The History of High Rise Collapses

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Varemia

 

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

Most likely, considering that those are two factors proven to have been there at the time. So far no one has proved that things like thermite were present in controlled forms. Only ONE, count it, one person has claimed to have evidence of it, and no one has replicated his results. In fact, others have refuted his results by testing dust themselves, finding minimal reactions (if I remember correctly. Can't cite a source at the moment on that). The only people who support the dust findings about thermite are the ones who rely on his claimed data. Data that hasn't been reproduced through testing anywhere else, kind of like the Bigfoot DNA that never got sent to other labs for verification. It's a little fishy.

The only evidence for explosives comes from testimony about explosive noises, which are not inherently explosives, especially controlled explosives. The vast majority of explosive claims comes from the impact of the airliner and the collapse of the buildings. The only one that I remain curious about is the firemen who claimed to have seen a ring of flashes around the base (tenth floor or so) of the trade center before it collapsed. Unfortunately, all videos that show the base of the tower are mysteriously edited or glitchy. THAT is where I feel there may be a conspiracy, be it from the conspiracy theorists themselves editing the video to keep people from seeing no evidence of demolitions or from a malicious secret government agency that wanted to unite America and further its economic interests.

The fact that so many here seem to believe they know what would happen to a building like the Trade Centers when an airliner hits it is preposterous. As far as I know, very few here have engineering degrees, and even fewer have actually studied the true mechanics of a collapse within the Trade Centers.

Originally posted by ANOK

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.

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.

edit on 12/24/2010 by ANOK because: typo

So I am not the only one who noticed this.

Originally posted by Varemia
Most likely, considering that those are two factors proven to have been there at the time.

Just because they were there is doesn't make them the culprit.

That's a bit of a naive opinion.

The first tower to collapse was on fire for less than an hour.

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

Open air, uncontrolled, fire will never reach their max temperatures. Objects in a fire, steel columns etc., will never reach the same temperature as the fire. You should learn about thermal exchange and this would become obvious to you.

Even IF the fires did cause some collapsing it would not result in a complete global collapse. 80% of the buildings were still intact and would have offered mass resistance to collapse, after all they were very redundantly built in order to remain standing.

Again the main problem with understanding why the OS is wrong is understanding basic physics, and knowing how to put it in context with what happened. Look at the big picture instead of trying to debunk individual points out of context.