Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

How does weakened steel on 20 floors of a 110 story building cause the ENTIRE building to crumble into dust? Thats what I want to know...

Gravity - It's the law.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Gravity - It's the law.

Only one of them, unfortunately.





Btw, I don't think that's going to catch on, Howard. It's too corny.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by bsbray11]

It also shows my age that I remember the TV ads.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
It also shows my age that I remember the TV ads.

They had TV ads for gravity???


Anyway, back to the question as to why the whole building came down, when the floors above the crash site felland hit the floors below, the force (F=MA) from those flors crushed the flor below it, causing a chain reaction all the way down the building (remember F=MA, as you have more floors you add to the Mass of what is falling, increasing the Force). Simple High School Physics really.

Thinking back on it, I probably should have said:


"Gravity, It's not just a good idea, it's the law."


Hopefully someone will get the refrence.

Are you talking about this Howard?

www.mooneyart.com...

It’s all based on an old TV ad campaign from the 70’s to get people to obey the (then) new 55 mph speed limit.

“55, it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!”

Some comic (Steve Martin maybe? ) then came up with the gravity version.

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
Anyway, back to the question as to why the whole building came down, when the floors above the crash site felland hit the floors below, the force (F=MA) from those flors crushed the flor below it, causing a chain reaction all the way down the building (remember F=MA, as you have more floors you add to the Mass of what is falling, increasing the Force). Simple High School Physics really.

I agree with you here but wanted to add. There should have been a decceleration (negative A if you will) which would have caused the effect of the mass to be not as bad as one would think. I believe. I'm thinking about this as I'm typing so, if I start babbling about nothing...let me know.

We start off with a given mass falling 12.5 ft. That gives us a force of mass times gravity acceleration. So, when that mass hits the lower mass after 12.5 ft. it has a force of? Depending on what the mass of the top 13 floors was, we could calculate this. I've heard many different theories on the mass of the caps so I'm not going to speculate even further. Anyway, with the resistance of the lower floor, wouldn't there be a negative acceleration at that point making an upward force to counteract (probably not fully) the downward force?

Then the proccess starts over but with the added mass from the floor that just collapsed. Now, the key here is to find out if the floor (or subsequent floors) had enough upward force to at least slow down the collapse significantly more than freefall. If we could show that it is possible for the floors to have given enough resistance to make the collapse significantly slower than it was, we don't need to speculate ANYTHING else. We would know that there was another force involved other than gravity. What that force would be could only be speculated until some evidence could come to the light.

Edit: This is why I'm not happy with NIST. They did not show anything like this in their report. They just said "it was inevitable". Huh? If I was trying to prove something as true, I would show my calculations that state this or that. Just my pet peeve with NIST (one at least).

[edit on 27-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 27-4-2006 by Griff]

[edit on 27-4-2006 by Griff]

Well, let me see if I can do some calculations, it may take a few days though. I need some info from you though.

1) What are you considering freefall? Is it Terminal Velocity?

2) How long did it take each of the towers to fall? I would assume the first tower (was that WTC2?) to fall fell faster.

If we could show that it is possible for the floors to have given enough resistance to make the collapse significantly slower than it was, we don't need to speculate ANYTHING else.

IIRC the floors were designed for a load of about 150 psf.

I'm gonna step out on a limb here.
The combined weight of 13 floors hitting a floor rated at 150 psf, there would be negligible resistance.

Originally posted by Skibum

If we could show that it is possible for the floors to have given enough resistance to make the collapse significantly slower than it was, we don't need to speculate ANYTHING else.

IIRC the floors were designed for a load of about 150 psf.

I'm gonna step out on a limb here.
The combined weight of 13 floors hitting a floor rated at 150 psf, there would be negligible resistance.

Do we know how much these floors weighed fully loaded? I assume not more than 150psf each.

Though the core section may be more. And anything listed fro the roof slab? I would really like to be able to give calculations for this.

I think part of the problem is that some people are looking at the collapse of each floor as a separate, discrete event, that the columns supporting each floor are unique and not tied to the columns supporting any other floors.

You have to remember that the building was essentially a hollow tube with a core structure and floor slabs. Once the core and exterior columns started to fail, the only thing preventing the distortion of those columns from propagating would have been the connection between the truss and the truss seat on the exterior wall. A thin piece of metal with a couple of bolts through it for each truss.

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
Anyway, back to the question as to why the whole building came down, when the floors above the crash site felland hit the floors below, the force (F=MA) from those flors crushed the flor below it, causing a chain reaction all the way down the building (remember F=MA, as you have more floors you add to the Mass of what is falling, increasing the Force). Simple High School Physics really.

That looks fine theoretically, but when you start taking into account things like the topmost floors falling apart and falling over the edges as the buildings fell, and about 80% of the masses of the towers in general being ejected outwards, away from the buildings (landing outside of the footprints, and thus not contributing any mass to crushing lower floors), you have problems.

You also have problems with the apparent fact that the collapses didn't change velocity. This is evidence especially in a thread of BillyBob's, pointing out that for a brief moment the collapse of WTC1 is actually ahead of free-falling debris on the outside. The debris is still accelerating, but the building is already collapsing at the speed it'll retain all the way down. No speeding up, no slowing down, even as so much mass is lost over the sides. You also have to take into account that the topmost floors were the very lightest, and the lower the floor, the thicker the columns and the more weight it was built to withstand.

