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

The simple fact that 3 different buildings with diferent scenarios fell the same way, it proof enough that it was a CD.
I do not work at a demolition company but I am an expert in statistics and probability....

knowing that the variables involved in the three events range in the millions, so does the probability of ALL three falling down in their own footprint....

good topic , but in the case of 911 , there's nothing to compare what
it looks like when a jet hit's a 110 story building at 550mph .
and i doubt that's a test their willing to pay for .

it's something that no one had ever seen before , that's why , i think ,
it is something there's such a debate over .

[edit on 29-3-2007 by gen.disaray]

I work at a major const company in NYC, and know several of the men who built the twin towers. The reason it looks like a controlled demo when they came down cuase it was SUPPOSED TO. Why would you build the tallest buildings int he wrold so they fell over sideways???? The way the towers were built was designed to amke them fall into themselves, to limit collateral damage. The towers were made to withstand hurricane force winds, and even a plane crashing into it (bomber into empire state building was reaosn 4 this), however when they were disgned planes this size, going these speeds did not exist. And the steel used in the buildings was of sub-grade, b/c it made sense economically. This is the reaosn the intense fires from the feul weakened the structure enough to collapse. The load bearing beams surrounded the towers, so when the planes hit they shifted the load fromt eh top floors onto the other beams that still existed. this, along with the fires, weakened them enough so they coudl no longer support the rest of the structure. Any information i just posted regarding the towers architecture and design are FACT, straight from the horses mouth (the men who built these buildings)

^Again this claim goes against known physical laws.

Please explain how it was possible to construct a building to fall straight down onto itself with no resistance or slowing down? How would they do that? Please ask your 'friends' to explain the how...

Also if this was true, wouldn't it have been made common knowledge to put the conspiracy's to rest?

Sry but I'm not about to take the word of a stranger on a web site, especially a new member. We have many new members who come here and make wild claims with nothing to back it up.

[edit on 29/3/2007 by ANOK]

"but it had a plane impact it, and it had an inferno..."

WTC5, had one of the towers practically collapse onto it, no plane though, engulfed in flames...did not collapse.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 29-3-2007 by shrunkensimon]

The extreme temperature thing just get into my nerve.
Its less than 20 cubic meter of jet fuel .
20 cubic meter its a ridiculous amount of jet fuel for such a big construction.
Please also tell us what other buildings are made to collapse on their own footprint.
I am sure the WTC 1 2 and 7 must not be the only one.
This is just plain ridiculous.

The building falls straight down b/c of its design. And what kind of resitance do u speak of? If you remove key load bearing beams, a structure will collpase on itself thsi is common knwoledge in even basic construction. The whole basis of controlled demolitions is based on that., any time u see them implode a building that is exactly what they are doing. Gravtiy is a very very powerful force, but you seem liek a pretty smart person and already know that. Just please think about what i said b4 u reply again. Why would u deisgn a building to topple over in one of the largest cities in the world???

Just to get my point across, the WTC was NOT designed like everyother building, it was unique. The floors were made to collapse onto eachother. Look at the towers and how they were built, its not like your regular home or office building.

HOW IN HELL CAN YOU BUILD A BUILDING TO FELL ON ITS OWN FOOTPRINT predicting how it will react to a localized damaged area?
Please check the footprints of the Buildings and try to explain it with a little physic involved otherwise please stop.

listen, you are thinking about it the wrong way. A building constructed as the towers were, would SHIFT the loads to the seciton of the building that still exists. In time, as the wiehgt would be to heavy b/c the columns were not meant ot bear alll that wieght, the cloumns woudl fail. The first thing that woudl happen is the top floor would fall onto the floor under it, since its load was to much to bear, and then a domino effect would happen. Build a model, try it yourself.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
The building falls straight down b/c of its design. And what kind of resitance do u speak of?

Resistance that the remaining structure would have.

If you remove key load bearing beams, a structure will collpase on itself thsi is common knwoledge in even basic construction.

What is common knowledge in basic construction is that the load bearing structures in buildings are called columns and not beams. And if you are talking about beams, you know that the beams from one floor have nothing to do with the beams from another floor right? It's the columns that connect the structure for load bearing. The columns hold the beams of a floor. The next floor is held up by different beams that don't have anything to do with other floors beams. It's the columns that transfer these loads down to the foundation.

The whole basis of controlled demolitions is based on that., any time u see them implode a building that is exactly what they are doing.

Actually, they are cutting both beams and columns.

Gravtiy is a very very powerful force, but you seem liek a pretty smart person and already know that.

