Originally posted by bsbray11
And then went on discussing how there was no evidence that such a collapse could account for the fact that the steel columns below the falling floors
gave almost absolutely no resistance. Is that not good enough for you to come down from heaven to try to refute? Or can you just not account for those
things? I don't understand.
How can I account for the floors below the initial collapse area offering almost absolutely no resistance? Through sheer logic. The amount of energy
of one floor falling onto the next floor must have been far more than the floor below could handle.
When I originally thought about what must have happened inside those buildings (the day I watched them come down, live), I assumed a couple things.
First I assumed that the amount of energy contained in the floors slamming into each other must have been incredible (probably 15 to 30 times the
weight of each floor). I assumed this because I know if I place a 5lb weight on my foot it doesn’t hurt, my foot can handle the static weight. But
if I drop that 5lb weight onto my foot from 3 feet it hurts like no tomorrow -- I wouldn't even want to try dropping it onto my foot from 12 feet
high -- go try it [from 0 ft, 1 ft, and 2 ft heights] and see what your own results are. Be sure to post your test data here.
I also assumed that something more than the planes impacting the buildings must have caused them to come down but I didn't doubt the plane impact
helped to play a large role. I mean; I could SEE with my own eyes that they had chopped significant portions of the outside steel walls in half and
they certainly must have caused a lot of structural damage. And the energy they imparted on the building must have been a lot, but obviously not
enough by itself to make the buildings fall down. I've seen buildings hit by large machinery and not collapse until hours after the accident; no
fires were involved; you weaken the structure enough and eventually gravity is going to win.
But that's just from personal first-hand experience.
Was there much energy transferred into a WTC tower when a plane hit it? Well, according to Thomas J Mackin, from the Department of Mechanical
Engineering at the University of Illinois: "If the Jetliner was traveling at 440mph and dissipated all its energy in one second, then the impact
force is 9,000,000lbs. This is substantial and generated a moment of impact, at the 70th floor of 6,320,000,000 ft-lbs."
(Yes, that's 6.32
billion ft-lbs of torque.)
I also knew that each floor of the WTC towers held about an acre of office space. That meant if there was a fire on 3 or 4 floors it was literally
acres of building floor space on fire (that's huge, that's hot, and if it's above the 30th floor it's going to burn a long long time before anyone
can climb up to it to put it out). Acres of jet fuel, plastics and paper products must have been a lot of energy I surmised; I knew from something
I'd studied in the past that jet fuel contains a lot of energy (something to the order of 2 or 3 that of regular gasoline which has ~130 MJoules per
US gallon). But, I wasn't positive so I went and did some reading. I noticed pages with studies by people who know a whole lot more about engineering
than I do that seemed to confirm what my initial reasonings were telling me. Pages such as these pages from
(American Society of Safety Engineers) and the University of Illinois that state the impact force was around 30 times the tower above,
and that 20,000 gallons of fuel contained the same amount of energy (2.64 x 10^12 Joules) as 7,920,000 sticks of dynamite. Seems to be a lot of
energy, but perhaps I'm mistaken in that assumption?
Now, almost 3 years later, I have the luxury of having so many sources of information at my disposal to read through and digest. And there is also the
disinformation to read through sadly -- a fine example of disinformation regarding the WTC is that all the steel was sent to china immediately and
none saved or looked at by scientists - this is flat out bull# [nonsense]: people just don't want to read factual reports or choose to ignore them
because they don't suit their own personal idea of what happened to the WTC towers The New York Times published a story regarding the testing of all
14 different grades of steel used in the WTC including over 236 major samples from the WTC site -- just for this one study.
Dr. Gayle said the investigation had obtained samples of all 14 grades, or strengths, of steel
used in the twin towers for analysis. All together, investigators have collected 236 major pieces of trade center steel, Dr. Sunder said.
