Building collapse from one floor removal IDENTICAL FREEFALL to WTC tower collapse.

reply to post by manmental


Excellent video.

I've recently come around to the possibility of the OS being true. I'm on the fence. Like you, I'm still convinced the US intelligence community knew all about it and could have even been more involved than that.

I'd say it's 50-50 as to which is the true story. Both possibilities are just a little too improbable to fully believe.

Well, I'll have to admit that was interesting, but there were certainly no side cables pulling on either one of the WTC towers. Why this demo method was chosen I suppose would have to be further researched from the information within the text in the video.

Hey mental...

Your building didnt explode outwards from the top throwing massive steel and concrete sections 400ft horizontally away from the building....so no, not the same...not alike....not even close.
Do me a favour mate....

Go back and look at the WTC1 and 2 coming down on youtube.....

Take careful note of the top clearly exploding upwards...yes upwards and outwards.

Ask yourself "Does this look like a gravity collapse, where everything fall downward??

Given that it most certainly doesnt, I think the next logical question would be "Does it appear that explosives were used??

I concluded that no force could cause the building to explode outwards other than explosions...

See?

Easy!!

reply to post by benoni


Upwards and outwards of course it was, what BS, can you explain why the towers started to collapse just at the point of the impacts and the fact that the South Tower although hit second collapsed FIRST funny that it had the highest load above impact point and it COLLAPSED FIRST who would have thought that.

The OP's video is to show the principle that a PANCAKE collapse can happen and if the mass of floors above the damaged area is great enough it will happen.

It was shown because YOU guys claim that cant happen. Be it steel frame or concrete it can!

I'd rather you explain to me where the force came from that threw the blocks of concrete 400 ft if you dont mind..??

Originally posted by benoni
Ask yourself "Does this look like a gravity collapse, where everything fall downward??

Given that it most certainly doesnt, I think the next logical question would be "Does it appear that explosives were used??

I concluded that no force could cause the building to explode outwards other than explosions...

See?

Easy!!

This is a good demonstration of how conspiracy theory works. Personal incredulity, a series of non sequitur "questions", then an uninformed conclusion based on what someone incorrectly believes is "logic" which is "easy".

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by benoni
Ask yourself "Does this look like a gravity collapse, where everything fall downward??

Given that it most certainly doesnt, I think the next logical question would be "Does it appear that explosives were used??

I concluded that no force could cause the building to explode outwards other than explosions...

See?

Easy!!

This is a good demonstration of how conspiracy theory works. Personal incredulity, a series of non sequitur "questions", then an uninformed conclusion based on what someone incorrectly believes is "logic" which is "easy".

You forgot to mention the magic word - PHYSICS! Thats the most oft repeated mantra. Physics this and Newtons law that, as if simply mentioning those words in a sentence somehow conveys such gravitas that any thought of denying their conclusions is, in fact, a denial of science itself.

Originally posted by benoni
I'd rather you explain to me where the force came from that threw the blocks of concrete 400 ft if you dont mind..??

Show a link to picture or info re your concrete block!

Originally posted by hooper
You forgot to mention the magic word - PHYSICS! Thats the most oft repeated mantra.

That one is a doozy. I've never seen anyone explain exactly how, say, controlled demolition equipment would cause the WTCs to actually break the laws of physics. Splo-zhins indeed.

Originally posted by benoni
I'd rather you explain to me where the force came from that threw the blocks of concrete 400 ft if you dont mind..??

Do you mean at the time of the impact? That should be obvious if you assume (even if you don't necessarily believe it happened) an airplane full of explosive jet fuel hit the building.

Do you mean during the freefall?

The WTC were HUGE buildings, and it doesn't take too many floors of a building to create a massive force at freefall acceleration. As the combined mass of the floors, office materials, and other debris inside the towers came down at freefall acceleration (9.8 m/s^2 if my memory serves me right) the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered. With all that force and energy coming down on the concrete, some of the massive amount of kinetic energy would have been transfered to the pieces of concrete. If hit at a certain angle, those pieces of concrete would have had enough kinetic energy to travel quite a distance and the upper floor concrete started out high enough to travel a long distance. Imagine the distance a golfball would travel if a golfer drove the ball on a golf course v. a golfer driving a ball from the top of a tall building: the height of the building would allow it to travel much further before gravity brought it to earth.

It's not hard to see how the upper floors of the tower constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 — constantly developing more mass and more energy as they hit and collected each subsequent floor — would have been enough to shatter and scatter pieces of concrete. Try this experiment: Get something you can break apart by stepping on it with your foot, step on it with some force, and observe how some of the pieces will scatter outwards despite the fact that you hadn't rigged it with explosives.

Here is another video of two buildings collapsing into their own foot print. Some may have seen it before.

Youtube

Originally posted by wmd_2008
can you explain why the towers started to collapse just at the point of the impacts

If the buildings were set up from top to bottom for controlled demolition, the demolition sequence could've been started from any floor, regardless of where the plane hit.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
and the fact that the South Tower although hit second collapsed FIRST funny that it had the highest load above impact point and it COLLAPSED FIRST

What's even more "funny" is that the south tower had the least amount of structural damage to the core because of the angle that the plane entered the building:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e6c140b194cb.gif[/atsimg]


Unlike the north tower, the majority of the plane missed the core in the south tower. The reason why the south tower came down first is because firefighters reached the damaged floors in the south tower and were just getting ready to start putting out fires. The official conspiracy theory would've held less water if fires were starting to be fought.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The OP's video is to show the principle that a PANCAKE collapse can happen and if the mass of floors above the damaged area is great enough it will happen. Be it steel frame or concrete it can!

