web site repeatedly state that you have no evidence.
And because of this cronic lack of evidence you resort to creating or inventing evidence. Your drawing of the ficticious concrete core which you say is based on the aformentioned ficticious documentary is an example of how you make up evidence not to mention pointing to empty spaces and smudges in low resolution and blurry pictures.

 

[Z]

who's got the socks?
if no-one then i'm grabbing them and quoting christophera's OP:-



and asking:-

please show evidence of the "total pulverisation of the towers"

BV

Bonavada has the socks; the topic now is 'total pulverization' of the towers.

By Yahoo Dictionary:

TOTAL {ADJECTIVE}:

Of, relating to, or constituting the whole; entire. See Synonyms at whole.
Complete; utter; absolute: total concentration; a total effort; a total fool.

PULVERIZE {VERB}:
tr.

To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust.
To demolish.

So we have four possible meanings:

1. The entire tower was crushed into powder or dust.
2. The entire tower was demolished.
3. The towers were utterly crushed into dust.
4. The towers were utterly demolished.

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

Thanks again!

Everyone else:

STAY ON TARGET....

 

[uruk]

Based on the fact that if the towers were going to collapse they would have done it at impact, or shortly therafter, and only the portion above would have fallen.

Based on common sense.

That is not a fact. when has this happened before? You still haven't explained how or why this owould happen. Your just mearly making a statement and asking us to "just" accept it. Sorry but that is not evidence, fact or even reasoning.
Your simply talking out your tail pipe.

They do not have enough energy to crush more than a floor or 2 before the mass decentralizes, especially considering the fact the damege was on one side, and rolls off to the side.

Again, how do you know?
What was the wieght of the floors above the impact/failure sites? Were the floors below capable of sustaining an impact of that much mass in movement?
The mass did not become decentralized. Look at the video the top floors rotated about its center of mass before it fell into the floors below.
It did not toppel over it rotated.

 

[Christophera]

See, this is exactly my point as to the quality and nature of your "raw" evidence. Here you are making unsubstantiated claims without backing them up. How do you know that a plane impact on the twin tower would have looked or behaived differently?

Considering all of the experts (or at least enough of them to impress you) are too terrified to come forward, we have to rely on our own experience.

What do you do for a living? What is your experience?


Recall tognazzini who worked for the PA saying the towers could sustain multiple plane impacts without failure.

 

[Christophera]

The truth is you have no data, you have no facts, you do not have any credible or reliable sources for your info. Your use of a Canadian highschool web site as a source is one example and constanlty refering to a documenatary for which there is no evidence of ever existing is another.

Compared to you I have massive evidence. All you have is words of denial which support lawless government and the unaccountable murder of innocent people.

My site has many citations of credible, uninterested websites that support the concrete core.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

 

[Christophera]

The mass did not become decentralized. Look at the video the top floors rotated about its center of mass before it fell into the floors below.
It did not toppel over it rotated.

Another erroneous diagram by homer.

The one on the left shows the right side of the tower going up. This may occur to a very small degree but very little. The left side would crush and go downward to a degree where the mass would rotate off the supporting tower and then fall.

The diagram on the right shows the left side of the tower going inside, to the right, meaning that the core would have to shear off, rightward, something that is not going to happen in a natural collapse. That happened but was caused by explosions which are captured on video and in stills.

 

[uruk]

Considering all of the experts (or at least enough of them to impress you) are too terrified to come forward, we have to rely on our own experience.

Where's your proof of this? The experts not agreeing with you could mean that you are simply wrong, not that they are frightened or coerced. Simply saying something does not make what you say true. You have to back it up with evidence before anyone will accept it.

What do you do for a living? What is your experience?

I teach electronics and computer maintenance and networking at a community college.

[/quote]Recall tognazzini who worked for the PA saying the towers could sustain multiple plane impacts without failure.[/QUOTE]

Well, it looks like he was proven wrong. Being an expert in something does not make you immune to being wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Considering all of the experts (or at least enough of them to impress you) are too terrified to come forward, we have to rely on our own experience.

Unfortunately, you don't have any proof of that either. Your only piece of evidence that they are "terrified" is that they "seem" to be terrified, TO YOU.

The diagram on the right shows the left side of the tower going inside, to the right, meaning that the core would have to shear off, rightward, something that is not going to happen in a natural collapse.

I'd like to see numbers for that.

 

[Christophera]

Point Proven

Now, Chris, in keeping with Bonavada's question, what do you mean by 'total pulverisation', and what is your evidence?

All of the concrete of the tower was reduced to its particulate components. Pulverized.

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

From the beginning news reports commented on the pulverization particuarly the shredding of human bodies wich resulted in DNA testing for identification.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/cu...sep20,0,1068295.story?coll=bal-attack-utility

When the World Trade Center towers collapsed, those inside were buried under the now seven-story pile of knotted steel and pulverized concrete.