You Tell Me: What happened to WTC 3?

[Redwood]

The reason I make the distinction is because of the trail of .... stuff .....that appears behind the big pieces of WTC 2 that are very close to WTC 3.....

......Falling items do not obliterate the items that they fall on.

By Jove, you're right! A little worse for wear, maybe, but ready to persevere!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlu7FhfMBWk



DGM, I'm glad you linked to "The 9/11 Hotel". If you hadn't, I would have. There's so many amazing and moving stories. Especially, the Scots architect.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Now that I'm looking, I see proof of the foamifying technology everywhere.

Even this picture of a forest fire makes me wonder if forests can be foamified.

Then I found this and I don't know what to think.http://www.chubb.com.au/utcfs/Templates/Pages/Template-54/0,8063,pageId=7232&siteId=582,00.html
Clearly this whole thing about foam and fires and smoke and collapsing buildings, it can only be demonic. Could this be proof of Satan on earth.

Tracy, what do you think? I know it's not your field, but afterall, you are a research scientist.

 

[Robrob]

I begin to wonder if he's ever seen a fire?

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, I can explain it. Material from the big buildings fell on the little one and damaged it.

If what you're asking is, "Why was only part of the little building knocked down, and not all of it?" the answer is just as simple: this is what often happens when stuff falls on something and damages it, whether it be my foot stomping on a house made of Legos, or an asteroid exploding over Tunguska -- or WTCs 1 and 2 collapsing onto WTC3. Randomness is lumpy like that.

In this case, there's a more specific reason (discussed in the video DGM posted): One end of the WTC3 had been heavily reinforced during repairs following the 1993 bombing. 14 people survived the collapse of both WTC1 & 2 because they were in that reinforced area at the time.

 

[beachnut]

... . Falling items do notcan obliterate the items that they fall on.

Brick obliterates egg. Falling items docan obliterate the items they fall on.



More logical than your dust/foam and ignoring physics of falling objects.

 

[gabeygoat]

You Tell Me: What happened to WTC 3?

Somebody farted. I won't say who, however.

 

[twinstead]

Brick obliterates egg. Falling items docan obliterate the items they fall on.



More logical than your dust/foam and ignoring physics of falling objects.

Most of it is truthers totally not understanding what "mass" is.

 

[dafydd]

Most of it is truthers totally not understanding what "mass" is.

Something to do with the Catholic church?

 

[Stellafane]

In this case, there's a more specific reason (discussed in the video DGM posted): One end of the WTC3 had been heavily reinforced during repairs following the 1993 bombing. 14 people survived the collapse of both WTC1 & 2 because they were in that reinforced area at the time.

Thank you! Now I've actually learned something from this thread, which frankly I wasn't expecting when I (reluctantly) responded to the OP.

 

[WTC Dust]

Thank you! Now I've actually learned something from this thread, which frankly I wasn't expecting when I (reluctantly) responded to the OP.

You shouldn't really trust what people say. You should give more credence to
what they can show. Like in this thread. A huge gash was taken out of
the middle of WTC 3. It looks like a big chunk of WTC 2 is about to hit
WTC 3, but the later images show the result of something different.

If an X story chunk of debris falls on a Y story building, I'd expect to see a pile that was near Y stories tall. At least. I'd make a guess that you would
get an X+Y story tall pile of stuff, but okay maybe some crumbling and
crushing would have occurred if a solid object the size of that chunk of WTC 2 fell on a hotel. But it wouldn't make a gash.

More importantly, at the end of the event, you'd have chunk X sitting in
the gash, if chunk X had crushed into it. The gash wouldn't have been that
deep, if crushing had been involved.

It's like you've seen a dozen too many science fiction movies, where
Godzilla walks around crushing buildings with his hands. This is bogus.

 

[phunk]

If an X story chunk of debris falls on a Y story building, I'd expect to see a pile that was near Y stories tall.

You do understand that buildings have more empty space than structure within them, right?

When they collapse, they end up in much smaller piles than when they were standing.

 

[Oystein]

Dusty,

just two quick questions:

1. Are you aware that hotels contain air?
2. Do you have a rough estimate what percentage of the volume of a Hotel is air, and what percentage is solid stuff?

Thanks.

 

[twinstead]

You shouldn't really trust what people say. You should give more credence to
what they can show. Like in this thread. A huge gash was taken out of
the middle of WTC 3. It looks like a big chunk of WTC 2 is about to hit
WTC 3, but the later images show the result of something different.