Some very good material can be read regarding many parts of this can be found on the MIT website. A book by
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, and Yossi
, contains a wealth of scientific information, which was arrived at PRIOR TO the FEMA-NIST-ASCE report. The report validated a significant
portion of this book. Read it for yourself, it's very educational in many regards. Never heard of it until now? Well then you must only want to read
about demolition theories and conspiracies and not want to read both sides of the story to see what's fact and what is fiction...
I also couldn't equate what demolition proponents were claiming was happening to WTC 1 and WTC 2 based on their "evidence" in videotapes of the
tower collapses to what was realistic. Many keep saying how there is evidence of explosions, which were a controlled demolition of the towers. But one
thing does not fit with this theory. When each tower begins to fall, the "explosions" occur AFTER the tower begins to fall.
In every single
controlled demolition tape I have seen, and in the two demolitions I have watched live, the explosions occur BEFORE the buildings begin to fall and
the fall of the building is always after
the puffs of smoke and debris from the detonations. When WTC 1 and WTC 2 fall, the puffs of smoke and
debris are all AFTER the buildings begin to fall - that says to me that they are not detonations at all, but are in fact debris, dust, and smoke being
forced out by air pressure and structural failures during the collapse.
I've viewed a lot of videos, probably 200+ and most of them are segments from these better quality ones. Invariably, the conspiracy sites choose to
cut out the first part of these videos so you do not get to see the building standing just before it starts to collapse. The reason they do this is
because if you do see the building collapsing before you see any evidence of anything that looks remotely like an explosion, their whole controlled
demolition theory goes out the window. But, have a look at some videos and come to your own conclusions. And please do explain to me how the buildings
both start to collapse before ANY evidence of ANY explosions is visible in ANY video or ANY photographs from that day.
Most of the videos I've seen posted and referred to on this forums are from low res crappy quality, blocky, and altered videos that make it quite
hard to judge for yourself what is going on. Most of the conspiracy website show videos of the towers that have the first parts cut out so you cannot
see the start of the building collapses. I went out and found some of the best quality videos of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses that I could find online.
These videos are all "HiRes" [HiRes (high resolution) video means video recorded with the DivX3.11a codec with the (variable) bit rate set to
6000 and crispness/smoothness set to 100. The hi-resolution videos are much larger files than necessary for good viewing. They are meant to convey
as much of the original detail as possible.
Most of these videos use the DivX codec. If you are using Windows Media Player you need the DivX3.11a codec plug-in that you can download here:
Note that many of these videos are named "demolition 1 2 etc" this is because most of them are from conspiracy sites. The fact remains that
regardless of how you name a video, the contents of the original videos are still the same.
HighRes videos of WTC1 (North Tower)
- Collapse of WTC1 HiRes [2 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 492x408]-
Watch how the building collapses long before any ejection of materials or "explosions" -- you can clearly see the section of the building above the
bottom portion (engulfed in fires) falls as one, none of the floors below the point of fire collapse until most of the top section's weight has
impacted into the bottom section. There are CLEARLY NO EXPLOSIONS BEFORE COLLAPSE.
- Collapse of WTC1 HiRes Angle 2 [5.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716x480]
Another angle of WTC1, you can again clearly see that the building begins to fall above the sections engulfed in flames BEFORE any visible
"explosions" -- you can also see that the top portion does not fall perfectly "pancaked" but twists and leans left and right on the way down.
- Another angle of WTC1 collapse [0.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 676x408]
Again, the building is falling BEFORE any visible "explosions" -- the "explosions" are, in fact, simply smoke and debris being forced out by air
pressure from the collapsing floors.
- HiRes Very clear view of WTC1 collapse [13 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a
692x472] Again, the building top starts to collapse before any visible "explosions" -- once again you can CLEARLY see that the floors below the
fires do NOT collapse or explode, and the part of the building that fails is the section that is engulfed in flames. No explosions prior to collapse,
and no way controlled demolitions were taking place in the middle of a 600-1200 degree inferno (the wires would melt, and so would any remote
detonator electronics - period).
