Don't try this at home. Fire and steel building experiment

I haven't forgotten about my promise to diagram and do some basic physics explanations btw, and I'll add in things like the forces a plane impacting will exert upon a building also, as well as explaining acceleration due to gravity (what one poster called 'g-force' and potential energy.

Reasonably sure from some of the posts here that this would be valuable, and I intend to do this without attempting to prove anything at all, so whatever results I find, I'll find. I'll post this in a couple of days when I have time.

Originally posted by Inannamute
I haven't forgotten about my promise to diagram and do some basic physics explanations btw, and I'll add in things like the forces a plane impacting will exert upon a building also, as well as explaining acceleration due to gravity (what one poster called 'g-force' and potential energy.

The impact damage is fairly well-documented. At any rate we know the perimeter damage, and have an upper-limit set forth by NIST on the core damage that at least I'm comfortable with using. This is all you ultimately need, as far as tabulating impact damages.

You can recreate the towers with the given damage and go from there. Since NIST couldn't get initial failures from fire in their simulations, you're probably not going to, either.


"Basic physics" aren't going to explain the collapses. At least not with 2D or 3D mechanics, or at least not without needing information we don't really have and using some algebraic technique.

In other words, if you're thinking you can just take the mass of the upper floors, give it a 12-foot free-fall and then see how much force it'll have upon reaching the next floor, it's been done. It's not accurate, for many reasons, and it doesn't even mean anything unless you're doing an impact or collision, and those events in steel-framed buildings aren't well-documented. I think there's one paper on it that the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice group is studying over, because it also tends to put strain on what little of an explanation NIST suggested.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by WTC7isKEY
QwionX you make me sick, REALLY.

Ok, lets take QwionX's idiotic final last straw explination

How much does the government pay you to spread your BS?

Why don't you settle down and talk to him without the insults? He hasn't done anything to you to warrant that.

I never insulted him. I said he made me sick. Its true. Then, I called the explination idiotic, not him. Then I asked how much the government pays him to spread the "basic story". What did you think BS meant? If you think it meant bull s*** then that is probably your subconious mind agreeing that his explaination is pretty idiotic.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
If you believe the second, simply offer up your calculations to show how much energy it would take for explosives devices to throw steel beams 600 feet.

Then tell me why this amount of explosives device would not produce a sound.

Have you not read the link I posted?

They DID produce sound.

Here it is again:
911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 2-4-2007 by Shroomery]

Originally posted by GwionX
Kind of..but you see the top floors some 100,000 tons didnt collapse on the WHOLE of the structure below. It collapsed on ONE FLOOR at a time. Then some 110,000 tons on the next floor down, then 120,000 on the next, ect.. So even though the bottom steel was larger, the falling weight was increasing -- Does this visual make any sense?

No... the weight was NOT increasing... much of the weight was being throw/tossed over the sides of the building so your growing gross weight is 100% false.

Originally posted by esdad71
...the force of that collaspe is enough to destory anything in it's way to tthe ground.

Wrong again. "Anything"? Path of greatest resistance... You theory relies on WEAKENED floors being crushed and the INTACT floors offering VERY LITTLE if any resistance at all. This is physically impossible. Any community college physics prof. will tell you that.

Originally posted by GwionX
Kind of..but you see the top floors some 100,000 tons didnt collapse on the WHOLE of the structure below. It collapsed on ONE FLOOR at a time. Then some 110,000 tons on the next floor down, then 120,000 on the next, ect.. So even though the bottom steel was larger, the falling weight was increasing -- Does this visual make any sense?
[edit on 1-4-2007 by GwionX]

No. It doesn't. The weight of the floors above any given point was exactly the same as the structure was holding up before. The weight did not increase at all, as the plane itself was - as you can see from the newsfeeds of the time - all but vapourised in the impact/explosion.

The position of the weight of the floors above DID change in relation to the structure beneath it, but that should only have caused a partial collapse of the outside of the building at around 45 degrees of the impact point, with remenants of a central core left standing showing signs of bending and stress, not a straight down pancake collapse taking the core with it. I've never understod how the building came straight down, and I probably never will.

