So Just Fire Brought Down WTC7 In A Perfect Free Fall Collapse ?

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
. Also, it may very well have been slightly slower than free-fall, but if you watch the aerial tower (which is connected directly to the core of the building, not the surrounding structures) at the top of Building 2 when it's collapsing, you can clearly see that the tower lurches downwards just before the rest of the top of the building starts to move, indicating that a part of the core (the strongest part of the building, hence the most resistant) either spontaneously disappeared or was removed by some means.

Well if you did some REAL research you would KNOW as the core steel got higher the steel used to make it was a smaller section than further down the tower, were was the NT hit high up mid elevation and at the widest elevation of the core so guess what would have been damaged yes the CORE!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
. Also, it may very well have been slightly slower than free-fall, but if you watch the aerial tower (which is connected directly to the core of the building, not the surrounding structures) at the top of Building 2 when it's collapsing, you can clearly see that the tower lurches downwards just before the rest of the top of the building starts to move, indicating that a part of the core (the strongest part of the building, hence the most resistant) either spontaneously disappeared or was removed by some means.

Well if you did some REAL research you would KNOW as the core steel got higher the steel used to make it was a smaller section than further down the tower, were was the NT hit high up mid elevation and at the widest elevation of the core so guess what would have been damaged yes the CORE!

doesnt matter. ther were still 80 floors or more of cold and structually sound
iron and concrete. And the the top section just smashed right through it all
lile it was consrruction paper holding it together.

not possible no matter what words you use to describe it.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


Once the first Tower floor failed and impacted the floor below the towers were done . A floor falling and striking the next floor with I believe it was 40 G's impact there would have been a cascade failure . Not saying how the first floor failed .
Building 7 was not the same kind of failure . Building 7 struck Structural Engineers as a demolition from the very start of the fall to the way it concluded . Building 4,5,6 were in the debris fall of the towers and was crushed and burned out completely and these buildings had to be cut down . They were built of the same steel and safety factors as building 7 . They sustained the full impact of the tower that tipped and fell on them and were completely gutted with fire yet Building 7 fell with so much less damage and very little fire . That does not compute .

Originally posted by superluminal11
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

What I do know is that all evidence on the WTC7 situation points to something other than what has been presented to the populace

This goes for the thermite Steven Jones crowd as well.

No professionally controlled demolition team could recreate the collapse of the 2 towers.
Directed Energy Weapons are so preposterous no one will ever believe it. (perfect) So that's what was used.
No mystery

The story of tesla's earthquake machine has forever stuck in my mind in regard to the WTC's.collapsing.

www.excludedmiddle.com...

He constructed a simple device consisting of a piston suspended in a cylinder, which bypassed the necessity of a camshaft driven by a rotating power source, such as a gasoline or steam engine. In this way, he hoped to overcome loss of power through friction produced by the old system. This small device also enabled Tesla to try out his experiments in resonance. Every substance has a resonant frequency which is demonstrated by the principle of sympathetic vibration&endash;the most obvious example is the wine glass shattered by an opera singer (or a tape recording for you couch potatoes.) If this frequency is matched and amplified, any material may be literally shaken to pieces.

reply to post by SimonPeter

I believe it was 40 G's impact

Sounds good! Now prove it or show us how you get to 40 Gs. In fact, tell us what 40 Gs means to you. How about where you read it! Anything?

P

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by SimonPeter

 

I believe it was 40 G's impact

Sounds good! Now prove it or show us how you get to 40 Gs. In fact, tell us what 40 Gs means to you. How about where you read it! Anything?

P

40 G's would be a high estimate for the first few floors that collapsed, They would more likely be in the 4 to 8 G range. But after the collapse got started 40 G's would be a fare estimate.


For the falling floors moving at a velocity of only 20 meters per second (v0) to be stopped (v1) by the next floor it hits in a time period of .05 seconds (t) would result in a force of 40 G's

v0=20 meters per second
v1=0 meters per second
t = .05
a = -40.7886485191171 G's

F=MA

Here is an online acceleration calculator that you can play with, if you want to learn more.

www.smartconversion.com...

reply to post by waypastvne

40 G's would be a high estimate for the first few floors that collapsed, They would more likely be in the 4 to 8 G range. But after the collapse got started 40 G's would be a fare estimate. For the falling floors moving at a velocity of only 20 meters per second (v0) to be stopped (v1) by the next floor it hits in a time period of .05 seconds (t) would result in a force of 40 G's v0=20 meters per second v1=0 meters per second t = .05 a = -40.7886485191171 G's F=MA

Looks good for bunny science. The floors are approx 3.3meters each. The first stage of the collapse is one floor sinking into the one below. The distance it fell was 3.3 meters. Acceleration due to Gravity is about 10 meters/sec. Time to fall is 1/3 second. Then a time period while the floor below takes the strain. Even though that floor is always taking the strain and is designed to take more than the strain.

