It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Building collapse from one floor removal IDENTICAL FREEFALL to WTC tower collapse.

page: 3
11
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Nathan-D

The WTC were HUGE buildings, and it doesn't take too many floors of a building to create a massive force at freefall acceleration. As the combined mass of the floors, office materials, and other debris inside the towers came down at freefall acceleration (9.8 m/s^2 if my memory serves me right) the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered. It's not hard to see how the upper floors of the tower constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 — constantly developing more mass and more energy as they hit and collected each subsequent floor — would have been enough to shatter and scatter pieces of concrete.

You say that as the towers came down at freefall acceleration "the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered". According to Newton's third law every action has an equal and opposite reaction. By that law I would have thought as the upper-section shattered the lower-section (virtually to dust and other small derby as evidenced in the videos) then surely the upper-section would also become shattered in the process as the forces being imposed on both of them are equal. I do not see how only the below-section could have become shattered while the upper-section remained intact. To me there appears to be a fundamental conflict with established laws of physics here. I am open to correction on this score however and maybe I have merely misunderstood you.
edit on 10-2-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

First off, the Towers (Specifically WTC 1&2) NEVER had a period of freefall acceleration. NEVER.

When the collapse begins, the first floor impacted breaks apart. So does the lowest from the collapsed part.

So, we have 15 floors impacting 1. Then 14 floors PLUS the rubble from the floor just collapsed to do work.

Does that make sense? I am trying to keep my post short.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 02:24 PM
Hiya,
i thought I'd also post this youtube clip of an even more spectacular top down building collapse just in case some of you fail to see the similarities to the Twin Towers collapse.
There was also a link to this on the other similar thread, but not the posted video, so please enjoy.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by manmental
Hiya,
i thought I'd also post this youtube clip of an even more spectacular top down building collapse just in case some of you fail to see the similarities to the Twin Towers collapse.

One more time for those that have comprehension problems:

You CANNOT compare a concrete structure collapse to a steel structure. Posting videos of concrete buildings being "pulled" with cables does not compare to steel structures. Steel structures are far more sturdy than concrete structures. That's why structures in earthquake zones are required to be made out of steel, not concrete.

Witnesses saw the flashes, heard the timed/synchronous booms, and we can see the ejections. All of which are associated with controlled demolitions and none of which are associated with fire-induced collapses. You can keep trying, but you will never be able to explain away the facts with any other collapse mechanism besides explosives, period.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Nathan-D

The WTC were HUGE buildings, and it doesn't take too many floors of a building to create a massive force at freefall acceleration. As the combined mass of the floors, office materials, and other debris inside the towers came down at freefall acceleration (9.8 m/s^2 if my memory serves me right) the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered. It's not hard to see how the upper floors of the tower constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 — constantly developing more mass and more energy as they hit and collected each subsequent floor — would have been enough to shatter and scatter pieces of concrete.

You say that as the towers came down at freefall acceleration "the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered". According to Newton's third law every action has an equal and opposite reaction. By that law I would have thought as the upper-section shattered the lower-section (virtually to dust and other small derby as evidenced in the videos) then surely the upper-section would also become shattered in the process as the forces being imposed on both of them are equal. I do not see how only the below-section could have become shattered while the upper-section remained intact. To me there appears to be a fundamental conflict with established laws of physics here. I am open to correction on this score however and maybe I have merely misunderstood you.
edit on 10-2-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

First off, the Towers (Specifically WTC 1&2) NEVER had a period of freefall acceleration. NEVER.

thats just your opinion just because its in capital letter doesnt make it true, what makes you think your so right? i doubt you a fire fighter either!

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:35 PM

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Nathan-D

The WTC were HUGE buildings, and it doesn't take too many floors of a building to create a massive force at freefall acceleration. As the combined mass of the floors, office materials, and other debris inside the towers came down at freefall acceleration (9.8 m/s^2 if my memory serves me right) the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered. It's not hard to see how the upper floors of the tower constantly accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 — constantly developing more mass and more energy as they hit and collected each subsequent floor — would have been enough to shatter and scatter pieces of concrete.

