The History of High Rise Collapses

reply to post by loveguy


I see loveguy or the concrete COWBOY no hi-rise building fire named yet whats wrong NERVOUS about giving an answer its not a trick give the name of a building from one of your fires dont care how long the fire burned will leave that to you.

You lack of an answer so far speaks for its self

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by loveguy


Can't your supervisor allow you to research a broader range of websites to collect your research? How about bringing something that I haven't found flaws in. To reiterate; WTC7lies.com

Here's a couple links for your reading pleasure; www.journalof911studies.com...

www.journalof911studies.com...

edit on (10/30/1010 by loveguy because: Formula

Supervisor if thats what you think ah well , you still didn't answer so now you try to divert the question come on the concrete COWBOY

You didn't answer the question HOW MANY of your steelframed building fires started after being hit by a large passenger aircraft.

I gave you a link to the Kader Toy Factory Fires.

Here is another challenge pick your best shot at a steel framed building fire I dont care how long the fire burned give us details of the name of the building and where.

Lets see if you have the GUTS to answer I dont think you will!!!!

edit on 30-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Oh, I was wondering what you were badgering me about. I guess I skipped over this post. Sorry.
You and I both know that what you are asking is found in historical statistics, that I don't get paid to review. I'm going to entertain your comments about my links, like you entertain my links with your comments...Why should I entertain your "challenge" when you won't entertain a comment about my link(s)?

Anyway, This thread is fizzling-out because of who knows why? Here on the last pages, it's just you and me. It's pretty lame for someone to start a thread and then leave it to the wolves? You seem to be in it for the long haul...Maybe you can badger me on a similar thread? I'll see you around?

OK. here is a narrarated version that's easy to follow, for me anyhow.



Video w/ narraration

reply to post by loveguy


Both tower collapses start at the impact area BOTH! The towers were hit a different heights NOW if it were a controlled demolition explosives would need to have been planted at all FLOOR LEVELS because you would not now what floors the planes would hit.

Even if limited to top 30-40 floors thats lots of work look how long it takes to plant explosives for a controlled demo.

The weakest part of the tower design was the floor system 5/8" bolts holding the trusses to the walls,so area at impact weakend by both the impact and fire, huge loads above the impact area you see in both collapse videos the area above the impact drops as a complete unit you can deny that.

Thats why it looks controlled.

So HOW about you giving a building fire to compare to WTC TOWERS so you can see why you are wrong!

reply to post by wmd_2008

What makes you think they did not know what floor the planes were going to impact at? Controlled demolition...all three WTC buildings...Multiple steel building collapsing because of fire..on the same day...for the first time in history...ya, oky doky...

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by loveguy

 

The weakest part of the tower design was the floor system 5/8" bolts holding the trusses to the walls,so area at impact weakend by both the impact and fire, huge loads above the impact area you see in both collapse videos the area above the impact drops as a complete unit you can deny that.

Thats why it looks controlled.

So HOW about you giving a building fire to compare to WTC TOWERS so you can see why you are wrong!

Now do you see why I brought-up a suspension bridge, Mr. Igotdegrees?
Here's a video to sober the mood...

Here's one you can study before you go and tell somebody how to build so it won't crumble into dust; because of a little hole in the facade, (I said facade, not structure) and the ensuing fires which burn while the water is cut-off at ground level preceding impact of a building that had crumbled hours prior. I'm going to quiz you on where the girl is from, and where she is giving her speech...Enjoy. Then I'm going to ask you the guys name in the second video. I've laid an assignment on your desk...I've done everything but point you somewhere else.

What you are asking yet again, I've answered in a previous post. You are welcome to find it. It's not too far away...

reply to post by loveguy


What that doesn't compensate for is the idea of failure on the inside of the building prior to the outer structure failing. There's one video I particularly like because it shows rumbling about ten seconds or so before the tower comes down. That implies something large and heavy was crashing down (or as a lot here would think, that explosives were used, even though there wasn't a boom to accompany it). Then, with little support, the outer load-bearing walls could not take the weight and collapsed downward. You can also tell that the initiating collapse was quick, while the progressive collapse on the rest of the way down encountered resistance. That's why it fell at a few seconds less than free-fall speed (by the way, close enough doesn't cut it here. If it's not free-fall, it's not free-fall).