Energy would've had to have been applied to knock out each floor, and from this we should've seen a sort of pulsing of the collapse wave, being slightly stalled at each floor's string of trusses/concrete. Then this energy would've had to have been made up with more free-falling acceleration. This would get harder and harder to keep up as floors got stronger, and as more mass is lost over the sides of the buildings.

To make it even more realistic, the building collapses didn't really go floor-by-floor. The core and perimeter columns were independent of floors. In reality, you would have steady resistance the whole way down and no opportunities to really accelerate in open air, or anything but steel.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I think part of the problem is that some people are looking at the collapse of each floor as a separate, discrete event, that the columns supporting each floor are unique and not tied to the columns supporting any other floors.

Howard, NIST could never really described the global collapses in detail, so I wonder what makes you such an expert on the mechanisms involved.

But, nonetheless, NIST and FEMA and hordes of others keep talking about the so-called "pancake collapse," which involves only the floor systems, meaning trusses, concrete slabs, etc., and not so much the perimeter columns and core structure. Prof. Eager, for one, has suggested the clips holding the trusses to the columns as the weak points that actually failed.

By that logic, what you are saying really doesn't make sense. Everything would have been localized; the collapses would have had to have gone floor-by-floor as far as the "pancaking" goes.

As for the perimeter columns, they were set up in sets of three or so connected by spandrel plates, and the core structure was almost completely separate from the trusses beyond the connections that were supposedly so weak. So what you're saying doesn't make sense from the perspectives of any of three major structural features of the towers while simultaneously considering pancake collapse theory. You'd have to reinvent how the gravity-driven collapse would've worked for what you're suggesting to work out.

Once the core and exterior columns started to fail, the only thing preventing the distortion of those columns from propagating would have been the connection between the truss and the truss seat on the exterior wall.

The trusses were blamed for the collapses by NIST, not the exterior columns, and certainly not the core structure. How the core structure would've began to fail at all is something that really hasn't been explained, and the perimeter columns were set up in groups that wouldn't have spread the collapse much farther than the immediately collapsing floor.

You can call the building a hollow tube if you want, but it was still made of thousands and thousands of smaller pieces (the individual columns), like a Lego creation or etc., not like a building with the fate of each floor tied with the fate of the whole freaking building. The individual columns failing wouldn't have had much effect on columns much further down.

Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
Do we know how much these floors weighed fully loaded? I assume not more than 150psf each.

The NIST/FEMA reports gave some figures and someone has already used them and done some calculations in this paper.

I think he comes to the conclusion that the WTC1 collapse shouldn't have gone more than a few floors before the falling floors would've lost their kinetic energy and come to rest on the remaining building.

I apologise in advance for the brevity of this post, if you will look back through this thread I have said all I care to say about the events ot 9-11 except to say this in response to switchblade...
Look at this picture
I mean really look at it switchblade, see that thing in the middle of the dust cloud? That's the very tip top of the building falling STRAIGHT down at freefall speed in the middle of a MUSHROOM of dust and debris and lateral ejection that would rival modern ordinance, and then tell me you think that looks like a fire related collapse to you.
Edit: The picture link doesn't work all of a sudden, here's another photo..
thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr...

[edit on 28-4-2006 by twitchy]

But what about the explosions you hear during the collapse? Or the explosions that started from the upper floors and went down? And aren't there firemen on tape saying they put the fire out 30 min before the building fell?

I'm not trying to be annoying I just want to understand thast all

Originally posted by Skibum
IIRC the floors were designed for a load of about 150 psf.

I'm gonna step out on a limb here.
The combined weight of 13 floors hitting a floor rated at 150 psf, there would be negligible resistance.

Can you show me where you got this? Is it in the link you posted for me in the other thread? I haven't had time to look at that report yet. Anyway, 150 psf sounds a little low to me. But I could be wrong.

If that's correct, I can see it happening. I've always (I think) said that I think the towers , if demoed, wouldn't have needed much help. Maybe just something to initiate collapse and something in the foundation to knock the columns "loose". But that's my theory.

150 psf? jeez, a couple secretaries could've knocked those buildings down!

maybe it's psi, lol?

source

When the north tower, the first to go up, was finally topped out on Dec. 23, 1970, it was foggy, and no one could see the view. But James Endler, the West Point grad and construction contractor who oversaw the entire job for the Port Authority, made a point of showing up at a celebration for the workers held on one of the skeletal upper floors -- the first open-air party ever to take place 1,300 feet above the street. There was a band, soda and sandwiches. But when the band played the Mexican hat dance, the construction workers started stomping in unison, and Endler -- standing next to Jack Kyle, the Port Authority's chief engineer -- began to feel odd vibrations in the structure. The floor did not seem steady. After all the wind-tunnel tests, the computer calculations, the structural innovations, had something been missed? Had the thousands upon thousands of steel parts been fitted together incorrectly? ''Jack, how do we stop that vibration?'' Endler asked. Kyle turned to him, expressionless. ''Don't play that song anymore,'' he advised.