Gravity is not as strong as the force that holds atoms together. Can't think of what it's called right now. Anyway, it's the force that prohibits solid objects from going through solid objects. This force is much stronger than gravity. Which is the resistance of the remaining building.

Just please think about what i said b4 u reply again. Why would u deisgn a building to topple over in one of the largest cities in the world???

To me, it's not that they came down pretty straight (remember that columns were thrown 600+ feet horizontally), it's the fact that they globally collapsed the way they did. Especially tower 2.

Speaking of columns going 600+ feet horizontally, I guess they screwed up in the design to make it implode?

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
In time, as the wiehgt would be to heavy b/c the columns were not meant ot bear alll that wieght, the cloumns woudl fail.

What you are describing is called creep. Creep failure doesn't happen in less than an hour and not even in 2 hours. BTW, steel still has strength to a degree even after failure.

Several things. Creep exists whne you are considerin steel alone. Put stell in unbelievable heat, they melt. Melting steel doesn't offer to much resistance. Yes they are colmuns, not beams. Im on my 34 hr at werk, my apologies. The remaiing bulidng would offer so little resitance to the twoer failign its not even worht considerin. 100's of tons of material falling would crush anything, you must keep in mind the magnificent scale of these buildings. My house offers resistance, but if you drop a big enough boulder on it, I am pretty sure its not gonna slow it down to much. And the controlled demo i was referring to was the kidn that uses explosives to blow out any weight bearing columns, casue the resulting effect woudl be its collapse.

wat do u mean by "globally collpase"?


[edit on 29-3-2007 by intelligenTHEORY]

Searching for "silo collapse":

www.granular-volcano-group.org...

These structures are the most common to collapse under influence other than directed impact. Usually due to faulty weight loading. Although they're round, the demonstrate that a building with height tends to fall at an angle. Rather that straight down.

There's quite a few pictures, and you could probably find some video, too.

LOL if you think that silos are made in ANYWAY similar to the WTC, this is a conversation not worth having. Just because two buildings look simliar has nothing to do wit there design. Do silos have central bearing columns, or is all the load based ont eh walls of the silo, so that if you took out part of a wall the logical result would for it to fall sideways???

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
wat do u mean by "globally collpase"?

As oppossed to partial collapse. I guess technically you can call it a partial collapse because of the outer facade columns that remained standing.

My question to you. What caused the angular momentum to disapear in tower 2? Why did it collapse straight down when the cap was leaning to one side creating tensile stress on the opposite side columns? What we saw was a complete compression stress collapse.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
LOL if you think that silos are made in ANYWAY similar to the WTC, this is a conversation not worth having. Just because two buildings look simliar has nothing to do wit there design. Do silos have central bearing columns, or is all the load based ont eh walls of the silo, so that if you took out part of a wall the logical result would for it to fall sideways???

A silo is essentially a column. I referenced this due to there being data for natural collapse due to weight shifting. As opposed to charge settings.

If you can't see the value for conversation, I'll also dispose.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
My house offers resistance, but if you drop a big enough boulder on it, I am pretty sure its not gonna slow it down to much.

That's all well and good except your house was never designed to hold that boulder to begin with. If it was, then there would be more resistance. Maybe not total resistance but enough to slow the fall.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
Several things. Creep exists whne you are considerin steel alone. Put stell in unbelievable heat, they melt.

Well everyone... time to get put on warn... THIS POST IS JUNK... GARBAGE. This poster has no fricking clue what they are talking about. "Unbelievable heat"??? WTF? From some kerosene and office furniture? Are you nuts?

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY The remaiing bulidng would offer so little resitance to the twoer failign its not even worht considerin.

Maybe if you are a line cook it is not worth considering the undamaged 70+ floors that held up the buildings for decades that were HAVING WEIGHT REMOVED during the explosion... err... collapse. Where are you coming up with this horse puckey?

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
100's of tons of material falling would crush anything, you must keep in mind the magnificent scale of these buildings.

THE LOAD ON THE REMAINING STRUCTURE WAS BEING DECREASED as most of the mass of the building was being VAPORIZED, turned to dust or THROWN hundreds of feet OFF OF the structure.

Originally posted by intelligenTHEORY
wat do u mean by "globally collpase"?

This about sums up what you know about this topic. I now place you with Snoopy in the realm of those which claim to have knowledge and comprehension of subjects that their typing shows they know NOTHING about.

Cheers

After such proposterous comments and way out-there retorts....

I have to put -intelligenTHEORY- in my respected disinfo agents lurking ATS.

Nice JOB!!