Um, concrete structures can and do crumble. Steel structures do not. The video in the OP with the concrete structure does not compare to a steel structure and if you think it does, then you went to the wrong school. Buildings in earthquake zones are built out of steel, not concrete. That's why there were so many deaths in the Haiti earthquake. Almost all of their buildings were made out of concrete. If their buildings had been made out of steel structures, the death toll would've been a fraction.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You're not trying to imply, here, that the WTC Towers were built from vertical steel beams that were all continuous, solid lengths, over a thousand feet long, were you?

The video you posted was of a concrete structure being felled. Not even in the same ball park as comparable to any steel-structured highrise, let alone the WTC towers.

Or, will you agree that, much like even a ....concrete building (which, BTW, would have re-bar embedded, yes??) ....a concrete building, having separate components connected together.

Much the way the WTC Towers were constructed. The "weakest link" is going to be where the individual steel components are attached together, yes?

reply to post by FDNY343


The whole building was gutted. Windows and plumbing and all. That building we saw crumbled. How can you even compare that? Let's get realistic here! LOL at city apartment building being compared to the WTC. DID the same shoddy construction go to the WTC7? Did Silverstein have insurance on that building too? This obviousness is making me uneasy.

You are not a real fire man. I can bet on that. A real NY fireman would not speak so foolishly.

What does this video have to do with two 110 story towers exploding from top to bottom due to explosives being used to demolish them? Oh yeah, and let's not forget the 47 story skyscraper (WTC7) which was also demolished in such a deliberate manner to justify unjustifiable wars to a bunch of stupid American fudge sticks.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by benoni

 

The OP's video is to show the principle that a PANCAKE collapse can happen and if the mass of floors above the damaged area is great enough it will happen.

It was shown because YOU guys claim that cant happen. Be it steel frame or concrete it can!

Thank you WMD... that's exactly what I am saying. A 'freefall' pancake collapse ISN'T impossible WITHOUT explosives.

I always thought it was a bit too sick, even for the US government, to blow up the Towers. I know about previous false flag operations... but bombing a warship is many many miles away from destroying one of America's most iconic monuments and murdering 1000's of its civilians. (They could have had the same political, going to war, result with a far less damaging 'faked' incident.)

As for building 7... I think it was terribly damaged and could have fallen into itself... but its fall does look MORE like a controlled demolition (from the video angles)... and the reason this might be is because of the classified nature of the buildings operatives. For secrecy it might have more sense to destroy the building rather than allow the possibility of its secrets flying into the wind and being blown across town. I dunno.
Does anyone know of the source that claims tall buildings in NY have controlled demolition devices built into them in case of fire and the need to collapse? If this were true it would give credence to building 7. But not, in my mind to the twin Towers, whose collapses do not look like a typical controlled explosive demolition and instead resemble the original video I posted.

The Towers were not made of solid steel. The incredible mass of the top section could easily pulverise the steel and concrete below.. I see no problems with that.

Don't even try. The 911 truthers got their heads in the sand.

Just some advice for you. It's a lesson I've learned.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
The whole building was gutted. Windows and plumbing and all.

Since when are plumbing and windows structural? Meaning, supporting something that the structure relies on to remain upright?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

That building we saw crumbled. How can you even compare that?

Way to miss the point entirely.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Let's get realistic here! LOL at city apartment building being compared to the WTC.

Again, missing the point.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
DID the same shoddy construction go to the WTC7?

Who said it was shoddy?

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
Did Silverstein have insurance on that building too?

Maybe. I don't know who owned that building.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
This obviousness is making me uneasy.

I would recommend a nap then.

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
You are not a real fire man. I can bet on that. A real NY fireman would not speak so foolishly.

Only to someone who misses the point completely.

You are free to believe whatever you want. I don't have to prove a **** thing to you. Just as you don't have to prove anything to me.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
What does this video have to do with two 110 story towers exploding from top to bottom due to explosives being used to demolish them? Oh yeah, and let's not forget the 47 story skyscraper (WTC7) which was also demolished in such a deliberate manner to justify unjustifiable wars to a bunch of stupid American fudge sticks.

edit on 9-2-2011 by SphinxMontreal because: (no reason given)

Yeah, cause the deaths of ~3,000 of our own people wasn't enough to go to war. We NEEDED that empty building where nobody died to go to war......

reply to post by hayek11

The WTC were HUGE buildings, and it doesn't take too many floors of a building to create a massive force at freefall acceleration. As the combined mass of the floors, office materials, and other debris inside the towers came down at freefall acceleration (9.8 m/s^2 if my memory serves me right) the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered. It's not hard to see how the upper floors of the tower constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 — constantly developing more mass and more energy as they hit and collected each subsequent floor — would have been enough to shatter and scatter pieces of concrete.

You say that as the towers came down at freefall acceleration "the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered". According to Newton's third law every action has an equal and opposite reaction. By that law I would have thought as the upper-section shattered the lower-section (virtually to dust and other small derby as evidenced in the videos) then surely the upper-section would also become shattered in the process as the forces being imposed on both of them are equal. I do not see how only the below-section could have become shattered while the upper-section remained intact. To me there appears to be a fundamental conflict with established laws of physics here. I am open to correction on this score however and maybe I have merely misunderstood you.