Understanding the WTC Demolitions: A Simple Proof

This is a simplified explanation of why it is a FACT that the WTC buildings were demolished, for those of you who have not looked into this for yourselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let's say I tell you that I ran, by foot,
to a store (10 miles away), then
to the bank (5 more miles), then
to the dog track (7 more miles), then
to my friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.

To disprove your story, you could present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3:43.13, or just under four minutes. So, it does not seem possible that I could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for me to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if you gave me the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world-record pace, it would not have been possible for me to have covered that distance in two minutes.

Remember, the proof need not be complicated. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To summarize: These buildings cannot fall faster than than free fall. Thus, in order to prove that these buildings were demolished, we only need to show that these buildings fell impossibly fast. Similarly, if the world's fastest runner can run a mile in 3 minutes, it would be impossible for any non-athlete to run a mile this fast, or even close. In other words, if I said that I could run a mile in 3 minutes, you guys would know I am lying because I am not a professional runner, and therefore, I cannot possibly run a mile as fast as the world's fastest runner. Now, let's compare these WTC buildings (a non-athletic person), to a free falling billiard ball (the world's fastest runner).

So, it takes a billiard ball 9.22 seconds to hit the ground if it is dropped from the top of the WTC buildings.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a1cb7c7b71d3.jpg[/atsimg]

Since the WTC buildings had to wrench through TONS and TONS of steel, concrete, and aluminum structure on their way down, one would expect that their collapse times should be much much longer than 9.22 seconds...

...so let's compare the uninhibited billiard ball that is free falling, to these towers that had to twist, break, and crumble as they fell. As I said, we should expect a collapse time much larger than 9.22 seconds if these buildings fell naturally due to a combination of airplane impacts, jet fuel (kerosene), weakened steel, and gravity.


Page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report states, "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, .... The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud." (Chapter 9.)

taken from Chapter 9 of the 9/11 Commission Report: www.9-11commission.gov...

So there you have it, these buildings fell virtually uninhibited, nearly as fast as a billiard ball being dropped from the top of the buildings. In other words, if these massive steel buildings were to race a free falling billiard ball to the ground, the roof of the WTC towers would have hit the ground only 0.78 seconds after the free falling billiard ball!

This is impossible considering all of the resistance the steel, concrete, and aluminum would have provided, UNLESS an enormous amount of extra energy was added to the buildings to completely remove their support structures, which would then allow the buildings to fall as fast as the free falling billiard ball.

I will let you draw your OWN conclusions from this simple comparison.


Please let me know if you have any questions,

-Abe

[edit on 12-3-2010 by PookztA]

I'm not disputing that the buildings came down very fast, but my conclusion is the tower started it's collapse from the very moment the plane hit to the time it was no more.

reply to post by redgy


Yeah but I would argue that it started collapsing when it...um..started collapsing. It didnt start collapsing when the plane hit it. Maybe breaking apart, but certainly not collapsing.

Yeah that seems very simple. Good post, I'm sure most of the OS supporters will stay away from this one.
To the above posters, I think that the collapse of the tower began when it started, well, collapsing

If floors falling, stairwells gone, debris and large objects coming down is termed as just breaking, then so be it.

Originally posted by redgy
If floors falling, stairwells gone, debris and large objects coming down is termed as just breaking, then so be it.

That is true, thinking about that reminds me of a documentary I saw about the first responders. However I still think that as far as how much collapsed from impact to the start of the 'major collapse', the point the OP stated still holds true. How much of the total mass of the WTC do you believe fell apart until it started going down, maybe 1 or 2% ? That still leaves a lot of resistance that should of been there when it fell.

reply to post by esdad71



**thank you mods**

[edit on 12-3-2010 by jeffiriff]

reply to post by redgy


Well, redgy.. when did the stairwells and floors collapse? I was unaware than even took place before the demolitions...err, I mean collapses. There was a recent post on here (not sure how to put it in here) about dispatched recording from inside WTC2 by the NYFD. Minutes before the collapse, these firefighters were using elevators that went up to the 40th floors and using stairways up to the 60th floors. So were the firefighters lieng in the recordings? Or were they simply flying with magic up the towers?

reply to post by PookztA


Aside from accusation I took note of...
One who would consider himself an open minded free thinker who doesn't believe the OS simply for complicating a rather simple equation, as has been in my opinion presented by the commission; just by not acknowledging it took place, WTC7 collapsed; The message behind this presentation you brought to this thread puts into account the amount of brain power it takes to read between the lines. Cover-up tactic.