Also, firefighters did report that parts of the structure had been damaged on WTC 7, not just the facade. The damage from large pieces of intact falling North Tower is not something to take lightly.

reply to post by wmd_2008

The weakest part of the tower design was the floor system 5/8" bolts holding the trusses to the walls,so area at impact weakend by both the impact and fire, huge loads above the impact area you see in both collapse videos the area above the impact drops as a complete unit you can deny that.

Thats why it looks controlled

That explanation simply highlights the simplistic nature of your thinking. So many other factors must be accounted for. The undamaged floors, each comprising of 287 columns, should have provided enormous resistance. Instead though, they provided virtually none. WTC2 collapsed, according to the Commission Report in 10 seconds, conservatively, I would say about 12, albeit for any building to fall symmetrically and at virtual freefall all supporting columns have to fail simultaneously and removed *ahead* of the collapse wave, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse. Only in controlled demolitions where resistance to the collapse is equal around the circumference of the building can a symmetrical and near-freefall collapse occur. Also, keep in mind that the WTC towers had a 10x load bearing redundancy and the strength of the structures became progressively stronger towards the bottom of the towers which amounts to a massive loss of energy. In the videos, you also see the top-section of WTC2 pivot outwards, which means it couldn't have collapsed through the lower-section. These are just a few reasons, in my opinion, why a gravity-driven progressive collapse is unlikely. Here's a little thought experiment. If you dropped the falling mass of WTC2 from a height without anything below it apart from thin-air it would fall at pretty much the same rate as it did during the collapse. To think that the towers collapsed from gravity alone seems to be at odds with basic physics. At least to me it does, but then again, my *only* expertise lies with computer consoles.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by loveguy

 

What that doesn't compensate for is the idea of failure on the inside of the building prior to the outer structure failing. There's one video I particularly like because it shows rumbling about ten seconds or so before the tower comes down. That implies something large and heavy was crashing down (or as a lot here would think, that explosives were used, even though there wasn't a boom to accompany it). Then, with little support, the outer load-bearing walls could not take the weight and collapsed downward. You can also tell that the initiating collapse was quick, while the progressive collapse on the rest of the way down encountered resistance. That's why it fell at a few seconds less than free-fall speed (by the way, close enough doesn't cut it here. If it's not free-fall, it's not free-fall).

Also, firefighters did report that parts of the structure had been damaged on WTC 7, not just the facade. The damage from large pieces of intact falling North Tower is not something to take lightly.

How thoughtful of you to provide a link to the video you are describing? Isn't this on the page you post your posts?...
"You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter." Sorry for being harsh, I'm not going to try being clairvoyant. Please post something that makes your post show some kind of merit? I really want to appreciate what you bring to the table, but I won't eat bread without butter.

reply to post by loveguy


Apologies. It was a video I saw early on when I came to ATS a few months ago. I'll try to find it and edit it into this post.

That was easier than I had hoped. Here it is:

Originally posted by Nathan-D
That explanation simply highlights the simplistic nature of your thinking. So many other factors must be accounted for. The undamaged floors, each comprising of 287 columns, should have provided enormous resistance. Instead though, they provided virtually none. WTC2 collapsed, according to the Commission Report in 10 seconds, conservatively, I would say about 12, albeit for any building to fall symmetrically and at virtual freefall all supporting columns have to fail simultaneously and removed *ahead* of the collapse wave, otherwise undamaged columns would create resistance in the collapse and would cause the building to either stop collapsing, or fall to the path of least resistance causing a non-symmetrical collapse. Only in controlled demolitions where resistance to the collapse is equal around the circumference of the building can a symmetrical and near-freefall collapse occur.

Not necessarily. The tower was ejecting itself outward as it collapsed down rather than collapsing inward. If it had imploded on itself it would have encountered far more resistance.

Also, keep in mind that the WTC towers had a 10x load bearing redundancy and the strength of the structures became progressively stronger towards the bottom of the towers which amounts to a massive loss of energy. In the videos, you also see the top-section of WTC2 pivot outwards, which means it couldn't have collapsed through the lower-section.

It actually did somewhat on the lower section experience less collapse. That is how some firefighters were able to survive.

These are just a few reasons, in my opinion, why a gravity-driven progressive collapse is unlikely. Here's a little thought experiment. If you dropped the falling mass of WTC2 from a height without anything below it apart from thin-air it would fall at pretty much the same rate as it did during the collapse. To think that the towers collapsed from gravity alone seems to be at odds with basic physics. At least to me it does, but then again, my *only* expertise lies with computer consoles.

