Time to prove the official report right

Originally posted by Griff
All we would need to do would be to build the cap of WTC 1. Then drop it the amount of one floor height and see if it falls apart.

Better yet, build a cap the size of WTC1's, drop it onto one or two matching floors below from a height of a few feet (the actual drop on 9/11 was theoretically from deflected beams and etc. and therefore not even a true free-fall drop) and see if the floors below are immediately destroyed into bits and pieces without so much as slowing down the upper block. If any resistance is offered by the lower structure then you know right away that the official story is wrong.

Maybe we can all even agree on a smaller model made of much weaker materials as a test. I bet resistance will be offered no matter what materials are used. Even free-fall has a terminal velocity for a reason, and it isn't because gravity weakens the faster you go.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Better yet, build a cap the size of WTC1's, drop it onto one or two matching floors below from a height of a few feet (the actual drop on 9/11 was theoretically from deflected beams and etc. and therefore not even a true free-fall drop) and see if the floors below are immediately destroyed into bits and pieces without so much as slowing down the upper block. If any resistance is offered by the lower structure then you know right away that the official story is wrong.

That would be a better way of going about it. Too bad we don't have the money or construction drawings, etc. I know some government agency that does though.

This can all be done on a computer, or through using animation with the correct applied science. If we do not believe the official version, recreate what they did to see if it was not true. That would be the first step to 'proving' the official story right. Prove the lie.

In the opinion of the posters, When was terminal velocity for the upper floors achieved?

Originally posted by esdad71
This can all be done on a computer, or through using animation with the correct applied science.

It would be wonderful if someone could do this, provided all of the specs they use are realistic, and not the proverbial house of cards (which, btw, can't resist 100 mph wind loads).

In the opinion of the posters, When was terminal velocity for the upper floors achieved?

Terminal velocity of steel falling through steel? Uh, there is no such thing, or else 0 on Earth.


Simple experiment:

Take three pieces of steel, or anything really.

Lay one on top of another, and see how fast the top one will fall into the lower one.

"Lay" the last one down on the air, or in other words, drop it from some height.


In one of the above cases (I'll let you try to figure out which one, lol), there won't be any terminal velocity at all (or a velocity of 0), for reasons that should be kind of common sense.

What this also means (kind of PROVES it, I would imagine), is that with steel falling against/into steel, there is going to be resistance from the body that's at rest that will impede the other's velocity, and slow it down. This didn't happen on 9/11.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by esdad71
This can all be done on a computer, or through using animation with the correct applied science. If we do not believe the official version, recreate what they did to see if it was not true. That would be the first step to 'proving' the official story right. Prove the lie.

Care to buy me the program? I'd love to be able to prove the official version correct. Get me the program, the specs of the building, the construction documents of the building and I'll learn how to use the program and we'll see what happens.

Good luck with those construction documents though. They are classified, meaning that even having one in your possession is a federal crime. Go figure.

Just to show a couple pics of some concrete attachments.

Here's two from a project that I am currently on.





It is hard to see but there is a gap between the floor slab and the beam and also the floor slab and the wall.

Also notice that the connections are steel and not continuous concrete.



[edit on 1/25/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 1/25/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 1/25/2007 by Griff]

So, no one wants to admit that we can relatively compare concrete buildings with steel buildings because they both use steel connectors? Well then let's use other steel buildings to compare to. Here is a post by Ultima1. I don't want to take the credit from him.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Gee you should really look at more steel buildings then just Madrid hotel. Thier are at least 4-6 different steel buildings that i can bring up that burned several hours some for over a day and had structural damage due to the fires and did not collapse like the towers or building 7.

www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse
Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1. The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.


2. The First Interstate Bank Fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of a total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

3. The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours

4. Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began on the 34th floor and spread to over 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Can we compare those buildings with WTC 7 or will people still cry apples to oranges?

Originally posted by Griff
So, no one wants to admit that we can relatively compare concrete buildings with steel buildings because they both use steel connectors? Well then let's use other steel buildings to compare to. Here is a post by Ultima1. I don't want to take the credit from him.


Can we compare those buildings with WTC 7 or will people still cry apples to oranges?

Thanks for the credit Griff buts its not a big deal all you have to do is a little research.

The main problem i have is that thier are no FBI or NTSB reports on any of the crash scenes on 911.

There is a man here in my home town which does research on the 9/11 attacks.

Quite a bit of the information you're presenting, Griff, was covered in a seminar he puts on monthly here in Anchorage.

I imagine there are quite a few people who lost loved ones who have professional expertise in the subject of construction and destruction of buildings.

I'd agree with another poster that the Building 7 collapse is the most suspicious of the building collapses, as the only citing of the building collapsing was debree from the other towers fell on the building and caused it to collapse. There is no way this could possibly make any sense from a physics standpoint, especially since no large mass was responsible (Since WTC 1 and 2 went straight down).

However, for the examples of the fires which Ultima1 supplied, what temperatures were those respective fires supposedly burning at? One of the key support structures for the current reasoning is that the fires burned so hot that the steel was weakened.