As for the fireball and fuel theory, I would suggest that when a plane hits a building at 500mph, the ignition is likely to be just about instantaneous, and that the resulting explosion is likely to consume the available sources of ignition fairly rapidly, which appears to be shown on the 9/11 videos and the subsequent black smoke which is NOT indicative of continued ignition. How then did this fuel manage to spread through the structure? Are we saying parts of the plane survived the initial impact?

I'm not a big fan of 9/11 CT, but the fact that both of those buildings collapsed virtually identically (after being hit in different spots at different levels) is disturbing because its a hell of a coincidence, and at best seems to show a major structural design flaw.

bsbray, my intention isn't to try and prove things one way or the other, but simply to enlighten as far as basic gravitational physics is concerned.. Probably the only way you could actually calculate how the towers collapsed would be by using finite element analytical models, and I don't have the computing power for that..

Originally posted by C21H30O2I
scram? ha thats funny scram. I have looked it up. I seen the planes hit with my own eyes! enough said. all you anti american ppl playing this beat dog. need to just move to Iran, Iraq, Syria. and be done with your selves.
I'm sure you'll have a much better life there.

So if you saw the planes hit then you also must have seen the big explosion that burned up most of the jet fuel.

According to the NIST and FEMA reports what fuel was left after the intial explosion would have burned off quickly.

Also the NIST and FEMA reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have stood all day if not for a secondary cause, and we have videos, photos, and firemen reports showing that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

Originally posted by MooneyBravo

Originally posted by ANOK
Pls show the rules of physics that explains this, cause I can use physics law to prove this is impossible, but I'll let you go first and I'll even give you a head start...

Ok, I'll give you benefit of the doubt. You say you can prove it impossible by using the laws of physics? I would like to see your detailed report. The debate can end right here and now. Let me see your proof...complete with all the scientific principle that apply including the differential equations required to make such a proof.

You want the mathematics, here you go. This was posted by an ATS member (Garden Spider) quite some time ago:

You see, most people are unaware that in addition to the collapse of the twin towers, another WTC Building collapsed that day as well. Building 7. It's a smaller building than the twin towers, although still quite large, measuring over 600 feet, and having 48 floors. It was not hit by an airplane, but it collapsed, due to debris and fires that resulted from the collapse of the twin towers.

You can watch the three main videos that were taken of the collapse here (two of them taped by CBS, one by NBC). What struck me was the speed at which this building collapsed, and the even acceleration of the fall. I'm not a physicist, but I know enough about physics to realize this can't be correct. If the building fell from fire, there should have been resistance. It should have been a stuttering, uneven collapse. But instead, we get something that looks eerily like a controlled demolition.

But, using the newtonian physics I learned in high school, I was able to prove that there had to have been more involved than fire and debris. I did this, by calculating the speed of the fall, or the rate of acceleration.

First, I took measurements of the videos, trying to time how long the collapse took. Here are the results of my measurements:

Video 1 - 4.84 seconds
Video 2 - 4.90 seconds
Video 3 - 4.98 seconds

Average fall time - 4.91 seconds

I then took the two simple physics equations, that every High School level physics student should be intimately familiar with.

a = v/t
and
v = d/t

Giving us a = (d/t)/t

a = the rate at which the building fell (acceleration).
v = velocity
d = distance (The buildings height is 230 meters, per the WTC official website)
t = time

The speed of gravity is 9.8 ms2 (meters per second squared). In other words, this is the speed at which an object accelerates due to gravity, or in a freefall. If there was no resistance from the fall, our result should be close to this number. Our result will never be exactly 9.8 ms2, due to air resistance, but if this building collapsed due to fire, there is no way it would result in anything even close to 9.8. So I did the math.

a = (230/4.91)/4.91
a = 46.84/4.91
a = 9.54 mps2

THis result means the official story simply defies simple newtonian phsycis. It is a physical impossibility for the top of the building to fall at that speed, unless something was destroying the suppport beams and trusses underneath it. It is simply impossible.

I'd like to hear your counter arguement against newtonian physics. Or I guess you can just ignore this, like most of the official story backers seem to love to.

Similar calculations are done here: www.studyof911.com...

The complete method is laid out for anyone to review.

I think the fact that we can even do a single calculation to determine the acceleration of ENTIRE BUILDING is enough said. Shouldn't even have to bring up that it was also accelerating at free-fall, because all collapses that truly result from fire and impact damage are local, not global. That means the entire building doesn't get up and go all at once, save one column that went early to create the kink.