Gravity along with momentum is a great force. The top of WTC 2 did indeed pivot outward. In a thread I started, I found a video that proves that fairly conclusively. It did, however, have time to crush down approximately 4 or 5 floors from what I could tell, meaning that that was now that much collapsing weight being pushed down on the tower below. Also, the pivoting top didn't disappear before it separated. It had to fall diagonally through the tower, helping to bring it down IMO.

reply to post by Varemia

Gravity along with momentum is a great force. The top of WTC 2 did indeed pivot outward. In a thread I started, I found a video that proves that fairly conclusively. It did, however, have time to crush down approximately 4 or 5 floors from what I could tell, meaning that that was now that much collapsing weight being pushed down on the tower below.

As mentioned, the buildings were designed with a 10x load bearing redundancy which means the steel frame structure should have bore a huge amount of resistance although anyone can see that it was weakened to have almost none. There is no known physical basis for a solid 500,000-ton structure to crush itself completely into dust at acceleration of virtual free-fall, without deceleration, without jolts, without any asymmetry, even providing the seemingly impossible simultaneous weakening of all supports on any given floor, or without the falling mass falling to the path of least resistance. Also, you say that you think only 5 floors collapsing bulldozed through the lower section. Those 5 floors probably only represented about 3% of the entire tower's mass given the tower's strength and mass diminished further up, which represents a massive loss of kinetic energy, and if you're going to say that those 5 floors gained momentum by crushing the floors below thus adding further weight to the falling mass then where are the all floors that crushed the towers in the derby pile? Shouldn't they be stacked on top of each other? More importantly, if those 5 floors were dropped somewhere else at the same height with nothing below them they would have fallen at almost the same times as the buildings fell. In conclusion, I have to say that I cannot see the logic of your arguments, which seem to be contradicted by quite elementary physical principles. I'm afraid your whole case appears misconceived and founded on fantasises to me.

Not necessarily. The tower was ejecting itself outward as it collapsed down rather than collapsing inward. If it had imploded on itself it would have encountered far more resistance.

Does gravity eject huge steel-columns outwards laterally?

reply to post by Nathan-D


I think gravity does indeed do that when the equation presented is not a simple "mass plus mass equals this." The towers were not solid. They were core, truss, and wall. Evidence has shown that the trusses were sagging prior to the collapse of the towers. You can look it up and see that the side of the tower was literally bowing inward. If you don't want to look it up, request it and I'll post some examples.

The problem is, we're talking about tons of steel here along with concrete slabs and shale. When rock gets crushed, it pulverizes, making the "dust." I know that if I take a small sandy rock and throw it at the ground, it will make a big plume. That's the basics of what happened in the towers times the amount of material.

Also, if you think about it, you have the inside of the tower ripping the bolts out of the trusses and twisting apart the core on the way down. The mass can't stay inside, so as it falls downward, it has nowhere to go but out. The best example I can think of is if you had a rectangular tube and a pressure pushing down from the top moving downward with a space between the solid tube and the crushing force. The stuff not contained in the tube will eject outward.

What is essentially being debated here is who can better imagine what happened that day. No math, no structural failure expertise, and no real science. All the papers I've found that include math and science support the official collapse story, which means they are instantaneously ignored by all 9/11 conspiracy theorists on ATS.

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

What makes you think they did not know what floor the planes were going to impact at? Controlled demolition...all three WTC buildings...Multiple steel building collapsing because of fire..on the same day...for the first time in history...ya, oky doky...

Well you tell me you seem to have known the hi jackers so what did they tell you before the fights did they tell you exactly what floors they would hit

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by Varemia

 

Gravity along with momentum is a great force. The top of WTC 2 did indeed pivot outward. In a thread I started, I found a video that proves that fairly conclusively. It did, however, have time to crush down approximately 4 or 5 floors from what I could tell, meaning that that was now that much collapsing weight being pushed down on the tower below.

As mentioned, the buildings were designed with a 10x load bearing redundancy which means the steel frame structure should have bore a huge amount of resistance although anyone can see that it was weakened to have almost none. There is no known physical basis for a solid 500,000-ton structure to crush itself completely into dust at acceleration of virtual free-fall, without deceleration, without jolts, without any asymmetry, even providing the seemingly impossible simultaneous weakening of all supports on any given floor, or without the falling mass falling to the path of least resistance. Also, you say that you think only 5 floors collapsing bulldozed through the lower section. Those 5 floors probably only represented about 3% of the entire tower's mass given the tower's strength and mass diminished further up, which represents a massive loss of kinetic energy, and if you're going to say that those 5 floors gained momentum by crushing the floors below thus adding further weight to the falling mass then where are the all floors that crushed the towers in the derby pile? Shouldn't they be stacked on top of each other? More importantly, if those 5 floors were dropped somewhere else at the same height with nothing below them they would have fallen at almost the same times as the buildings fell. In conclusion, I have to say that I cannot see the logic of your arguments, which seem to be contradicted by quite elementary physical principles. I'm afraid your whole case appears misconceived and founded on fantasises to me.