You say that as the towers came down at freefall acceleration "the concrete below would be hit with a ridiculously powerful force and probably shattered". According to Newton's third law every action has an equal and opposite reaction. By that law I would have thought as the upper-section shattered the lower-section (virtually to dust and other small derby as evidenced in the videos) then surely the upper-section would also become shattered in the process as the forces being imposed on both of them are equal. I do not see how only the below-section could have become shattered while the upper-section remained intact. To me there appears to be a fundamental conflict with established laws of physics here. I am open to correction on this score however and maybe I have merely misunderstood you.
edit on 10-2-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)

First off, the Towers (Specifically WTC 1&2) NEVER had a period of freefall acceleration. NEVER.

thats just your opinion just because its in capital letter doesnt make it true, what makes you think your so right? i doubt you a fire fighter either!

Maybe you can show me when it did?

I'd love to see it.

Keep this picture in mind.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:39 PM

Originally posted by manmental
Hiya,
i thought I'd also post this youtube clip of an even more spectacular top down building collapse just in case some of you fail to see the similarities to the Twin Towers collapse.
There was also a link to this on the other similar thread, but not the posted video, so please enjoy.

Dood, your video just shows a building collapsing due to sporadic fires such as the WTC 7 Solomon brothers building. Not a demolition. Truthers..... Meh

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 07:40 PM

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

One more time for those that have comprehension problems:

You CANNOT compare a concrete structure collapse to a steel structure. Posting videos of concrete buildings being "pulled" with cables does not compare to steel structures. Steel structures are far more sturdy than concrete structures. That's why structures in earthquake zones are required to be made out of steel, not concrete.

No, that is not true. The reason buildings are made of steel in earthquake prone areas is because they are designed to flex and move. They have much better ability to move laterally than concrete.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Witnesses saw the flashes, heard the timed/synchronous booms, and we can see the ejections. All of which are associated with controlled demolitions and none of which are associated with fire-induced collapses. You can keep trying, but you will never be able to explain away the facts with any other collapse mechanism besides explosives, period.

And yet, no evidence of explosives, no signs of an explosive on the steel, no domb sniffing dogs alerted to the presence of an explosive, and no extremely loud booms that were heard by everyone in lower Manhattan, and even into Hoboken.

Sorry, you're up a creek, with no paddle, and your canoe has no bottom.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:25 PM

In the Game Jenga , if you try and remove the center Blocks from the Tower one by one in the same Area , the Tower will Collapse Laterally , not Straight Down . In Order for it to Collapse Vertically Straight Down , you would need to remove ALL the Blocks at the Same Time from the Center . How could of that have been achieved in TWC ?

i297.photobucket.com...

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit

In the Game Jenga , if you try and remove the center Blocks from the Tower one by one in the same Area , the Tower will Collapse Laterally , not Straight Down . In Order for it to Collapse Vertically Straight Down , you would need to remove ALL the Blocks at the Same Time from the Center . How could of that have been achieved in TWC ?

i297.photobucket.com...

Wait, so you think that comparing Jenga blocks to the WTC towers is a GOOD idea? LOL!! Laughable!!

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:45 PM

Used as an Example to Refute the OP's Theory ......SmartAhass.......

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:00 PM

What?
A concrete structure is in NO way stronger than a steel structure. Not vertically, not horizontally, not in ANY way. Where are these people coming from?
Where did you go to school? Tell me about your degree in engineering.
This is horse#.
ATS people are smarter than that. Maybe we need an entrance exam.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Stewie

What?
A concrete structure is in NO way stronger than a steel structure. Not vertically, not horizontally, not in ANY way. Where are these people coming from?
Where did you go to school? Tell me about your degree in engineering.
This is horse#.
ATS people are smarter than that. Maybe we need an entrance exam.

Maybe you shouldn't build strawman arguments.

Typically, steel structures are able to flex laterally better than steel. But, concrete has a better compression strength, hence why they use steel to reinforce concrete.

Where did I claim to be an engineer? Another strawman.

Entrance exam? LOL!! Where would you post then?

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:13 PM

Originally posted by FDNY343
And yet, no evidence of explosives, no signs of an explosive on the steel, no domb sniffing dogs alerted to the presence of an explosive

Just because the actual, physical parts weren't found, doesn't make the witness testimony any less credible. Flashes, timed booms, and ejections still have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.

There have been plenty of murder cases where people have been convicted without the actual, physical murder weapon. Those cases are based on witness testimony, along with other facts. On 9/11, we have more than abundant witness testimony to every single aspect of controlled demolitions, and audio/visual media to corroborate their testimony, regardless of the actual, physical devices.