- Supposedly premature detonations in WTC1 [4.8 MB Codec: DivX3.11a
692x472] This is a video that shows smoke and debris being blasted out a few floors below the collapsing levels. Conspiracy websites claim that this
is evidence of "premature detonations" but I return to the same question as above - where are ANY DETONATIONS before the tower starts to collapse?
There are none. There weren't any detonations; the ejection of debris and smoke is entirely caused by the collapse of the video. Play it over and
over to see for yourself.
- "Premature Detonations Marked" in collapse of WTC1 [2.8 MB HiRes
Codec: DivX3.11a 692x472] Here is another conspiracy site's attempt to show detonations in WTC tower 1. The problem, again, is that the supposed
detonations ALL occur AFTER the tower is already collapsing. If detonations were used to bring down the tower, what the heck caused it to collapse to
begin with? There is not one single piece of video evidence that shows any form of a controlled demolition of WTC1 or WTC1 before the towers began to
fall. Not a single one. Every one of these supposed "explosions" is clearly smoke and debris being ejected by the collapse of the tower -- it's air
- More supposed "Detonation Evidence" from the collapse of WTC1 [6.1
MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 696x472] This one is an incredible video. It was shot so close to the tower that the videographer almost died (I saw his
interview on PBS). The amazing thing is this video is the one used by almost all the controlled demolition conspiracy theorists out there -- but sadly
none of them seem to notice a problem with using this video as "evidence". YES, there are indeed small ejections of debris at least 10 or more
floors below the collapsing areas. YES it does occur at least 3 times in this video segment. But the glaring issue with this theory comes back to the
same old question. If the floor showing "demolition" charge(s) is indeed actually bombs going off to make the building collapse -- why doesn't the
floor that the supposed bombs are on ever collapse? THEY DO NOT COLLAPSE AT ALL until the portion of the building that IS collapsing (ten or more
floors above) finally reaches the floor where the supposed detonations went off. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and it defies the laws of
physics! If you blow up the supports on a floor, the weight of the building above that floor will cause the floor you just demolished to collapse.
This just DOES NOT HAPPEN in this video (or any other WTC video).
A not so HiRes video
- Another view of supposed predetonations in WTC1 [1.4 MB HiRes Codec: MPEG1
352x264] A really grainy, low res video shot by a news crew of the collapse of WTC1. The issue with this video is twofold. One, it's lowres and you
can't see what is going on clearly, but that's not the most important problem with the detonation theory. Issue two, the building shows one or two
ejections of smoke and debris below the collapse area. But once again the building DOES NOT COLLAPSE on the floor that is supposed to be being blown
up in the video. The floor ONLY collapses once the increible mass of the floors collapsing above the "explosion" point actually reaches that floor.
It defies the laws of physics once again. How can you blow up the supports on a floor (controlled demolition) and that floor does not collapse from
the 30+ floors above it? It makes no sense what so ever.
HighRes video of WTC2 (South Tower)
What a controlled demolition looks like
- Collapse of WTC2 HiRes [1.6 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 716x480] Here we
see a few very interesting things that might not be clear in other videos of the collapse of WTC2. Number one, the building collapses at the middle,
and the destruction occurs to the floors above the collapse faster than to the floors below the collapse point. Number two, the top portion of the
building does not come straight down, but in fact leans over to the left and comes down at a 30 degree angle (the building falls down at an angle).
There is absolutely no evidence of any explosions in this video prior to the building collapsing. Once again, we see the top of the building moving
downwards BEFORE any smoke or debris is ejected with force from the building. You see the building move 3 or 4 floors before anything is blown out the
sides. That means it was the act of the collapse and the air pressure that forced debris out that caused it to look like an explosion. It was NOT an
explosion prior to collapse. Once again, how can the WTC2 tower (like the WTC1 tower) defy the laws of physics and fall faster than the supposed
"demolition charges" we set off? It makes absolutely no sense! If this was a controlled demolition there would HAVE TO BE explosive charges going
off BEFORE the collapse of the tower!!
