If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?

Yeah, my calculations came out 16 seconds.

Okay, so that puts the acceleration of the fall at about 10.2 ft/s^2 - that's one-third the acceleration of gravity.

*blink blink*

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Phoenix
Ie: One cannot assume even distribution across entire structure in calculation.

If you could make that assumption then it would be a true statement to say: My calculations show that the removal of 50-75% of columns from anyone side would stil leave the towers standing - it just flies in the face of logic to me.

I agree, but where did we see the removal of so much integrity?

Read my post above. We're talking small areas of columns, not large chunks of the whole building being taken out. Redistribution should not have been that major of an issue.

You should reconsider your numbers because about 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face were removed.

This is important as the core acted as a fulcrum which was originally in balance in respect to loads, the 60% loss on one side was a much more serious issue than you make it out to be.

Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, my calculations came out 16 seconds.

Okay, so that puts the acceleration of the fall at about 10.2 ft/s^2 - that's one-third the acceleration of gravity.

*blink blink*

Its still pretty damn fast to be caused by a few weak beems falling onto stringer, supported structure.

Anyway I look at it, the building should not have collapsed that fast. or that neat. Neat being relative term here.

And WTC is still a looming red flag as well.

I won't argue with you on any of those points, skadi. I was just trying to clear up the false data that seems to crop up in these type threads every time we tried to discuss this.

My big hang-up has to do with the way the top, after tilting to around 20 degrees from vertical, righted itself. It's not easily explainable.

[edit on 7-29-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
I won't argue with you on any of those points, skadi. I was just trying to clear up the false data that seems to crop up in these type threads every time we tried to discuss this.

My big hang-up has to do with the way the top, after tilting to around 20 degrees from vertical, righted itself. It's not easily explainable.

[edit on 7-29-2006 by Valhall]

Fair enough Val. It is a very good point you bring up. Its better to argue one's point from actual facts instead of shaky non-facts or misinfo.

Im just stating my own observations. And you're right about the top righting itself. That also made me do a double take when I first watched the buildings collapse while doing some research on it.

My theory is, is that in a controlled demolition, one that is planned, you have charges perfectly spaced out all over the building, charges are set off at the same time, ect. Thus, you have your true free fall, because the demolition is designed to take it down very quickly.

However, when dealing with the conspiracy of the towers being deliberately collapsed, you dont have all the demolition teams casually strolling the building and planting charges. The charges would have been put in the best available places given the time and circumstances of the covert team planting them. Thus, when the charges were set off, it wouldn't be as clean as a normal, controlled demolition of an abandoned building.

But it would be alarmingly similar.

No matter how hard I try, I simply cannot buy the offical line that simple melting or weaking of structural steel will make a building like that collapse in a matter of seconds. especially when you consider the lower, undamaged floors were heavier. If you looked at the pre-9/11 occupancy map, you would see that the upper floors were generally alot less used and populated than the lower floors. And since both buildings were hit above on the top half, that accounts for something.

Office furniture, machinery, and people do count for something as far as overall weight and resistance.

If the towers had collapsed due to structural failure, Id believe that if they only partially collapsed, or if they had totally collapsed over a much longer, extended period of time.

These are just my own opinions, based on what Ive seen of the evidence.


[edit: double quote removed]

[edit on 7/30/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Phoenix
You should reconsider your numbers because about 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face were removed.

The perimeter columns bore 50% of the total vertical load. Hence, the load each perimeter column bore (C) was half the total load (L) divided by the number of perimeter columns (n).

C = 0.5L/n

There were 236 perimeter columns, 59 to a side. So before the impact,

C1 = 0.5L/236

60% of 59 columns severed by impact = 36 (rounded up).

So the post-impact load per column is,

C2 = 0.5L/200

Remove L since it is a constant, the percentage increase in load per column is,

(C2 - C1)/C1 = 18%

And since half the extra load is redistributed to the core, that makes for a 9% increase in load per perimeter column.

The NYC Building Code (Adequacy of the Structural Design - (Ch26-1002.4(a)) states:

In regard to strength requirements, a member or assembly must be capable of supporting the following:

1. Without visible damage (other than hairline cracks) its own weight plus a test load equal to 150 percent of the design live load plus 150 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site, and

2. Without collapse, its own weight plus a test load equal to 50 percent of its own weight plus 250 percent of the design live load plus 250 percent of any dead load that will be added at the site.

The latter loading is to remain in place for a minimum period of one week, and all loading conditions in Article 9 of the Code are to be considered. Exceptions to the above load conditions are also given in this section.

[edit on 2006-7-29 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace


[edit on 2006-7-29 by wecomeinpeace]

My..what a short post we have here .

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

The perimeter columns bore 50% of the total vertical load. Hence, the load each perimeter column bore (C) was half the total load (L) divided by the number of perimeter columns (n).

