Understanding the WTC Demolitions: A Simple Proof

reply to post by loveguy


I may have confused us..."this is a legit post bud" was directed at imapepper...

if I confused myself on this, then fml

Originally posted by redgy
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.

Here's how it is.

I just......ache for the facts, the truths which are out there, that people don't know.

Excellent, excellent scenario the OP has set forth here. All you have to do is sit and think and then....woah.

I think about people who say that the building started collapsing as soon as the plane hit. I'd have to accept that after the plane hits, over the course of fifty-plus minutes the building is collapsing, only to end with a grand finale where there the entire building from top to bottom pancakes in ten seconds???

Then...I think about Building 7. O.o

The one that wasn't hit by a plane. That same one which free-fell in the exact same manner as the other two.

Then, I get the shivers, and wonder just what I've stumbled on to.

all I was trying to convey is can a damaged and weakened building fall faster than one which is solid and in pristine condition.

reply to post by pingjockey


ummm.. if you research the WTC building history,the Engineer's & Architects took plane impacts into consideration when designing and building them.

Originally posted by time91

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 still leaves a lot of resistance that should of been there when it fell.

Well said. There should have been PLENTY of resistance to slow down the moving mass significantly. There is no way this building hit the ground as fast as it did without something removing its support. The laws of physics say so.

Key word: Resistance

(even weakened steel puts up a fight)

-Abe

Boy OH Boy...

I can´t understand how it is possible to be discussing this after more that 9 years of the attack and after having so much evidence that the collapse of the WTC towers, TOOK A LOT MORE THAN what is claimed.

There is video proof that the time of each of the towers collapse was a lot longer than free fall.

Please just watch this video, it shows VIDEO PROOF. You can time if yourself if you want.
It doesn´t matter if you agree with who posted the video or not, or if you like them or not, just see what is there.
THAT.........IS PROOF!!!

www.youtube.com...

You can also look for other videos available in the web and time them.
But you can´t keep on claiming free fall. That´s simply not true.

The real times are:
South Tower...15.28 sec.
North Tower...22.02 sec.

Originally posted by rush969
Boy OH Boy...

I can´t understand how it is possible to be discussing this after more that 9 years of the attack

You can also look for other videos available in the web and time them.
But you can´t keep on claiming free fall. That´s simply not true.

The real times are:
South Tower...15.28 sec.
North Tower...22.02 sec.

NIST is the Bible to OS supporters.

NIST claims Tower 1 fell in 11 seconds.
NIST claims Tower 2 fell in 9 seconds.

Question 6 wtc.nist.gov...

reply to post by Sean48


Hi Sean48.
I´m not citing NIST or it´s claims.
I´m asking people to watch this video which to me prooves a point.
Please watch it and come back and tell us what you make of it.
Thanks.

reply to post by Sean48


I'm puzzled, because I went to the link, regarding the question #6 put to NIST.

The claim of NIST saying "11 seconds" or "9 seconds" is not the entire story, once you read the full answer.

Here is their answer, and I've truncated it to save space, and for easier reading:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

On paying particular attention, it can be noted that NIST say those are "elapsed times" for certain portions (exterior panels) to fall.


I find this next paragraph crucial to understanding the collapse sequence:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

This conforms to what I see each and every time I watch one of the videos of the collapses.

It continues, and is perfectly logical and reasonable:

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

There is more exposition in the link, worth a read....

Finally, what NIST actually say about total collapse time:

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse......

wtc.nist.gov...


Again, reading the full answer from NIST is most enlightening.

[edit on 14 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Here is some a video from AE911 that raises some very important consideration relating to the OP.

reply to post by KINGOFPAIN


What you are saying is true, because this same scenario happened July 28, 1945 when a B25 Bomber crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building.

The Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building
history1900s.about.com...

The Empire State Building suffered a million dollars damage, but its integrity or structure were not threatened. The proof is that the Empire State Building is still standing today.

Now, how could the WTC buildings not be built to at least the same or better standards than that? I smell a rat.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
Here is some a video from AE911 that raises some very important consideration relating to the OP.

Well, very interesting video indeed.
This video PROVES the "free fall" scenario FALSE.
The guy that narrates starts by saying the speed of the initiation of collapse was 64% of the speed of free fall.
Then later he shows two lines. One that represents free fall and one that goes at 64% of free fall acceleration.
You will notice that the collapse actually goes slower than the slowest of the lines.
So, I believe the OP has been answered by his peers.
Also, to those interested, please look at the runing time during the video and pause it when you see the begining of collapse and pause it again when you think the collapse has ended.
You then check how many seconds it was, and get back to us with your own estimate.
THANKS A LOT.



[edit on 14-3-2010 by rush969]

reply to post by rush969


I am glad I looked at that video. I have always thought the buildings fell too fast to have been a simple pancaking effect. If all the steel on the lower floors was intact when the floors above hit, there still should have been more slow down to the fall than even 15 seconds.

Upon seeing the obvious explosions blowing out lower floors in the video I am now absolutely convinced the buildings were rigged with explosives.

I have my opinion about who did it and it really goes back to who benefited most from the result. The interesting thing is going to be the backlash when the truth is finally revealed.

reply to post by Sean48


Actually, that is not quite accurate.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

This means that the first pieces from the collapse, those that did fall at free fall speeds and had not resistance, fell at that rate. The rest of the building took approximately the time posted. Here is the rest of the explanation

s documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

They also address some videos and seismic evidence.

reply to post by rush969


Free Fall Speed and Free Fall Acceleration are totally different things. What this video shows is that the dust blowing out of the WTC fell at 64% rate of free fall speed and acceleration. Which rules in the possibility of explosives. The reasoning behind this is that the portion of building above these ejections were wasn't keeping up with the blowing up of the building below. This is very damning information against the OS and NIST specifically.

Literally there were (3) different events going on during the collapse.

1.) The top intact portion initially dropped at a rate of free fall acceleration. Until it hit some resistance.

2.) The dust and concrete explosions ejected from the building continued at a rate of of 64% the rate of free fall acceleration.

3.) The dust and concrete airborne fell at free fall acceleration.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by ExPostFacto]

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

2.) The dust and concrete continued at a rate of of 64% the rate of free fall acceleration.

3.) The dust and concrete fell at free fall acceleration.

You´ll have to carify these two concepts for me.
You are talking about the dust and concrete in both, and saying two different things.
So, please explain.
Either 2, or 3. Which one??

reply to post by rush969


haha yeah you are right i screwed that up. What I mean is the Dust and Concrete spewing from the building, ejected from the building occurs at 64% the rate of free fall acceleration.

The concrete and dust that is airborne falls at near free fall acceleration.

The video producer speculates that the only way for these ejects to continue at the 64% rate is that they are timed explosions designed to be masked under the free falling dust and concrete from above. The structure at the top is collapsing at a slower rate than 64% therefore ruling out the possibility of air pressure.

great discussion going on in this thread. thanks for commenting and discussing this everyone!

I know most of us already know that the Official Story is bogus, but I posted this because it is the quickest way to use NIST and the 9/11 Commission Report to show skeptics that they are wrong.

Feel free to copy and paste this thread anywhere you want, or share it with anyone you'd like. I post information to share, so please spread it

Thanks,

-Abe