We always watch buildings demolished but what does a natural collapse looks like?

this video shows some natural collapse but damn they look all different from the natural collapse on 911.
The best videos are at the end.

www.metacafe.com...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fixed title spelling

[edit on 28/3/07 by masqua]

The best one was the wood house on wood stilts that is on fire from the lava. Notice how it doesn't just fall into itself. It leans to one side. But, I guess wood nailed together on fire is that much stronger and gives more resistance than steel bolted together on fire.

Interesting. How can so many parts in WTC7 fail all at once and cause all four corners to come down just about at the same time.

Yet, You see that white apartment building slowly losing parts of its structure. What was the cause for that building to break down like that?

Anyway, this slow kind of collapse is what most people expected to see for WTC7... others may have expected this for WTC1,2 (I would have expected it for wtc7 but not 1,2). Does it instantly proves CD? No. Is it a suspicion to CD? Yes.

good post dude. there are so many video's comparing 911 to controlled demolition , but you have shown that its equally as damning when you compare it to natural collapse.

In a natural collapse the structure that it's initially weakened greatest first collapses, with this collapse, then goes the other structures following it.
It appears more like a topple over or fragmented destruction rather than straight down.

This thread is a no brainier, or at least it should be.

To me this is the most frustrating part of the 9-11 argument, why people believe a building can fall vertically onto itself from gravity alone, with no resistance, is beyond me.

How can so many people have such ignorance of basic physics?

I think the de-bunkers have other reasons to want to believe the official story. Ignore the physics and you don't have to deal with the fact that the government, that you trust so much, does not have your interests at heart and lies to you. Some people are so naive that they wouldn't even be able to get their brain around such a thing. This happened in WWII Germany, many people refused to believe their government, that they trusted with no question, were exterminating people, until they were forced to see the reality.

Originally posted by DoomX
Interesting. How can so many parts in WTC7 fail all at once and cause all four corners to come down just about at the same time.

Yet, You see that white apartment building slowly losing parts of its structure. What was the cause for that building to break down like that?

Anyway, this slow kind of collapse is what most people expected to see for WTC7... others may have expected this for WTC1,2 (I would have expected it for wtc7 but not 1,2). Does it instantly proves CD? No. Is it a suspicion to CD? Yes.

Because of the design of a cantilever design. If you take out a support on one side of the building, the load is transfered to the remaining supports. If that additional load is too great for the remaining supports, those remaining supports collapse. Then the result is that you have the remaining supports collapsing in addition to the already destroyed support and it comes straight down. This is simply how buildings work. They don't simply topple over to the side. You would have to remove a substantial postion at the base for that to happen.


And someone mentioned denying laws of physics, but this of course is not the case. What they don't understand is the principles of progressive collapse. Yet many people with no education in structural engineering seem to think they somehow know more than the structural engineers and demolitionists. I always find that interesting.

well, anok, to be fair, most people don't have the time to be real. we are a bunch of 'phonies'. phoney, being a term to describe early adopters of the telephone, and those 'types' being a bunch of people with too much time on their hands, and no raison d'etre.

'teletubbies' are the new phonies.

people no longer have to think for themselves. we have 'media' for that.
if the media says it's so, who are we to say they are phonies?

(nearly) EVERYONE who watched the towers fall, initially KNEW that they were being blown up. it is the media (do not adjust)ment of your picture that causes mass cognitive dissonance.

don't worry. the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

Originally posted by snoopy
Yet many people with no education in structural engineering seem to think they somehow know more than the structural engineers and demolitionists. I always find that interesting.

and so which are you?
a demolitionist, or a structural engineer?
who do work for? charlie brown?

there are engineers, demolitionists, pilots, architects, physicists, mechanical engineers, etc. that do not buy the lie, so your appeal to authority is LAME and moot.

Originally posted by snoopy
Because of the design of a cantilever design.

There's the fallacy in your logic there. How is a structural frame a cantilever design? You do know what cantilever means right?