- Collapse of WTC2 HiRes [2.3 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a 692x408] This
video does not start before the building begins to collapse and it shows 3 or 4 streams of smoke and debris being ejected from floors well below the
collapsing area. These so called "squibs" are pointed to as evidence of a controlled demolition. I can't see how that is possible. Once again, you
have a building collapsing from the top down and air pressure from the collapse causing smoke and drywall dust to be ejected from windows lower in the
building. If these "explosions" were caused by detonations in a controlled demolition what explanation can there be for the 30 to 40 floors above
the floor of the demolition to not start to collapse down onto the demolished floor? This just does not happen! It's entirely clear in this video
that the floors are collapsing at the top down, and not at the floors where conspiracy sites are claiming "demolition evidence" is shown in these
videos. The theory defies the laws of physics.
- Collapse of WTC2 HiRes 2nd angle [1.5 MB HiRes Codec: DivX3.11a
692x352] This video doesn't show any explosions, it shows the top section of the tower begin to fall (collapsing at around the 80-85th floors first)
and it shows the top quarter of the building falling towards the camera and downwards. It's a good quality video, but it doesn't show the building
below the area of the fires. There is absolutely no evidence of any explosions prior to the building already collapsing.
- WTC2 Tower Collapse from Video Tour camera [1.7 MB HiRes Codec:
DivX3.11a 692x356] This video shows the south tower after it's already collapsing. The top section of the tower is leaning out to the left and
towards the camera and falling straight downwards. It's too bad it doesn’t show about 5-10 seconds more at the start of the video. Again, no
evidence of a controlled demolition, no evidence of bombs going off, only evidence of a building collapsing down onto itself from the higher
- Supposed "Premature Detonation Evidence" of WTC2 [0.4 MB Codec:
DivX3.11a 704x480] Again, there are a couple things wrong with this video. Number one, the first claimed detonation occurs on the Sky Lobby level
where the elevators from the area collapsing start and stop. You can clearly see the dark band of the Sky Lobby level in this grainy video. The
elevator shafts would have certainly provided a travel path for the tremendous air pressure of the floors collapsing 20-30 floors above. Secondly,
once again, if this was indeed an explosion, as part of a controlled demolition, why in the heck didn't that floor begin to collapse? You can clearly
see that that floor sits there in the same condition right up to the point where the collapsing floors above come crashing into it. The whole
controlled demolition theory, with these smoke and debris photographs and videos used as "evidence", is conceptually flawed. It flies in the face of
reason and ignores the laws of physics. There is absolutely no evidence on video or in the thousands of still photographs of the collapse of WTC1 and
WTC2 that shows any detonations prior to the collapse of the building. None.
Here is a video from one of the conspiracy sites to give "evidence" or support to the theory that the WTC towers 1 and 2 were indeed a controlled
demolition. There is one glaring error with this theory and one huge problem with using this video to give support to the theory. Watch these
controlled demolitions and tell me what is similar in every instance.
In a controlled demolition: the explosions occur BEFORE the buildings begin to collapse.
Exactly the opposite of what was (is) seen in the
collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. In both the WTC 1 and 2 tower videos and photographs we can clearly see that both buildings begin to fall/collapse before
ANY evidence of an explosion (imagined or real) is visible in any frame of any video or any photograph from any source. Explain that, and tell me why
in these controlled demolitions EVERY SINGLE ONE shows the explosion followed by building collapse and not one shows a building collapse before the
explosion (or dust cloud or ejecta or whatever you want to call it).
I hope some of this at least provides some new reading and new viewing for a few readers. It would be a shame to be posting all old information (I
honestly haven't been following the WTC conspiracy stuff at all until approx 2 weeks ago).