That being said, Imagine forging a steel sword. Heating the tip of the metal does not conduct all of the heat to the base of the tang. While the tip may get redhot (Providing you have the heat to do so) or whitehot (More unlikely), the rest of the metal does not get as hot.

Imagine a steel bar with layers of concrete on it... for argument, lets say one section fails, the rest of the layered concrete would fall. If it fell straight down, it would be like icecream sliding off of a popsicle stick, leaving the steel core of the structure in tact below the weakened portion....

Is this a correct assumption?

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
However, for the examples of the fires which Ultima1 supplied, what temperatures were those respective fires supposedly burning at? One of the key support structures for the current reasoning is that the fires burned so hot that the steel was weakened.

The fires in the buildings i supplied burned at close to the same temps as the fires in the towers and building 7.

Since most of the jet fuel was burned off in the intail explosions and what was left burned off quickly the tower fires basically burned at normal office fire temps. Building 7 burned at normal office fire temps due to the fact of no jet fuel at all.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The fires in the buildings i supplied burned at close to the same temps as the fires in the towers and building 7.

I would say the fires in the other buildings actually burned hotter, because the other fires being compared here had spread out more and covered more floor area, and burned much longer (Windsor, Caracas, etc.). They were consuming the same fuel: hydrocarbons. Jet fuel produces about the same heat as any other hydrocarbon, but just combusts more readily, and it burned up within a few minutes anyway by most accounts.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The fires in the buildings i supplied burned at close to the same temps as the fires in the towers and building 7.

Since most of the jet fuel was burned off in the intail explosions and what was left burned off quickly the tower fires basically burned at normal office fire temps. Building 7 burned at normal office fire temps due to the fact of no jet fuel at all.

And no one claimed that the fires alone collapsed the building. It was a combination of severe structural damage and fires. Plus there were tanks of diesel fuel in the building and it had worse structural damage thaqn the WTC 1 & 2. Plus the cantilever design was a big factor.

And the experts at the scene said they knew hours in advance it was going to collapse.

Originally posted by snoopy
Plus there were tanks of diesel fuel in the building and it had worse structural damage thaqn the WTC 1 & 2.

Most of the the diesel fuel was recovered, but of course if you've done your research you would know that right? So why do you insist on repeating false information?

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

Note that the size of a 12,000 gallon tank would be a little less than 12 feet by 12 feet by 12 feet (if built as a cube).

Source

And again where is the evidence of any fires big enough to even warm the steel columns, let alone weaken them to the point of global collapse?

And WTC 7 had worse damage than 1 & 2? Again where is the evidence of this? But of course according to you we can't compare 7 with 1 or 2, otherwise I'd bring up the Windsor Tower...

I have a question for you guys that has been bothering me ever since I saw it, and I would like people's thoughts on this.

Look at this image.



Can some-one explain to me how the NOSE OF THE PLANE survived the impact and went through to the other side of the building? this is the WTC south Tower, I have never seen this picture before.



I got this from here:
Prison Planet


The nose is the weakest part of the plane, and even when skeptics where dealing with the Pentagon destruction, they said the 'hole' in the Pentagon was made by an escaped tire, not the planes nose, cause everyone knows that the Planes nose is the most fragile part of a plane, and it breaks very easily.

The question is this.

Were these ordinary planes to begin with? Because that sure doesn't look ordinary.



[edit on 29-1-2007 by talisman]

^This site goes into more detail on that...

investigate911.batcave.net...

I won't say it's a missile but it is very odd.

If it was a missile it would explain how the ST was able to tilt and rotate before the collapse. 'Cause I find it hard to believe a 757 would be able to sever the central core enough to allow the top to become separated from the rest of the building.

ANOK

thanks for the link. I wouldn't say that is a missile either, cause I don't subsribe to the 'no plane' theory. I do believe they were planes, no doubt in my mind.

What I am starting to think, and this is for the first time for me, is that the planes themselves are not-ordinary passenger planes. I think this is now undeniable, I can't see how the nose of that plane could go through all of that steel and concrete intact, that is impossible.

Unless the plane in fact was built like a missile?

I was thinking, if these planes are not ordinary, it might explain a lot of things, such as..

The strangness of the Pennsylvania Flight 93 crash, the Pentagon etc.



[edit on 29-1-2007 by talisman]

ANOK,

I just realized something else while looking at this.

It isn't the impact that destroy's the nose. It is that explosion afterward. In fact the Nose looks to be in awfully good shape, actually in very, very good shape, considering what it just went through it seems impossible.

But it is the explosion afterward that destroys it. That is highly suspicious.

Originally posted by talisman



I got this from here:
Prison Planet

Does anyone know which face of the building is facing us? Is it the East face?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by talisman



I got this from here:
Prison Planet

Does anyone know which face of the building is facing us? Is it the East face?

It's the east face. That's why it's in direct sunlight. Flight 175 struck from the south.

Originally posted by 2PacSade
It's the east face. That's why it's in direct sunlight. Flight 175 struck from the south.

That's what I thought. Didn't the tower tilt to the East face? You can see that the plane pretty much sliced through the east face. That would be consistant at least. There's ONE consistancy in the official report. Just kidding.