Not necessarily. The tower was ejecting itself outward as it collapsed down rather than collapsing inward. If it had imploded on itself it would have encountered far more resistance.

Does gravity eject huge steel-columns outwards laterally?

edit on 1-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

10x times redundancy dont make me laugh! SHOW me were you found that in the design documentation
Look at both collapse videos BOTH start to fall at the IMPACT point South Tower fell first although hit second strange but then it did have a FAR GREATER load about the impact area. AT least 32,000 tons of concrete and 8,000 tons of steel not including any dead load of lift machinery office furnitue etc,etc. Most of the very fine dust you see is from SHEET ROCK thousands of sq mtrs in the building or did you forget that.

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

What makes you think they did not know what floor the planes were going to impact at? Controlled demolition...all three WTC buildings...Multiple steel building collapsing because of fire..on the same day...for the first time in history...ya, oky doky...

Not this again if you are going to quote something at least give CORRECT INFORMATION!.

First case of 2 TUBE IN TUBE STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS being struck by LARGE PASSENGER AIRCRAFT at HIGH SPEED which inflicted STRUCTURAL DAMAGE and also FIRE/THERMAL DAMAGE, Causing total collapse.

The third tower FIRE DAMAGE and STRUCTURAL DAMAGE due to other building collapse, Poor STEELWORK FRAMING layout resulted in fatal flaw in design this caused total collapse.

You show me ANY OTHER building which survived all of the above DONT THINK YOU CAN!

ALSO dont be STUPID and quote Empire State Crash.
Not tube in tube has heavy masonry outer skin, small aircraft lower speed.

reply to post by Varemia


OK. I have a few questions for you. Which is most likely to withstand a crushing blow; A series of 1/2 inch thick steel I-beams laid about four feet apart going around the outer edges of the tower, (about an acre in over-all area) tied-in double at the corners roughly 14 feet tall; or a two foot thick steel reinforced box (four corners) roughly 14 feet tall, 60 feet by 60 feet by 30 feet? The floor is welded at each four foot joint, and tied-into the central core by reinforced steel concrete. To lend some perspective...Lets say that two-thirds of the floor is on the floor underneath its normal location. Feel at liberty to equate the hole made in the steel encased-outer wall(s) and floor.

If you're like me, you'd say that the central core would withstand the greatest blow? This central core is the spine of the entire structure.

In your minds eye I'd like to ask you to picture a tree limb (heavy end down) being dropped vertically 14 feet to the ground. Is the weight of that limb enough to stick it into the ground? And when in your minds eye it doesn't stick deep enough to stay vertical, it then tilts to the side bearing the most weight because it's top heavy. Because the branch of the limb nolonger has to bear the entire weight of the limb.

If the outer walls give, especially where the plane hole was made, can't you picture the limb falling horizontally, according to physics, the tower should have fell-off the edge of the tower where the hole was made?

In the towers, the brunt of the weight is at the central core. What needs to happen in order to break the spine of the tower so that the walls can even fall? So that the floors can progress downward at a steady rate, to keep-up with the walls so that they don't tilt? The central core has to be compromised the entire height of the tower.

How hard is it to pop up through an elevator ceiling and drill a bunch of depth charges? Doing this can be a calibration of careful long-term planning and execution? It's not impossible, nor is it beyond the scope of reality.

Painting a state of the art "fire resistant paint" on the beams can be within scope? This very well could have been achieved during construction? I don't have any links to back this conjecture up. I do however see how the world changed the very minute Kennedy was no longer a hindrance...

And there was a special interest group assembled to appease the sheeple...

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Nathan-D

 

I think gravity does indeed do that when the equation presented is not a simple "mass plus mass equals this." The towers were not solid. They were core, truss, and wall. Evidence has shown that the trusses were sagging prior to the collapse of the towers. You can look it up and see that the side of the tower was literally bowing inward. If you don't want to look it up, request it and I'll post some examples.

