The History of High Rise Collapses

Originally posted by Nathan-D
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...

You may have over estimated what you mean is you put a wild guess in for an an answer as redundancy is increased so does the COST of the building!

Most of the vast cloud of dust that you see during collaspe will be sheetrock COMMON SENSE would tell you that, the floor area of the Towers was one acre was your approx 5 storey pile of rubble contained in one acre NO!

Re the South Tower collpase the tower started to fall towards the elevation impacted by the aircraft but if you continue to watch the rotation stops and it fell vertically how, the framework on the other side resisted the rotation as that area was less damaged.

The floors of the Towers an acre in area were held in place by 5/8" bolts each floor had a minimum of 750 tons of concrete that doesn't include the steel or anything else on the floors lft equipment, office equipment etc.When the collapse started the weak point was the perimeter bolts.

When the top section fell the MASS was 32,000 tons minimum just concrete and steel nothing else included.

You can see the start of the collapse but you cant see the exact end due to the dust. Also the top of the building would have finished on the top of the rubble pile so the total fall height is not the same as the building height is it! Which all the freefall speeds are calculated with.

Also watch the videos how does rubble falling just after the collapse fall faster than the building if the building falls at freefall????

reply to post by wmd_2008

Re the South Tower collapse the tower started to fall towards the elevation impacted by the aircraft but if you continue to watch the rotation stops and it fell vertically how, the framework on the other side resisted the rotation as that area was less damaged.

That's a bit vague and conjectural, isn't it? Where in the videos do you see the rotation stop and it start to fall vertically? The top was leaning quite considerably and it should have kept pivoting away from its centre of mass. I am quite sure that the sheer weight and rotational force of the single unit would have easily overwhelmed any resistance from the undamaged side. The idea that it could have stopped rotating when it reached this angle because it encountered resistance from the undamaged side which stopped the rotation is quite unbelievable. I would need to see some proof of this. The videos clearly show that the top continues to pivot until it disappears into a cloud of dust. I really don't see how it could have pivoted outwards and then ignored some very basic laws of physics and miraculously straightened up to fall vertically straight down through the building. Even if the top did smash through the building below (which I can assure you is amazing, since the buildings held up five times that amount of weight everyday) the chances that both towers would fall straight down in perfect symmetry without deceleration, at the speed they did and to both have their cores destroyed in toto is truly miraculous.

Also watch the videos how does rubble falling just after the collapse fall faster than the building if the building falls at freefall?

I didn't say the building fell at freefall, I said close to freefall, 10-12 seconds. As far as I'm aware, freefall acceleration would be around 9.2 seconds.

You can see the start of the collapse but you cant see the exact end due to the dust. Also the top of the building would have finished on the top of the rubble pile.

And where is the top in the rubble pile?

Most of the vast cloud of dust that you see during collapse will be sheetrock COMMON SENSE would tell you that, the floor area of the Towers was one acre.

I guess I just don't have any common sense. Two-one hundred storey buildings being reduced to a 5 storey rubble pile due to the floors collapsing on top of each other, to me, seems unbelievably far-fetched. I didn't know gravity possessed this all-destroying power.

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.

Good eye. Now do you see what the problem with the NIST and the 9-11 commission is?

Originally posted by Varemia

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.

.
Yes, I checked-out your thread. All three WTCs 1-2-&7 did go timber on down to the ground. They didn't fall horizontally, they fell vertically, along the path of the MOST resistance. The top of the South tower did not fall over the edge, if it did, then how did the entire structure wind-up over the edge also? Do you understand the reasoning?

reply to post by loveguy


No, I'm really not understanding your reasoning there. Only the very top portion toppled over. The rest of the tower collapsed in on itself. Since the lower structure was still completely intact, it had no potential to be able to topple over. It was simply too strong. The only path was down, where the crushing debris was tearing it apart from the inside out.

reply to post by Nathan-D



Hi Nathan-D

Some nice close up views check it out will be on later today/tomorrow to see what you see in these.