C = 0.5L/n

There were 236 perimeter columns, 59 to a side. So before the impact,

C1 = 0.5L/236

60% of 59 columns severed by impact = 36 (rounded up).

So the post-impact load per column is,

C2 = 0.5L/200

Remove L since it is a constant, the percentage increase in load per column is,

(C2 - C1)/C1 = 18%

And since half the extra load is redistributed to the core, that makes for a 9% increase in load per perimeter column.

WCIP, that still assumes an even distribution - I think you missed my point.

NYC code did not apply to the port authority so I'm not sure quoting that code is applicable here or not.

Originally posted by Phoenix
WCIP, that still assumes an even distribution - I think you missed my point.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The towers, as with all high-rise structures, were highly redundant and designed for even load redistribution. Loads were transferred between the core and the perimeter via the trusses and via the hat truss. Loads were transferred between the perimeter columns via the hat truss, the spandrels, and the chamfers. If this weren't the case, failure of one column would cause the one next to it to fail, and so on in a chain reaction until the building unzipped from one failed column. Equal load redistribution has been a fundamental component of structural engineering/design since we went over two storeys.

NYC code did not apply to the port authority so I'm not sure quoting that code is applicable here or not.

From memory NIST stated in their reports that the buildings were constructed according to the NYC code which is why I quoted it. I'll check and get back to you tomorrow. Regardless, the buildings would have to be designed according to some code, so if not the NYC code, then something similar and with comparable regulations for load-bearing capacity.

[edit on 2006-7-29 by wecomeinpeace]

Two years ago we had an accident on i-95 where a tanker truck carrying fuel oil collided with a car on the Howard Avenue Bridge. 9,000 gallons of burning fuel spilled onto the paved, steel structured bridge.

The bridge, obviously, was in open air and thus there was no accumulation of heat from the fire. The steel sagged 4 feet -- half-way to the street below.

Do any of you conspiracy nuts really believe that 10,000+ gallons of fuel from AA11 and, especially, the subsequent burning of the materials in the tower itself, in a virtually enclosed space (think: oven, peeps) could not weaken the steel structure of a 110 story tower?

Why did the towers fall straight down? Where the [Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.]else were they gonna go?

Why did they "fall so fast"? Anyone here ever heard of gravity? It's a very persistent thang. It likes to keep us grounded.

If I hear one conspiracy theory that doesn't contradict itself at every given roadblock maybe I'll listen a little harder. But, right now, it all sounds like a lotta hooey built on speculation relying on abject suspicion bourne on a desire for intrique stemmed from a desire to proudly announce one's own possession of secret knowledge.

Phooey, I says to you, I says.


Dang it, where's my avatar...?


[edit on 29-7-2006 by Tuning Spork]

[edit on 29/7/2006 by Umbrax]

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Two years ago we had an accident on i-95 where a tanker truck carrying fuel oil collided with a car on the Howard Avenue Bridge. 9,000 gallons of burning fuel spilled onto the paved, steel structured bridge.

The bridge, obviously, was in open air and thus there was no accumulation of heat from the fire. The steel sagged 4 feet -- half-way to the street below.

Completely different. Bridge and building built for different stress types and levels. Not only that, But Im willing to bet it burned for quite some time.

Do any of you conspiracy nuts really believe that 10,000+ gallons of fuel from AA11 and, especially, the subsequent burning of the materials in the tower itself, in a virtually enclosed space (think: oven, peeps) could not weaken the steel structure of a 110 story tower?

Seeing how the WTC is different from an overpass or bridge, Jet fuel is different from diesel and gasoline, and that much of the fuel was consumed in the initial impact blast, the answer is, no.

Why did the towers fall straight down? Where the f@#k else were they gonna go?

What a lame comment. It should be obvious to anyone what is meant by falling straight down. Where else are they gonna go? How about NOT falling, or the damaged top of one building toppling to the side.

Why did they "fall so fast"? Anyone here ever heard of gravity? It's a very persistent thang. It likes to keep us grounded.

Obviously you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Otherwise, you would have realized with your statement that you pretty much proved the conspiracy points.

If I hear one conspiracy theory that doesn't contradict itself at every given roadblock maybe I'll listen a little harder. But, right now, it all sounds like a lotta hooey built on speculation relying on abject suspicion bourne on a desire for intrique stemmed from a desire to proudly announce one's own possession of secret knowledge.

Phooey, I says to you, I says.

Dang it, where's my avatar...?

[edit on 29-7-2006 by Tuning Spork]

Yawn. Isn't it past your bedtime junior? This is a topic for BIG people. Go play with your tonka trucks now, unless you have something serious to contribute?

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Two years ago we had an accident on i-95 where a tanker truck carrying fuel oil collided with a car on the Howard Avenue Bridge. 9,000 gallons of burning fuel spilled onto the paved, steel structured bridge.

The bridge, obviously, was in open air and thus there was no accumulation of heat from the fire. The steel sagged 4 feet -- half-way to the street below.