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
There's another factor I have yet to see discussed anywhere: The aircraft that struck the WTC buildings not only had tons of fuel to feed the post crash fire; but they also had a large amount of oxygen on board that is normally used for emergency purposes. Has anyone ever seen the effect introducing pure (100%) O2 on a fire. I have! It's impressive and it can easily propagate a fire to reach temperatures where steel can melt.

Doing some quick research I learned that steel melts at approximately 2700 degrees F. While jet fuel alone cannot produce temps that melt steel; a fire fed with O2 will.

I tried to think of a good example and thought of the Valujet (Airtran) crash that resulted after an improperly stored oxygen cannister ignited a fire and intensified it. It attained a temperature of 3000 degrees.

I believe it's possible that the oxygen on the aircraft could have contributed to the intense heat. Check the video too! That's just ONE generator!!

[edit on 31-3-2007 by Freedom_for_sum]

You have to take into consideration how long it takes for oxygen to burn up (mere seconds). Yeah, that was included in the initial large explosion. Yes, the temperatures initially could have jumped to a very hot temperature but exposing steel to a temperature of 3000 degrees for a few seconds will NOT melt anything but lesser metals and plastics. Steel will NOT melt unless exposed to extreme temperatures for a great deal of time or an even HOTTER temperature as caused by thermate.

To answer someone elses question, that is how you get molten metal in the debris. The metal was cut with thermate and such at the base of the building.

However, that is all speculation on my part because we have no proof. Why do we have no proof? Because the metal was NOT allowed to be investigated like a crime scene would have necessitated.

Originally posted by Pootie

No... the weight was NOT increasing... much of the weight was being throw/tossed over the sides of the building so your growing gross weight is 100% false.

While I agree there was debris falling, and exterior walls were being peeled away as the floors inside failed. The weight of the mass comming in direct contact with the ONE story below was gaining weight. Because it had the additional weight of the floor just above it added to the weight of the initial collapsing floors. the next floor down then had to resist the weight of all of that wieght PLUS the weight of the floor just discussed above. ect. ect.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by GwionX
Kind of..but you see the top floors some 100,000 tons didnt collapse on the WHOLE of the structure below. It collapsed on ONE FLOOR at a time. Then some 110,000 tons on the next floor down, then 120,000 on the next, ect.. So even though the bottom steel was larger, the falling weight was increasing -- Does this visual make any sense?
[edit on 1-4-2007 by GwionX]

No. It doesn't. The weight of the floors above any given point was exactly the same as the structure was holding up before. The weight did not increase at all, as the plane itself was - as you can see from the newsfeeds of the time - all but vapourised in the impact/explosion.

The parts of the building were no longer working in harmony as it was designed. When the collapse initiated the upper portion of both buildings was working as a separate piece falling on top of one floor at a time.

Before all pieces were supported, After a large segment of the once whole building was colliding (downward due to gravity) the reistance this "mass" encountered was one floor at a time. The inner core's connections with each floor's truss system was being stripped like a sprig of rosemary.
Without the stability of the surrounding structure, the core eventually failed as well. IMO of course.

Gwion, even if your basic premise is right, the way you're presenting it is too simplistic. You're assuming inelastic collisions, meaning everything just comes apart and keeps falling with the same kinetic energy, and no bending and contorting, which is what would actually happen in a solidly bolted & welded steel skyscraper (bending and contorting I mean).


Also, if what you're saying is true, the collapses should have slowed down INSTANTLY upon the first floor being knocked out. This is a very simple physics principle with collisions: when two masses collide, they move more slowly, but with more mass, so that the kinetic energy is the same (in an ideal environment -- in the WTC collapses TONS of energy was being lost to all sorts of things, like smashing concrete into tiny particles).

If the collapses occurred as you say, and did not slow down as mass was added, then you are breaking a law of physics. In other words, 200+ years of physics says you're wrong, given that mass was increasing and velocity was remaining constant.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by bsbray11]

The towers did not increase in weight...... for something to gaing weight SOMETHING HAS TO BE ADDED TO IT..