Interesting thread. So what kind of damage did the b52 bomber do to the empire state building? Did it at least partially collapse or floors cave in?

Originally posted by Cassius666
Interesting thread. So what kind of damage did the b52 bomber do to the empire state building? Did it at least partially collapse or floors cave in?

The Empire State Building was very different in all aspects. Read this comparison:

vincentdunn.com...

reply to post by Varemia


Ah Varemilia, along with hooper PBL and dave keeping the conversation vivid. You mean it was older than the WTC complex? The creators promised it would be able to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet.(the WTC)

reply to post by Cassius666


No, he means that the ESB was an entirely different form of construction. Stone, steel framing to include interior walls, not just the center core and the exterior wall.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Cassius666
Interesting thread. So what kind of damage did the b52 bomber do to the empire state building? Did it at least partially collapse or floors cave in?

The Empire State Building was very different in all aspects. Read this comparison:

vincentdunn.com...

Skyscrapers cannot be different in all respects. All skyscrapers must hold themselves up. So they must be strong enough at every level to support the STATIC LOAD above that level and the WIND.

Why can't we get data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of both buildings. I can't find that information on any skyscraper in the world. But gravity works the same way everywhere and structural engineers must make them hold themselves up.

But I don't hear any structural engineers talking about it. How could the top 15% of the mass accelerate the 85% of stationary mass designed to hold itself and accelerate it at more than 50% of Gravitational Acceleration? So why don't we have data that simple? Where is any data on the horizontal beams that were in the core?

There had to be enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to support another 29 stories so how could fire weaken it to the point of collapse in LESS THAN ONE HOUR?

But we aren't told how many TONS of STEEL were there! WHY NOT?

Where are the engineering schools demanding that information?

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by wmd_2008
I didn't say the building fell at freefall, I said close to freefall, 10-12 seconds. As far as I'm aware, freefall acceleration would be around 9.2 seconds.

All sources agree the north tower came down in less than 18 seconds. So the building had to accelerate at more than 50% of G. So how does mass designed to hold itself up accelerate that fast?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


I have no idea. I mean, the point of it was to describe how the basic high-rise construction of the Empire State Building was much better designed for upper floor fire. Plus, FIRE ALONE DID NOT TAKE DOWN THE TRADE CENTERS. I wish some of you would understand that for a few seconds at least. I mean, the caps should not be necessary for you to see it. The buildings were hit by really big planes, much larger than what hit the Empire State Building for one, and THEN there were fires. Something about the design of the buildings was not holding up to the conditions, and they fell. Nothing anyone says here about precedent has any merit because no building like the WTC buildings ever got hit by a jetliner. Also, it goes without saying that any talk about how impossible something is or looks is based entirely on non-professional opinion since the towers were of a unique construction and predicting what would happen when a jetliner hits is crazy.

I'll be using these cases/links, thanks

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

I have no idea. I mean, the point of it was to describe how the basic high-rise construction of the Empire State Building was much better designed for upper floor fire. Plus, FIRE ALONE DID NOT TAKE DOWN THE TRADE CENTERS. I wish some of you would understand that for a few seconds at least. I mean, the caps should not be necessary for you to see it. The buildings were hit by really big planes, much larger than what hit the Empire State Building for one, and THEN there were fires. Something about the design of the buildings was not holding up to the conditions, and they fell. Nothing anyone says here about precedent has any merit because no building like the WTC buildings ever got hit by a jetliner. Also, it goes without saying that any talk about how impossible something is or looks is based entirely on non-professional opinion since the towers were of a unique construction and predicting what would happen when a jetliner hits is crazy.

What horsesh!t!!!!

It depends on which debunker you talk to how important the structural damage from the impact was versus the fire. Both in combination could not make that much mass accelerate down that fast when it was designed to hold itself up.

But the amount of steel is relevant to both the impact damage and the fire but we don't have the info to analyze either. The plane was less than 200 tons and 34 tons of that jet fuel. But the south tower ONLY DEFLECTED 15 INCHES even though the aircraft was doing 540 mph. So how much mass had to be there to absorb that much momentum?