If you take out a support on one side of the building, the load is transfered to the remaining supports. If that additional load is too great for the remaining supports, those remaining supports collapse.

You at least got this part right. Although you do know that a column supports only half of the loads to the next column? Which, when you think about it, when a column fails, the weight that column was carrying is transferred to the columns surrounding it, not the entire remaining columns. If the columns around the failed column can't take the load, then they fail. So, if 1 column fails, the load is transferred to 4 columns (interrior columns) or 2 column (exterior columns), thus distributing the transferred load. And you talk about uneducated people trying to talk structural engineering?

Then the result is that you have the remaining supports collapsing in addition to the already destroyed support and it comes straight down.

No. Did any of those structures come straight down? Did the house on stilts come straight down? Even with all it's stilts (supports) on fire?

This is simply how buildings work. They don't simply topple over to the side. You would have to remove a substantial postion at the base for that to happen.

You have it backwards. If you remove a substantial amount of support at the base, it comes straight down. What do you think a CD is? They don't just knock out a few base columns and it comes straight down.

As far as education, what's yours?

[edit on 3/28/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 3/28/2007 by Griff]

In not one of those videos doe a commercial jetliner fly into the side of a skyscraper. the comparison of the physics between these and the two towers is absurd.

The two towers and how they collapsed were an extremely complex situation. not to mention the building were probably built to function as a controlled demolition in the event of a collapse anyway. DUH

Originally posted by Magickesists
In not one of those videos doe a commercial jetliner fly into the side of a skyscraper. the comparison of the physics between these and the two towers is absurd.

No plane flew into WTC7. And I don't want to hear about "damage" because some of those structures were "damaged" also. Especially when they have partially collapsed.

Originally posted by Magickesists
In not one of those videos doe a commercial jetliner fly into the side of a skyscraper. the comparison of the physics between these and the two towers is absurd.

The two towers and how they collapsed were an extremely complex situation. not to mention the building were probably built to function as a controlled demolition in the event of a collapse anyway. DUH

say, as an 'advocate of knowledge', could you please show what you said above as a mathematical formula?

"probably...., ...DUH"?

hello. that is not 'knowledge'. not even close.

'extremely complex'? not 1/100000th as complex as consensus reality. the fact that some supports have been compromised is no deal breaker concerning what is possible and impossible. was the entire building compromised?
perhaps you "know" something that we plebians are unaware of, regarding crush-up/crush down formulas and communition theory? perhaps you can explain the expansion rate of the dust cloud, and it's fluid behaviour?

afterall, you do advocate knowledge, right?

perhaps your knowledge extends to the myterious collapse of wtc7 as well? now, there was some cantileverin'.

poser.

The whole situation of the two towers collapse was COMPLEX.
As an advocate of knowledge I will do my best to try to enlighten you as to what I meant.

One viewpoint that I was taking is that the engineers building a 110 storey building in downtown manhatten may have built in a contingency plan in the case of structural failure. Sensors or sometype of system designed to sense when the building was going to fall could have set off controlled explosives to collapse all the pillars so that the building would fall with minimal sideways momentum and more straight down momentum.

It is in the middle of a VERY crowded city and I could see this type of thing being incorporated into the design with minimal publication or advising to anyone. Honestly who would be comfortable knowing that a building was built to be safe when collapsing by installing explosives.

EG. a family viewing the skyline of manhattan. " That is the twin towers little jimmy, There laced with explosives incase they ever fall." Yeah...... No.

There are quite a few other theories that I have conferred over with my friends because let's face it this is a heated topic of debate even now with nerds like us lol.

And I do apologize quite unreservedly for the use of the "DUH".
It is not a word I make regular use of and therefore I should have never used it thank you very much for pointing that out.

My opinion still remains the same however in that I believe the planes brought the towers down! No conspiracy behind the collapse.
All the conspiracy that has to do with this given subject in my opinion is WHY were the towers attacked and by WHO. What agenda were they accomplishing if it wasn't our good old kite the arabs.