Come on! The towers were brought down by explosives. There is no other explanation. It was too damn fast. The fire was not hot enough. The big one is simple. Big tall structures fall over! They do not fall down! It is that simple. Three in one day. Give me a break!

P

reply to post by pheonix358


The collapses took between 25-30 seconds. Not really fast at all.

Initial collapse was about 15-20 seconds, plus the 10-15 seconds for the cores.
So no, the collapses were not that fast to begin with. Also, recall, gravity is pretty fast. A building collapsing is not going to take a minute. Gravity is a hell of a force. Hold a 15lb bowling ball over your head. Easy holding it up yes? Now have someone stand one meter over your head. Now try and catch it. I'm sure your fingertips will not enjoy that experience. Once you get the collapse going, not much is going to stop it.

Originally posted by FirstCasualty

doesnt matter. ther were still 80 floors or more of cold and structually sound
iron and concrete. And the the top section just smashed right through it all
lile it was consrruction paper holding it together.

not possible no matter what words you use to describe it.

The FLOOR design did not change apart from the service floors, floor 95 had the same connections as floor 25 so ANY MASS that fell on a floor slab could only be supported by the connections that supported the slab. That's the real problem when the collapse started!!!

You don't seem to understand how the buildings were constructed also falling mass generates DYNAMIC loading that is not the same as the static load the building supported before the impacts.

A dynamic load can have a significantly larger effect than a static load of the same magnitude due to the structure's inability to respond quickly to the loading (by deflecting).

Some of us on here work in the construction industry and have to deal with these things do you!
Have you tested building components to a proof load or even to destruction that's not the same a looking at a drawing a comment you made in a previous post!

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by pheonix358

 

The collapses took between 25-30 seconds. Not really fast at all.

Initial collapse was about 15-20 seconds, plus the 10-15 seconds for the cores.
So no, the collapses were not that fast to begin with. Also, recall, gravity is pretty fast. A building collapsing is not going to take a minute. Gravity is a hell of a force. Hold a 15lb bowling ball over your head. Easy holding it up yes? Now have someone stand one meter over your head. Now try and catch it. I'm sure your fingertips will not enjoy that experience. Once you get the collapse going, not much is going to stop it.

edit on 6/10/2013 by GenRadek because: more info

See, this is a classic case of 'look over here!'

If it happened as you seem to think, then the floors should have collapsed and the core would still be standing. But it is not. The core did not 'pancake'. It can't. So, what took out the cores. There is only one answer, explosives!

Yea, you look at the floors in isolation! I will look at the whole building.

P

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by FirstCasualty

 

Once the first Tower floor failed and impacted the floor below the towers were done . A floor falling and striking the next floor with I believe it was 40 G's impact there would have been a cascade failure . Not saying how the first floor failed .
Building 7 was not the same kind of failure . Building 7 struck Structural Engineers as a demolition from the very start of the fall to the way it concluded . Building 4,5,6 were in the debris fall of the towers and was crushed and burned out completely and these buildings had to be cut down . They were built of the same steel and safety factors as building 7 . They sustained the full impact of the tower that tipped and fell on them and were completely gutted with fire yet Building 7 fell with so much less damage and very little fire . That does not compute .

No way. Lets assume for a moment - and this would be a HUGE assumption -
that tje fires were hot enough and all the structual post and beams as well
as concrete and rebar, all snapped at exactly the same time (this is
absurd, i dont know.why i am entertaining this) and the weight of the above
floors came crashing down perfectly impacting the floors bellow. EVEN THEN
the energy of the forces pushing down would gradually make it AWAY from
the remainder of the building where resistance is lease. I would picture the top
section flipping onto its back on top of the bottom section and then spilling
over the side.

I think however you under estimate how strong rebar and concrete in
combination is and and how much can hold up.

It would take a pretty epic karate chop to make its way through all that.

AND THE FREE FALL SPEEDS??? even if not exactly free fall... close enough

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
No way. Lets assume for a moment - and this would be a HUGE assumption -
that tje fires were hot enough and all the structual post and beams as well
as concrete and rebar, all snapped at exactly the same time (this is
absurd, i dont know.why i am entertaining this) and the weight of the above
floors came crashing down perfectly impacting the floors bellow. EVEN THEN
the energy of the forces pushing down would gradually make it AWAY from
the remainder of the building where resistance is lease. I would picture the top
section flipping onto its back on top of the bottom section and then spilling
over the side.

Is this a joke post? I honestly can't tell. For a start the WTCs and WTC7s were not a post and beam structure. They were steel framed, using concrete only for flooring.