FIFTEEN INCHES!!!

FIFTEEN INCHES!!!

FIFTEEN INCHES!!!

FIFTEEN INCHES!!!

FIFTEEN INCHES!!!

With NINE YEARS of TALK about this how often do we hear about those FIFTEEN INCHES?

That small a number doesn't help people BELIEVE in the Kool Aide delusions.

So where is the data on the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level?

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Do you realize that the plane didn't impact a solid block, making the factors entirely different? A great deal of the plane broke windows and flew through air inside the building. That changes how much the whole building deflects.

reply to post by Varemia


And therefore the collapse was due to random fire and damage is what you want to say.

reply to post by Cassius666

Interesting thread. So what kind of damage did the b52 bomber do to the empire state building? Did it at least partially collapse or floors cave in?

One problem Sherlock - B52 did not exist in 1945 !

Other problem is impact energy

767 weigh about 15 times that of the B25 which hit Empire State . Were travelling 2 1/2 - 3 times that of B25

Energy is determined from the SQUARE of velocity - doubling it results in 4 times the energy

Factoring together find that 767 hitting WTC exerted some 100 times the energy of Empire State

Outer shell of ESB is heavy masonry - Limestone about 10 inches thick . WTC had lattice of thin steel beams
bolted/welded together in sections

Even then B25 carved a 20 foot hole in building shell, one motor punched all way through to emerge out other side

.At approximately 9:49 AM, the B-25 plunged into the 78th and 79th floors of the skyscraper some 975 ft (295 m) above ground level. The plane impacted at an estimated speed of 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) making the building shake under the force of the collision. The high-speed crash also caused the plane's fuel tanks to explode, sending a fireball 100 ft (30 m) high and releasing blazing gasoline down the facade of the building. Sheets of flame also raced through the maze of hallways and stairwells inside the building, reaching at least as far down as the 75th floor.

The crash tore a hole about 18 ft (5.5 m) wide by 20 ft (6 m) tall in the 34th Street exterior of the Empire State Building. While the 78th and 79th floors bore the brunt of the damage, one of the B-25's engines fell down an elevator shaft and set off a major fire in the basement. The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue.

Video of crash

www.youtube.com...

Image what 100 times impact energy can do to building structure

Add in fuel load - B25 max fuel load is 975 gallons, 767 on 9/11 had over 9,000 gallons. The B25 was not even fully fuelled. Avgas burned off quickly - fires were almost out when FDNY reached impact floors

reply to post by Cassius666

Interesting thread. So what kind of damage did the b52 bomber do to the empire state building? Did it at least partially collapse or floors cave in?

One problem Sherlock - B52 did not exist in 1945 !

Other problem is impact energy

767 weigh about 15 times that of the B25 which hit Empire State . Were travelling 2 1/2 - 3 times that of B25

Energy is determined from the SQUARE of velocity - doubling it results in 4 times the energy

Factoring together find that 767 hitting WTC exerted some 100 times the energy of Empire State

Outer shell of ESB is heavy masonry - Limestone about 10 inches thick . WTC had lattice of thin steel beams
bolted/welded together in sections

Even then B25 carved a 20 foot hole in building shell, one motor punched all way through to emerge out other side

.At approximately 9:49 AM, the B-25 plunged into the 78th and 79th floors of the skyscraper some 975 ft (295 m) above ground level. The plane impacted at an estimated speed of 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) making the building shake under the force of the collision. The high-speed crash also caused the plane's fuel tanks to explode, sending a fireball 100 ft (30 m) high and releasing blazing gasoline down the facade of the building. Sheets of flame also raced through the maze of hallways and stairwells inside the building, reaching at least as far down as the 75th floor.