If an X story chunk of debris falls on a Y story building, I'd expect to see a pile that was near Y stories tall. At least. I'd make a guess that you would
get an X+Y story tall pile of stuff, but okay maybe some crumbling and
crushing would have occurred if a solid object the size of that chunk of WTC 2 fell on a hotel. But it wouldn't make a gash.

More importantly, at the end of the event, you'd have chunk X sitting in
the gash, if chunk X had crushed into it. The gash wouldn't have been that
deep, if crushing had been involved.

It's like you've seen a dozen too many science fiction movies, where
Godzilla walks around crushing buildings with his hands. This is bogus.

You realize that "don't trust what people say" applies to you, right? Perhaps Stellafane should seek a second opinion from somebody who might just know what he is talking about, hmmm?

 

[Oystein]

You do understand that buildings have more empty space than structure within them, right?

When they collapse, they end up in much smaller piles than when they were standing.

Dang. In recent weeks and months, two public buildings in my hometown were demolished by knocking their walls before removing the debris: Part of train station, and the old indoor pool. I should have taken photos before and after, so that Dusty could asses how flat a building gets when you take out the air. But I guess I never imagined that I would have to address questions and arguments here that are this dumb.

 

[Stellafane]

...If an X story chunk of debris falls on a Y story building, I'd expect to see a pile that was near Y stories tall. At least. I'd make a guess that you would get an X+Y story tall pile of stuff, but okay maybe some crumbling and crushing would have occurred if a solid object the size of that chunk of WTC 2 fell on a hotel...

As is often the case with your posts, I'm afraid I cannot discern whether or not the above was written in jest. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that pre-schoolers could probably offer a reasonably accurate (if somewhat simplistic) explanation of what happened to the little building in your photo after the big ones were destroyed. I believe those same pre-schoolers could probably point out the obvious flaw in the quoted passage above. Thus I find it more than a little difficult to believe that you have failed to do the same.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If an X story chunk of debris falls on a Y story building, I'd expect to see a pile that was near Y stories tall. At least. I'd make a guess that you would
get an X+Y story tall pile of stuff, but okay maybe some crumbling and
crushing would have occurred...

You'd make a guess that a collapsed building should be almost as tall as an intact building? You appear unaware that the purpose of buildings is to enclose useful volumes of empty space. Buildings are as full of holes as your logic.

Your argument is a house of cards. You might like to contemplate how tall a house of cards ends up after you drop more cards on top.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... I mentioned that pre-schoolers could probably offer a reasonably accurate (if somewhat simplistic) explanation of what happened to the little building in your photo after the big ones were destroyed. I believe those same pre-schoolers could probably point out the obvious flaw in the quoted passage above...

To be fair, pre-schoolers have an unfair advantage - they have building blocks to use for practical experimentation.

 

[Oystein]

Most buildings made of conventional materials such as brick and mortar, concrete, and/or steel, and made for conventional purposes such as living, office work or hotel accomodation, consist of 90-95% air, and 5-10% solid stuff. If Dusty doubts that, I'd recommend that she should go to any conventional building, perhaps a highrise hotel, with a folding yard stick, measure the dimensions of rooms that are filled with air, measure thickness and dimensions of walls and floors, and finds someone to do the math for her (no, this is not a sexist remark; this is keeping in mind that her cognitive abilities may not exceed that of a pre-schooler; this thread contains several indications that this might be so, as has been pointed out).

Now if you demolish the building, i.e. if you lay its solid contents on the ground, letting out all the air, they will reach a hight that is about 5-10% of the original hight of the building.

Since some of th material will spill to the sides, that would tend to make the pile lower.

On the other hand, since a real collapse would trap some air inside the pile, we'd have to account for that: perhaps a rubble pile is 50% air, 50% solid debris? That would about double the height of the expected pile, to 10-20%, minus what spills to the sides.

So considering all that, I'd say rubble pile height = 13.5% of building heigt is a good first order approximation. In the case of a 22 story hotel, that would be roundabout 3 floors high.


Now Dusty, when you look at your pictures, how high is the WTC3 debris at its lowest point? The interesting region is obscured by smoke, but it is several stories high, isn't it?

 

[Loss Leader]

But it wouldn't make a gash.

Do you have any expertise in engineering, demolition, forensic engineering, construction, architecture or anything else that qualifies you to make such a statement?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

It's like you've seen a dozen too many science fiction movies, where
Godzilla walks around crushing buildings with his hands. This is bogus.

Actually, Godzilla used his feet. His breath was also used to aid in the foamification of buildings.