The problem is, we're talking about tons of steel here along with concrete slabs and shale. When rock gets crushed, it pulverizes, making the "dust." I know that if I take a small sandy rock and throw it at the ground, it will make a big plume. That's the basics of what happened in the towers times the amount of material.

Also, if you think about it, you have the inside of the tower ripping the bolts out of the trusses and twisting apart the core on the way down. The mass can't stay inside, so as it falls downward, it has nowhere to go but out. The best example I can think of is if you had a rectangular tube and a pressure pushing down from the top moving downward with a space between the solid tube and the crushing force. The stuff not contained in the tube will eject outward.

What is essentially being debated here is who can better imagine what happened that day. No math, no structural failure expertise, and no real science. All the papers I've found that include math and science support the official collapse story, which means they are instantaneously ignored by all 9/11 conspiracy theorists on ATS.

Uh oh. Did you really mean truss?

"All the papers I've found that include math and science support the official collapse story, which means they are instantaneously ignored by all 9/11 conspiracy theorists on ATS."

And I was just starting to listen to your unique point of view. So in short, you admit you didn't review the last video I provided for study? That you only review "papers?"

Haven't you ever had an employer inquire how you'd do a certain task more efficiently? Or did you always just do as instructed?

reply to post by wmd_2008

10x times redundancy dont make me laugh! SHOW me were you found that in the design documentation.

I may have overestimated its load-bearing redundancy. I'll re-flick through the documentation.

Most of the very fine dust you see is from SHEET ROCK thousands of sq mtrs in the building or did you forget that.

If most of the fine dust is simply just sheet rock then where did the towers go? Two-one-hundred storey buildings was reduced to an approximately 5 storey rubble pile.

Look at both collapse videos BOTH start to fall at the IMPACT point South Tower fell first although hit second strange but then it did have a FAR GREATER load about the impact area.

Yes, I've noticed that. You'll also notice that the top-section of the tower pivots outwards meaning that portion of the tower could not have collapsed through the lower section, since the forward momentum that the 'tipping top' has gained acting as a single unit can't just stop without a equal opposite force to counter it's momentum. Thus we are left with the hugely unlikely theory that only a few floors crushed the comparatively stronger tower below at essentially freefall without falling to the path of least resistance. I know you'll probably respond by saying but it wasn't "essentially freefall". All the videos of the collapse I've seen, I've clocked the towers' collapses at around 10-12 seconds, which is corroborated by the Commission Report (yes I know, not a scentific body) and NIST admit the initiation collapse occurred at essentially freefall, though I think they shy away from giving an definitive time for the entirety of the collapse from start-to-finish.

AT least 32,000 tons of concrete and 8,000 tons of steel not including any dead load of lift machinery office furnitue etc,etc.

Right...

Originally posted by Nathan-D
If most of the fine dust is simply just sheet rock then where did the towers go? Two-one-hundred storey buildings was reduced to an approximately 5 storey rubble pile.

Try underground. There was a lot of space down there don't ya know?

reply to post by loveguy


Well, the towers were not trees. The top of the tower DID fall over the edge, at least for the South Tower. Just look at the thread I started about it: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Still, when the tower began to fall, it didn't just TIMBER! on down to the ground, it bent and twisted steel that was still attached and blew out the rock and concrete in-between it all. When so many things were ripped out of place and began to fall downward, the weight overcame the supports below, and the collapse was initiated.

It's not hard to apply explosives, but I'm just saying that it's not the most likely scenario in my eyes. I agree that it is a possibility.

If you remember, the entire core wasn't even compromised on the South Tower. Part of it managed to stand for a few seconds after the tower around it had come down and ripped through it. Demolitions don't quite explain that. It implies that even IF demolitions were used to initiate the collapse, that the progressive downward energy was indeed enough to continue to rip apart the steel connections.

Also, I did watch your video. I said that the reason for the difference between top-down "demolitions" and the towers was that the inside of the tower was beginning to collapse. I even posted a video that showed a silent rumbling, indicative of something hitting something else grounded pretty hard taking place ten or so seconds before the collapse began. That tells me at least that the tower had begun collapsing before it was visible on the outside. I recall in a video I saw as well that the fire department got no communications from firefighters just before the collapse who were right near the impact floors. That could indicate that the floors had already begun to collapse, and that it was taking a few seconds for the weight to become too much for the intact floors not heated by fire. Then, once they gave way, the outer structure at the impact sites crumpled and came down.