Not in the case of the WTC.... not even an helicopter landed on top so NO WEIGHT ADDED..

stop the nonsense!

i think the whole things fishy. theres a lot of evidence that bush new what was gonna happen, theres a lot of evidence that the airforce had ample time to react, theres a lot of evidence that there were bombs going off in the basements of these buildings (ie people getting blown up), theres a lot of evidence of bombs going off on stories down to the 8th story, theres a lot of evidence that the fires were almost out (ie a fireman saying "we should be able to knock it out with two lines. bottom line. if you cant see it, youve got your blinders on, period. and more, the steel sagging in that building, they did not say how long that fire was burning, there have been plenty of fires in steel buildings, and in the world trade center itself, and none collapsed. or sagged

Have these people ever heard of over engineering? It's designed to hold the weight above it, and then some. They build these structures to hold up in the worst scenarios.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So if you saw the planes hit then you also must have seen the big explosion that burned up most of the jet fuel.

According to the NIST and FEMA reports what fuel was left after the intial explosion would have burned off quickly.

Also the NIST and FEMA reports state that the buildings withstood the planes impacts and would have stood all day if not for a secondary cause, and we have videos, photos, and firemen reports showing that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

Yes i stand corrected

I guarantee that I know more about 9/11 then anyone here.

***NOTE*** SINCE THIS WILL BE LONG AS HELL I WILL NOT POST ANY LINKS, YOU CAN DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELVES SEEING AS HOW YOUR ALL "EXPERTS".

A total of 12 terrorists hijacked 4 planes on 9/11/01. They flew two planes to NY and into the WTC buildings, one flew into the pentagon, and one crashed in PA on it's way to it's target. Or so the government wants us to believe.

Gov. sources say that 4-5 of the terrorists were taking flying classes. They were learning to fly leeter jets (personal planes). If you look at there scores from the academies you will see that ALL of them failed there classes. So the gov is saying that 4 terrorists that couldn't even fly small planes were able to fly fully loaded 757's and 767's will military precision.

What you guys are saying how the fire got above 2,500 deg F is incorrect. Can you tell me AFTER the explosion (initial impact) and before the collapse if there was a fire that hot why some workers were standing at the edge of the hole looking down? And if there was a fire that big then how big were the flames? (there is a diff between fire and explosions so don't say "about 6-7 stories")

The steel thing that you all are yelling about. The WTC DID have steel in it but it wasn't regular steel, it was tempered steel. That means that the failing temp isn't 2,500 deg F anymore, it's over 3,500 deg F.

Even if it wasn't tempered steel, fire has never been the cause for a steel building to collapse before in world history so tell me. How come even though building 5 was engulfed in flames it didn't collapse when building 7 had small contained fires (if that) and still managed to collapse? (NOTE all the WTC buildings were steel buildings)

Someone earlier (page 1) said something along the lines of "If you hold a 10lb weight for ten min and then put it down, smoke if you have some and then pick it back up and toss it in the air and catch it ,it will feel heavier. It's called G-FORCE" g-force doesn't make anything heavier by definition it's "how much force one object is applying to another object". The mass of the top 20 floors didn't change there for the weight didn't change. So my question to you is this, how old are you cause it's really hard to be that stupid. (pssst I’m 15 almost 16 and I know this)

If the people where terrorists and not our own gov then if the terrorists did there homework then they would've known that there is a nuclear waste facility just north of Buffalo, NY that if taken out half of the north-east would be uninhabitable. Wouldn't that target make more sense if you going for casualties? and don't try saying "It's hard to find". It's hard to miss a 150 million sq ft building with giant radiation towers in the middle of a 200 acre forest.

They way planes are set up with the cock pit is that there is an alarm system in the cock pit that if activated notifies NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense System)(no idea how that's what norad stands for). The system automatically activates if forced entry is detected in the cock pit which is impossible. Aircraft use locks that make the national treasury vault locks look like brinks door knobs and they are ALLWAYS locked unless the ONLY stewardess on board that's allowed to enter the cockpit wishes to enter. Even then the pilots have to put the plane in control of the co-pilot and then look through a peep hole make sure everything is okay then unlock the door, and THEN they have to open the door like a ship door(water tight doors). How did they manage to open the door with only box cutters.

When two F-15's (top speed of mach 3) were sent up to force the plane that crashed in PA to land it took them 15 min to get there. They were dispatched from Louisiana. That means that the F-15's were traveling 15% of there top speed (that's not suspicious)

[edit on 3-4-2008 by timekiller92]