AND I NEVER SAID I KNEW ANYTHING
REGARDING WTC 7.

The fluidity of the dust cloud......... seriously why ask me that.
It's not already obvious enough that I have to explain it.

The concrete and/or whatever else reminiscent of rock that was used in the construction was pulverized as the building came down. I saw a very similar cloud of dust from the concrete hardener I had to throw out onto giant beds of concrete when I was doing commercial contracting for buildings foundations like costco and the like.

By the way billybob and griff, I understand your frustration with ignorance but it by no means gives you the right to be arrogant.

If you wish to fight a war on ignorance try helping people to understand the truth and being a little more polite wouldn't hurt.

But flagrantly disgracing anything that doesn't fit your paradigm of what happened is ignorant in and of itself!

Sure physic are crucial, but were you standing inside the building, DID you take notes on every detail of every kinetic motion, did you make an autocad design of the buildings, did you study blueprints, did you talk to the experts personally. I doubt it. So please be respectful when you push your opinion.

I will as well.

Originally posted by Magickesists
By the way billybob and griff, I understand your frustration with ignorance but it by no means gives you the right to be arrogant.

Sorry if I offended you. I did not mean my post to come off as arrogant. If you are talking about the response post to Snoopy, you may be right. I was being a little arrogant because I get sick of people saying things like that. Especially when I'm a civil engineer. Just as a pre-op, I apologize to snoopy also for being arrogant.

Originally posted by Magickesists
In not one of those videos doe a commercial jetliner fly into the side of a skyscraper. the comparison of the physics between these and the two towers is absurd.

It makes no difference what caused the damage, a plane, a flying fish, a bomb, it makes no difference. As already explained by Griff when columns are damaged the undamaged columns take the load. If they can't handle the extra load they will topple, not collapsed down. Take a steel column or even a broom stick and try to get it to collapse straight down by putting weight on it. It won't happen. It will bend snap, or topple, it won't telescope down like the towers did. Then do the same with 47 broom sticks all joined together with cross bracing. Just think about that a minute.

Also the plane supposedly sliced through only 6 columns in tower 2, that leaves 41 columns to take up the little extra load, which it did or the building would have collapsed a lot sooner. Personally I find it hard to believe the plane would have damaged ANY columns. After going through the facade there wouldn't be much left to damage the central core.

Please answer this question...What caused the towers to fail bellow the impact point? The top section of tower 2 rotated and tilted 25 degrees, why did it not continue it's momentum? That point alone proves that it could not have crushed the lower undamaged tower like the official story claims. Basic laws of physics tells us this is impossible without an extra force acting on the building to cause the top to stop it's momentum.

Remember bellow the impact point there was no fires and no damage, so 80 odd floors were still holding themselves up. Then all of a sudden, with no warning, the whole building zippers down to it's foundations with no resistance and no slowing down. Impossible without the columns being compromised in some way (other than fires and damage from impacts).

arrogant, yes.
angry, yes.
tired of pointing out the obvious in opposition of a sea of backpedalling, NONCONTEXTUAL excuses from the mainstream bazillion dollar propoganda machine, which includes online agents on blogs(a dime a dozen)? yes.

you came off as all knowing, and it ticked me off.

sorry. i don't know ships.

Originally posted by billybob
people no longer have to think for themselves. we have 'media' for that.
if the media says it's so, who are we to say they are phonies?

Exactly mate!

We have been conditioned to believe that authority is always right and to not question. This starts the first day you go to school. People are really naive and have a hard time believing someone in authority would lie to them, yet history proves this happens all the time.

In fact most historical events, as taught to us, are lies and half truths. It's not until you really dig that you find the truth. And most people are too lazy or too busy or too naive to dig. We live in an instant society, instant food, instant pleasure, instant facts, all supplied at a huge price.

People think they are free. What they don't realise is their thoughts are supplied to them, they are not their own true thoughts, so how can they be free? They're in a mental prison and they don't even know it.