Are you saying that the trusses and support columns collapsed first? How?
One of the support columns was probably the first to go, causing the kink -- that was tested with computer models and linked a couple of times in this thread. Remember the deformation of the building was evident and do ented for several hours. How many controlled demolitions work that way? So you have three or four hour long videos of them? Is the guy in the cap in them drawing it on a dry erase board?
Remember the deformation of the building was evident and do ented for several hours.
That explanation doesn't make sense either...the deformation was on the corner of the building, so the building, had it been compromised there, would have collapsed toward the deformation where the trusses and columns collapsed, but the building collapsed in its own footprint, not in any particular direction...and it was a uniform collapse of all the other trusses and columns in the building...the building would have toppled over not collapsed onto itself...
That explanation doesn't make sense either...the deformation was on the corner of the building
Measurable deformation wherever they saw it told the firefighters the building was going down.
so the building, had it been compromised there, would have collapsed toward the deformation where the trusses and columns collapsed, but the build hours before the actual collapseing collapsed in its own footprint, not in any particular direction...and it was a uniform collapse of all the other trusses and columns in the building...the building would have toppled over not collapsed onto itself...
How could it possibly be a uniform collapse when 1/3 of the building collapsed ten seconds before the rest of it?
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 03-29-2008 at 02:42 AM.
...probably because the other side was the side in which the WTC had collapsed, so the best venue point was from the other side of the building...none the less, the penthouse would not have started collapsing until the core had been compromised, so we are still taking about top to bottom speed...RG's film contends that all the debris should have fallen at free-fall speed, that's nonsense, but a great majority of it did...
Let me show you why your theory is nonsense, using two universal truths...math and physics...
The guy's starting assumptions are where he goes wrong, and they are pretty easily seen if you watch the whole thing and know what you are looking for.
1) He fails to add more mass to the falling section as floors collapse.
2) He also seems to think that gravity only acted on the falling mass for the first 3.8 meters of the collapse, and magically stopped accelerating the falling debris. Essentially he forgets to add in the term for initial speed to his equations after the first bit of acceleration.
Dan, feel free to run it by any physics professor to double check this. Let me know if you do, and what they say.
The guy makes some rather common beginner's mistakes.
Never has a steel framed building collapse due to fire and they had 3 of them go down during 9/11? I think chump, RandomGuy and all his dreamworks buddy's have read one to many fairy tale books as children.
He fails to add more mass to the falling section as floors collapse.
Think Opposing forces...the non-collapsing mass would have acted as a force in the opposite direction, slowing down the collapse...not speeding it up...besides, he made the more than generous assumption that no mass fell off to the sides (even though you can see if films that much mass clearly did) and that the building was built with a minimum weight safety standard, which we know can be anywhere from a multiple of 3 to 5....
He also seems to think that gravity only acted on the falling mass for the first 3.8 meters of the collapse, and magically stopped accelerating the falling debris. Essentially he forgets to add in the term for initial speed to his equations after the first bit of acceleration.
No he doesn't, the 9.8 multiple is the established gravity constant...
Never has a steel framed building collapse due to fire and they had 3 of them go down during 9/11? I think chump, RandomGuy and all his dreamworks buddy's have read one to many fairy tale books as children.
That's what you're going with?
There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.
But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.
"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."
But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated.
The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other buildings conspiracy theorists like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this..
Never has a steel framed building collapse due to fire and they had 3 of them go down during 9/11? I think chump, RandomGuy and all his dreamworks buddy's have read one to many fairy tale books as children.
Ok, this is a simple question.
Of all those steel buildings that DIDN'T collapse due to fire, how many of them were struck by commercial aircraft? How many of them were struck by large pieces of debris and structurally compromised before the fire?
Reply With Quote