Do any of you conspiracy nuts really believe that 10,000+ gallons of fuel from AA11 and, especially, the subsequent burning of the materials in the tower itself, in a virtually enclosed space (think: oven, peeps) could not weaken the steel structure of a 110 story tower?


[edit on 29/7/2006 by Umbrax]

First of all, you don't need to be calling anybody a conspiracy "nut". If you've decided not to look at this with an open mind, then go play in your sandbox and let the grown-ups handle the hard parts of life for you.

And let's get something straight - YOU HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THIS - because if you had, you wouldn't have made the totally inappropriate comparison of liquid fuel pooled on top of a bridge and burning for hours versus what happened in the WTC towers.

THE NIST

I don't know why i feel i must continue, We seem to of all made up our minds one way or another

I submit that the building didn't fully fall as fast as we all say it did, but that the tumbling outer columns of the building did and the rest of the building disappeared behind the dust cloud

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.

Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.

Source

Edit took picture out might be too disturbing

[edit on 29-7-2006 by JackJuice]

[edit on 29/7/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by Phoenix
NYC code did not apply to the port authority so I'm not sure quoting that code is applicable here or not.

From the NIST WTC report, "Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems"



wtc.nist.gov... (pg xxxviii)

Originally posted by Vushta
Thats what happened. Maybe you saw it on T.V. It was in all the papers.

Just kidding. Do you mean JUST the fires? It would have been so damaged that it probably have to be demolished. Since 110 stories is beyond a CD even without considering the damage and any prefailing would probably make the building to unstable in the wind loads at that height, it would probably have to me taken down manually to a point where a CD would be feasible. Just my 2 cents.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by Vushta]

Maybe that's why they did a demo job on each one then, it was due to safety concerns and also a financial decision especially in the case of WTC 7 (remember LUCKY Larry?).

Of course the fix was in for the twin towers cause the pyschological effect had to be complete as part of the brain washing of the masses to accept the will of the chosen people to control them.

Lucky Larry?? Have you bothered to check out the facts on that? He isnt going to get enough money to fully rebuild the area AND he still has to pay 130 million or so in rent, just to retain the RIGHTS to rebuild. Not to mention that he is having problems finding tenants for the new WTC7. You call that LUCKY??????

Originally posted by bsbray11

Planes knocked out less than 15% of the perimeter columns, probably less of the core though no one went in to check. That buildings could've taken about 75% total column loss on any given floor before the whole floor would give way, columns and all.

I see.... so if "noone went in to check", how do you know that only "less that 15% of the perimeter columns were brought down by the crashing planes?.... How do you know that there wasn't more damage, not only to the peripheral columns but to the central columns as well?.....
You are contradicting yourself....

Originally posted by bsbray11
That leaves about >60% for the fires. Like I said, they would've had their work cut out for them. And they apparently only needed less than 2 hours in either building.

Your statement above is false, hence this other statement is false as well...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Also, should trusses have failed, I don't think even a local collapse would have initiated.

But if a local collapse had initiated, I think it would've come to a halt in between 3 and 10 floors down, easily. Or else the tilting section would've partially collapsed over the side (WTC2), or both.

False, once the initial collapse started there was no way to stop it since the floors below were not built to resist all that weight of falling debris, and the more floors collapsing there is an increase in the weight of the falling mass of debris, the debris wasn't all "dust" like some people seem to believe...

Originally posted by bsbray11
In no case should the buildings have behaved as they actually did on 9/11, without explosives being used to aid the collapses, imo.

It might be your opinion, but it is wrong.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Lucky Larry?? Have you bothered to check out the facts on that? He isnt going to get enough money to fully rebuild the area AND he still has to pay 130 million or so in rent, just to retain the RIGHTS to rebuild. Not to mention that he is having problems finding tenants for the new WTC7. You call that LUCKY??????

Yeah cause the first insurance claim was only for $2.5 Billion and yet he managed to get $5.0 Billion out of the court/insurance company.

I still don't know why the insurance company did not appeal that decision and if they had the WTC would still be a garbage dump in manhattan.

And again, you miss out on the fact that the insurance money WONT pay for the 500 + million he has had to pay in rent since 9/11 and the reconstruction of the site.


Even if he does find the tenants, Silverstein's methodical plan for development--one building at a time--has maddened his critics, convincing them that he simply does not have the cash to build out the site. The April agreement gives him about 60% of the $3.3 billion in public funding made available from Liberty Bonds to finish the site. He also has a $4.6 billion insurance settlement--it was ruled that the towers were hit by two separate attacks--although that is under appeal.

www.time.com...

It will cost $4.3 billion for Silverstein to rebuild the World Trade Center and maintain his lease once insurance is exhausted.

www.nypost.com...

So, the total price of the rebuild will cost 4.3 BILLION on top of the insurance settlement.



And finally...the deathshot to the "silverstein knew" crowd.....

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

www.forbes.com...

And yet, you still think he is lucky?