For you to discount controlled demolition based on no physical pieces or devices found, shows your true ignorance and denial, all while ignoring every other piece of evidence that supports controlled demolition.

I have yet to see from any of you trusters, some sort of fire-induced collapse that exhibits the above characteristics.

Still waiting...

Originally posted by FDNY343
and no extremely loud booms that were heard by everyone in lower Manhattan, and even into Hoboken.

Is that so? I produced just a few of the many witnesses that did, in fact, hear the loud, timed booms in my video here. Further, I recall posting more than once the "9/11 Eyewitness" video where you can hear the booms from 2 miles away, corroborated by firefighter testimony in the oral histories.

So, either you are being blatantly and deliberately dishonest, or you haven't done the least amount of research on the subject you attempt to be researched on.

Who's up a creek now?

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by Stewie

What?
A concrete structure is in NO way stronger than a steel structure. Not vertically, not horizontally, not in ANY way. Where are these people coming from?

Yeah, I wasn't even going to attempt to argue this point with him. The absurdity is priceless, and shows the level of knowledge of the trusters, and hence why they have to ignore all available evidence to cling to their fantasies.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:22 PM

Steel is what gives concrete its "strength", if it can even be defined that way. Concrete is nothing without steel in a structural sense. In other words, concrete has NO inherent STRENGTH of its own, it has only certain structural QUALITIES that make it useful for construction purposes. Basically, relatively inexpensive mass where you need it.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:26 PM

Understood.
Sometimes I don't know why I bother. I sometimes get frustrated fighting this fight.

posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Stewie
Steel is what gives concrete its "strength", if it can even be defined that way.

You can, but it would be wrong.

Originally posted by Stewie

Concrete is nothing without steel in a structural sense.

Really? Cite a source for this?

Originally posted by Stewie
In other words, concrete has NO inherent STRENGTH of its own, it has only certain structural QUALITIES that make it useful for construction purposes.

Huh? Are you drinking the bong water?

Originally posted by Stewie
Basically, relatively inexpensive mass where you need it.

Yeah, you should tell that to any engineer. They will laugh till they wet themselves!!

You should call my engineer who built my house. Concrete construction, no steel whatsoever. Only solid concrete and cinder blocks.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:22 AM

Sup FDNY343, as a structural engineer I have so say I'm sorry but you're being told by Stewie.

But, concrete has a better compression strength

Incorrect. The typical compressive strength of even low grade structural steel is over ten times that of structural concrete. This is why concrete compression members require a much larger cross section than steel compression members. It is also why compressive steel reinforcing is sometimes needed in concrete members to increase its compressive strength without adding lots of extra weight or cross sectional size.

Originally posted by Stewie
Steel is what gives concrete its "strength", if it can even be defined that way.

You can, but it would be wrong.

Steel is what gives concrete its tensile, torsional, bending, shear and some compressive strength. Basically concrete is unusable without steel.

Really? Cite a source for this?

I'll be that source.

Huh? Are you drinking the bong water?

You're ignorant if you believe consuming tetrahydrocannabinol impairs intelligence.

Yeah, you should tell that to any engineer. They will laugh till they wet themselves!!

Actually that sounds about right. It's good for floor beams etc where people need something to walk on.

You should call my engineer who built my house. Concrete construction, no steel whatsoever. Only solid concrete and cinder blocks.

Are you sure there is no concrete reinforcing, especially in the cinder blocks? It is required by law where I am. Is it a modern house?

edit on 15-2-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 09:09 AM

Huh? Are you drinking the bong water?

I guess he's not interested in the Kool Aid you're serving. Can't say that I blame him.

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Azp420

You should call my engineer who built my house. Concrete construction, no steel whatsoever. Only solid concrete and cinder blocks.

Are you sure there is no concrete reinforcing, especially in the cinder blocks? It is required by law where I am. Is it a modern house?

edit on 15-2-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)

No, it is not a modern house.

Concrete blocks and poured concrete. Built in the 1950's.

Usually there would be "downpours" in key areas (near windows, corners, etc). However, the ENTIRE walls are solid concrete all the way around.

It also has a very low pitch roof (2/12) and uses a big beams (8x12 for the cernter cord, and 4x12 for the rafters) for the roof assembly. It then has 1 1/2" T&G knotted pine for the roof. No plywood.

/OT

top topics

11