Secondly, you'd imagine the upper section flipping onto its back? I don't know what has brought you to this conclusion but you need to head back to the classroom immediately. I don't mean this as an insult either, you've pictured something in your mind which would be so completely impossible it shocks me you can even consider it.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Nice try but you're gonna have to do better than that. If you think I haven't already looked into that, you are highly mistaken. I am not a bandwagonner, nor do I jump to conclusions simply because I "want" there to be a conspiracy. There is no way the aluminum superstructure of a 747 could do that much damage to the thick steel and reinforced concrete cores of both towers in such a way as to cause a symmetrical and IDENTICAL collapse in both buildings (at near free-fall velocity no less). Check and mate, sir.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
If you think I haven't already looked into that, .... nor do I jump to conclusions....There is no way the aluminum superstructure of a 747

What makes you claim a 747 was involved? It appears you have not looked into it at all!

(at near free-fall velocity no less).

Wrong again, much less than free fall velocity - if you bothered to watch a video of the collapse you would clearly see the debris coming off the towers falling at free fall speed, the collapse is much slower....

reply to post by wmd_2008


Nope. I make up my own cliches as I go, for your information. Actually if you must know, it is far more profitable to treat symptoms and keep people sick rather than cure the disease. But anyways, if you insist on going further off topic with your ad-hominem attacks, I will not indulge you further. Now, if you want to discuss the matter pertaining to the OP in an intelligent and rational matter, rather than insulting my intelligence, please do.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Nice try but you're gonna have to do better than that. If you think I haven't already looked into that, you are highly mistaken. I am not a bandwagonner, nor do I jump to conclusions simply because I "want" there to be a conspiracy. There is no way the aluminum superstructure of a 747 could do that much damage to the thick steel and reinforced concrete cores of both towers in such a way as to cause a symmetrical and IDENTICAL collapse in both buildings (at near free-fall velocity no less). Check and mate, sir.

WELL not very well it seems what 747 NO reinforced concrete core Also NO understanding of construction it seems.

Originally posted by xXxinfidelxXx
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

Nice try but you're gonna have to do better than that. If you think I haven't already looked into that, you are highly mistaken. I am not a bandwagonner, nor do I jump to conclusions simply because I "want" there to be a conspiracy. There is no way the aluminum superstructure of a 747 could do that much damage to the thick steel and reinforced concrete cores of both towers in such a way as to cause a symmetrical and IDENTICAL collapse in both buildings (at near free-fall velocity no less). Check and mate, sir.

The towers did not have reinforced concrete cores. Nor were they hit with a 747. Nor was the aluminium the primary cause of the damage. The mass and velocity of the plane was. The fuel itself does significant damage despite being liquid.

You ask what would cause almost identical collapses. Could it be the almost identical construction of the two buildings? Why does this have no relevance?

In answer to the OP's title question, no. I worked there for several years. The CIA also had offices in the building. We used to joke about the spooks all the time. Moreover, there is a PBS video of the property owner filmed shortly after the "event", where he states, "We pulled it.", with respect to what happened to 7 WTC.

As thousands of protesting engineers have testified, it is impossible to pull a building onto its own footprint in just a few hours.

What you have to understand about the WTC buildings is that corporate occupants were constantly moving in and out of the different floors. Rarely was there an occupant that did not take up more than one floor. So, when one moved out, 3-7 floors would suddenly become abandoned. These floors were often gutted to the iron beams for renovation for the next occupant. (The expanse of the gutted floors was enormous.) This would provide anyone with malintent ample opportunity to rig the building over a relatively short time frame.

Originally posted by NaturalHealer
These floors were often gutted to the iron beams for renovation for the next occupant. (The expanse of the gutted floors was enormous.) This would provide anyone with malintent ample opportunity to rig the building over a relatively short time frame.

Gutted of iron beams were exactly

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
No way. Lets assume for a moment - and this would be a HUGE assumption -
that tje fires were hot enough and all the structual post and beams as well
as concrete and rebar, all snapped at exactly the same time (this is
absurd, i dont know.why i am entertaining this) and the weight of the above
floors came crashing down perfectly impacting the floors bellow. EVEN THEN
the energy of the forces pushing down would gradually make it AWAY from
the remainder of the building where resistance is lease. I would picture the top
section flipping onto its back on top of the bottom section and then spilling
over the side.

Is this a joke post? I honestly can't tell. For a start the WTCs and WTC7s were not a post and beam structure. They were steel framed, using concrete only for flooring.

Secondly, you'd imagine the upper section flipping onto its back? I don't know what has brought you to this conclusion but you need to head back to the classroom immediately. I don't mean this as an insult either, you've pictured something in your mind which would be so completely
impossible it shocks me you can even consider it.

your right. I was foolish to even entertain the idea. that wont happen again
since i.now see how you take advantage of the situation.

You think theat WTC 1 and 2 demolished themselves under its own weight

I cant tell you how funny that is. If I were you and believed that
I would NEVER step one foot inside a highrise again. Its too dangerous
apparently by your understanding. It can take just as long to
completely evacuate a building as it would for a little carasine (spelling?)
to completely destroy a 110 story highrise.