The crash tore a hole about 18 ft (5.5 m) wide by 20 ft (6 m) tall in the 34th Street exterior of the Empire State Building. While the 78th and 79th floors bore the brunt of the damage, one of the B-25's engines fell down an elevator shaft and set off a major fire in the basement. The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue.

Video of crash

www.youtube.com...

Image what 100 times impact energy can do to building structure

Add in fuel load - B25 max fuel load is 975 gallons, 767 on 9/11 had over 9,000 gallons. The B25 was not even fully fuelled. Avgas burned off quickly - fires were almost out when FDNY reached impact floors

reply to post by Cassius666

Interesting thread. So what kind of damage did the b52 bomber do to the empire state building? Did it at least partially collapse or floors cave in?

One problem Sherlock - B52 did not exist in 1945 !

Other problem is impact energy

767 weigh about 15 times that of the B25 which hit Empire State . Were travelling 2 1/2 - 3 times that of B25

Energy is determined from the SQUARE of velocity - doubling it results in 4 times the energy

Factoring together find that 767 hitting WTC exerted some 100 times the energy of Empire State

Outer shell of ESB is heavy masonry - Limestone about 10 inches thick . WTC had lattice of thin steel beams
bolted/welded together in sections

Even then B25 carved a 20 foot hole in building shell, one motor punched all way through to emerge out other side

.At approximately 9:49 AM, the B-25 plunged into the 78th and 79th floors of the skyscraper some 975 ft (295 m) above ground level. The plane impacted at an estimated speed of 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) making the building shake under the force of the collision. The high-speed crash also caused the plane's fuel tanks to explode, sending a fireball 100 ft (30 m) high and releasing blazing gasoline down the facade of the building. Sheets of flame also raced through the maze of hallways and stairwells inside the building, reaching at least as far down as the 75th floor.

The crash tore a hole about 18 ft (5.5 m) wide by 20 ft (6 m) tall in the 34th Street exterior of the Empire State Building. While the 78th and 79th floors bore the brunt of the damage, one of the B-25's engines fell down an elevator shaft and set off a major fire in the basement. The other engine hurtled across the building and tore through seven walls before emerging from the 33rd Street side of the tower. The debris crashed through the roof of a thirteen-story building across the street where another fire erupted. Other heavy wreckage, including the landing gear, also caused damage to the Empire State and nearby buildings while Stan Lomax reportedly saw part of a wing catapulting towards Madison Avenue.

Video of crash

www.youtube.com...

Image what 100 times impact energy can do to building structure

Add in fuel load - B25 max fuel load is 975 gallons, 767 on 9/11 had over 9,000 gallons. The B25 was not even fully fuelled. Avgas burned off quickly - fires were almost out when FDNY reached impact floors

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by loveguy

 

No, I'm really not understanding your reasoning there. Only the very top portion toppled over. The rest of the tower collapsed in on itself. Since the lower structure was still completely intact, it had no potential to be able to topple over. It was simply too strong. The only path was down, where the crushing debris was tearing it apart from the inside out.

Here's the thing, according to the official story the top section basically dropped as one whole and it's weight and momentum was too much for the rest of the (undamaged) building to withstand.

The bottom section could not have 'collapsed in on itself', as it was undamaged, and there is no reason it would collapse independent of the top (or even dependent).

When we look at the collapse we can see the top section tilting at about 15 degrees, then the rest of the building starts to collapse independent of the top faster than the top was rotating, this caused the top to stop it's angular momentum and drop straight down. That is the only way the top could have stopped rotating and drop straight down. Just think about it.

The official story cannot be correct for WTC 2, they didn't even address the problem, conveniently. The only explanation for it comes from a paper by Greening, which unfortunately relies on a lot of the same assumptions NIST did. Unprovable assumption such as the plane damaged the inner core, fires were hot enough to weaken steel to failure, floor trusses can sag AND pull in larger outer columns at the SAME TIME.

We should really be asking why the top did what it did in the first place. There was not enough physical damage from the planes, and the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel (proven facts, don't even waste our time arguing these points, there are many threads already covering this). The towers should have remained standing.