Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 17-7-2008 @ 04:14 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Seymour Butz



What about the molten metal in the basement, weeks after 9/11, and that fact that there are precious few processes known (thermite combustion being one, but not the only one) that could have achieved such a remarkable result? What about the fact that a hydrocarbon (jet fuel, office equipment and furnishings, and construction materials)-fueled fire could, at most, burn at only half the temperature required to melt steel, and that UL's own tests indicated that, at most, the steel exposed to such temperatures would have buckled a mere three inches, and absolutely would not have melted as a consequence of the fire? What about the fact that even NIST admits that the floors did not pancake (so long Keith Seffen?)

I have no idea what caused the collapse of these three buildings on 9/11. The point is, if you're defending the NIST findings, neither do you.

Thanks, Bsbray11, for your efforts.



reply posted on 23-7-2008 @ 11:00 PM by jprophet420
reply to post by Seymour Butz


Thats amazing, freefall speed would be 9.2 seconds and one of the towers is quoted as falling in 9 seconds on bith the NIST report and the paper you cite.

Talk about posting evidence without reveiwing it.


reply posted on 24-7-2008 @ 12:39 AM by gavron
NIST report that discusses the fall speed:

wtc.nist.gov...


6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



reply posted on 24-7-2008 @ 01:23 AM by re22666
reply to post by gavron



but there is no "pile driver" on top. you can clearly see the tops of the buildings almost completely break before the buildings start to fall. can someone post a video showing the huge building mass that pushed down the rest of the buliding at free fall speed? and can anyone else explain how, by there own theory, a large mass falling onto HUGE mass, has enough momentum, strength, force, whatever to completely negate resistance. especially the resistance of about 100 floors of building? just curious thanks.


reply posted on 24-7-2008 @ 05:42 AM by PplVSNWO
reply to post by gavron



Please don't use the NIST report as factual evidence. As a thread has pointed out, it is not peer reviewed and is also full of contradictions. For analysis on WTC7 collapse acceleration, there is a thread titled "911 - World Trade fell at free fall speed!!". See video posted by billybob on page 4.
Isolated fires as shown by -sorry, mistakenly thought I was replying to the Massive Fires thread- cause a steel framed building to collapse symmetrically at or anywhere near freefall. Nobody has yet to provide one example of a steel framed hi-rise globally collapsing from fire.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by PplVSNWO]


reply posted on 24-7-2008 @ 01:45 PM by Seymour Butz
reply to post by jprophet420



Read the NIST snippet again. You're wrong.

It says that the exterior panels fell - through the air - in 9 and 11 seconds. They are indeed in freefall, right?

The paper I cited estimates a 12-15 second fall time for the building.

So about 40% slower than freefall.

That's a huge difference. You need to get your head around this fact.


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 11:16 AM by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by jprophet420



This assertion is incorrect. None of the buildings collapsed at near freefall speed. This assertion has been rehashed for (literally) almost seven years with nothing new being brought forth. This claim can be made as many times as someone might care to but, it doesn't make the claim correct.

Here is the last detailed analysis I am aware of. It was updated in 2006.

Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse

[edit on 26-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 11:18 AM by jprophet420
reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar



However in science once something stands the test of time it becomes a law. For example water doesen't evaporate without a sufficient energy source. e.g. skyscrapers don't fall down without a sufficient energy source.

The debate becomes relevant in this case when we question if the outside energy sources were sufficient to bring down a skyscraper.

If you can prove the energy source was insufficient you can prove mirages hypothesis.


reply posted on 26-7-2008 @ 11:25 AM by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by jprophet420



There is no need to go any further. The assertion that the buildings fell at free fall speed is incorrect.

Your original assertion concerned "free fall" speeds, not the amount of energy required to initiate a global collapse.


[edit on 26-7-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 10 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 2 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 13 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 6 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 16 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 7 days ago with 8 member flags