Instead of only reading between the lines and coming to your own conclusion, you went a step further and simplified the complexity of the matter with layman's terminology in trying to decipher the laws of physics, which brought the towers down. All the while using the commission's reports to back your statements. I hope what I wrote makes sense! What I mean is thumbs-up for a good thread!



Edit; Imapepper seems to be trying to divert the focus of thread?

[edit on (3/12/1010 by loveguy]

Please forgive. I remember exactly where i was when I heard the news.Watched all the video replay. Made me ill seeing people jump rather than burn. I'm not a structural engineer but what about smacking something that tall with a lot of motive force 4/5 of its hieght? With a footprint vs hieght ratio designed to withstand wind shear and not blunt force impact? Wouldn't that send macro tremors through all the structure?I just have a vision of the ol' time punching clowns in my head. Strong punch then wobble wobble wobble. Is possible that the arch types figuring on wind never built the towers to withstand being empacted by a bowling ball? Dunno just wondering.

reply to post by loveguy


at least we can agree on this. Yeah not sure what imapepper is talking about....seems like a legit post bud...

Hey OP thanks for your post. I just had some crazy thought pop into my head regarding the free fall calculation. Free fall acceleration is calculated from the top of the building correct? Taking the total height minus the time it takes to the top to hit the ground correct? If so, I have a question I need some mathematician to figure out...I've had too much wine tonight so forgive me if my question doesn't make sense.

Shouldn't the point of acceleration be calculated from the floor in which the collapse occurred or the "structural failure?"

My thinking on this (granted the wine, I reserve the right to modify my opinion when sober) is if you take a stick the length of the upper portion of the tower that fell and dropped this stick it would hit the ground faster than the top of the stick. To me this means, #1 I'm not a mathematician lol. #2 the rate of fall is miscalculated and is actually free fall speed.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by ExPostFacto]

reply to post by ExPostFacto


wine me up dude....that is a valid question...

Since we are taking that into account we are going to give maybe a 2 to 3 seconds....I think if we are facing a realistic collapse from the point of entry we are still looking at something like 15-20 seconds...

I have no evidence to back this up....sorry

reply to post by AztecWrior805


to reply within my own beliefs,

floors 104, 105 and 106.
time: 9:47 and above.

going by some of the calls made to emergency services.

Edit. to add Tower Two.

[edit on 12-3-2010 by redgy]

reply to post by jeffiriff


I am not sure that it adds seconds...I think it takes away seconds. If we do not count the top section of floors falling and only go by the collapse rate of the bottom floors we should get a more accurate free fall speed rate. I am thinking it would support the premises that not only was it free fall, but possibly faster than free fall. If that is the case then we can rule in explosives as the only alternative.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I am not saying that counting the collapse from the lower lever will add seconds....but rather give a couple since we are counting from an area closer to the ground....but it still doesnt mean that the collapse makes sense. Let me know if you want me to confuse us more....

If that building collapsed towards the path of most resistance, as it did, it should have taken how long to collapse?? 15-20 seconds??

If you threw a ball from the TOP of the freaking thing it hits the ground at 9.22 seconds? It collapses 20 floors below that towards the path of most resistance and hits the ground in 10?!?!? at free fall I guess it would have been 8....

[edit on 12-3-2010 by jeffiriff]

Originally posted by jeffiriff
reply to post by loveguy

 

at least we can agree on this. Yeah not sure what imapepper is talking about....seems like a legit post bud...

Checkout my last post in other thread?
Pepper was alleging the OP is a troll...I allege.

The evidence was taken off site before a proper investigation could be accomplished. Further complicating an already complicated investigation; to hide the evidence.


[edit on (3/13/1010 by loveguy]

reply to post by jeffiriff


Haha I'm confused already...no more wine for me. I must not be understanding this.

If I jumped in the air and recorded it on camera in slow motion I would measure my rate of acceleration from my feet downward, not the top of my head downward, right/>? Why do scientist measure rate of free fall speed from the highest point that is still intact? Was there a difference in the rate of free fall between towers?

I don't think I am meant to answer this. I am terrible at math, but I wonder what the data would be with this question.