@rromantykpl you can actualy hear the explosions on the Sauret video(use headphones!) Timed explosions which i heard in New York! You hear a rattle sound 3 times followed by 3 big deep explosions, this happen 2 times and than the tower comes down! The sounds are blocked, but you can still hear it in this video, most people don't know about this!!!
I would like to know how in the world the hat truss was demo'd. It clearly was, the antenna is the first thing to drop. That's not right. And it's no easy hat trick, to turn a phrase. The entire 110 acres is dust. Concrete dust w/o a computer, desk, chair, etc in the debris. First the hat truss. And not one pancake is in the rubble. Just pancake batter
I had dinner at the top of the WTC 2x in 1978. When the wind blew I felt as though I were back in California experiencing about a three-point-0 earthquake...
Americký paka si to shodily sami pomocí řízené destrukce aby mohli ovládat a buzerovat svět.NWO.Lidi nestojí o informace. Jsou příliš líní,než aby si je pořídili.Když jim je nabíbneš, mávnou rukou"nesmysl",Jdou čumět na Novu a lemtat aspartamovou limonádu.Až to vypukne plnou silou,budou brečet a chcípat.A já s nima.
Being an architect you should know that saying that a building is impossible to bring down is about as accurate as saying a ship is unsinkable. You are disregarding the unforeseen factors of jet fuel burn, uncontrolled fires raging for hours fueled by unknown collective common materials. The building was made to withstand impact not extraordinary fire.
Unfortunately you're incorrect. it was not an extraordinary fire. FEMA and NIST even acknowledge that all the jet fuel burned off within 10 minutes & it was just a normal office fire from that point on. Further, there was a MASSIVE amount of black smoke indicating that it was an oxygen deprived fire and yet there were huge openings to the outside air from the planes. if the fires were big and strong they'd have reached these openings we'd have seen massive flames coming out the openings.
Being an architect, I can tell this building's impossible to have been brought down by a simple 757. It was crushed during the initial impact with those thousands of tons of concrete... the WTC floors weren't even damaged when the airplane hit it, do you remember? Floors were nearly intact. Core structure was LIGHTLY damamged.
The core should not have failed, the floors can fail but never the core. That's a very strong build. Vertical loads are a lot stronger than the horizontal loads.
@ArcanineKing Hi, I know you left this message (9 months ago), but id like to know the conclusion to what you were trying to get at as you didnt quite finish off...so are you saying that explosives were planted within the WTC?..almost like a demolition?
@giro07 I'm not so sure what to tell you. No side has evidence that explosives were in the scene because they never did include explosives were the thing they had to search for. However, FEMA did indicate they found traces of thermite, which is rich molten iron within a steel building at melting points in the masses for nearly a month buried within the rubble. That's the only evidence we have of a controlled demolition; mass buildup of molten steel.
@ArcanineKing Thank you for your reply, im actually an Architecture student graduating in a few weeks, so i was interested in your views, as I remember last year having a lecture with a structural engineer and all we could take away from it was the fact that....steel had melted due to the increase in temperature...but to be honest I didnt really buy it all!....Anyway you say your an architect right?, so how long have you been in the profession, and are you in the UK or elsewhere?
@giro07 I did not say I am an architect, but like you, I was a student in Architecture, also learning some structural engineering in order to know how a structure's supposed to hold itself from the stress of weight and such, it's what every student at my school goes through. Eventually, after two years, I had to switch schools.
Steel melts at 2750F, temperatures of that intensity from jet fuel is impossible unless it had additives, which could melt the jet engines, LOL. Nothing adds up here.
and you want to belive planes alone brought down the buildings.if cant see this was way beyond 19 terrorist and some box cutters wtf are people that blind
Well, i can see what a flimsy bld the WTC was. No wonder a plane smashed thru the outer and inner steel spine, all the steel reinforced concrete floors for some 10 floors. The wing tips were stronger than anything the WTC had to offer. i understand a japanese architect was primary designer the wtc. hmm, maybe thats it!or maybe not...
It is a joke. I think the center structures were damage from the bottom pulling the floors downward by the center structures. Perfect implosion! Please watch this video showing a camera shaking 10 sec before collapse - 9/11: North Tower "collapse" (Sauret)
@jcline87 not the jet, it was the kerosene. a diesel fuel fire did this. really. that's why there's no office contents in the remains. not one desk in 220 acres/110 stories. and not one chunk of concrete over 100lbs in 220 acres. it's what naturally happens when fuel oil burns a floor, it effects everything everywhere.
Yet.. Some people are incompetent closed minded individuals that lead a life believing in a mystical god and heaven that will make everything alright instead of taking responsibility for their own actions on this planet.
The Jet fuel that was burning the inside of the building needed to be almost 600 ferenheit higher then what it was to melt the structural beams,(over 300)
Gotta love big government and the manipulation techniques used to shock and awe all the world to believe we are under attack from terrorists (HA)
Noam Chomsky hit right on the button
Hegemony or survival, america's quest for global dominance. Gotta get that Oil!
Just because Bush and Blair and their lot are all evil bastards exploiting the situation for their own agenda, does not mean that we have to abandon all reason and start inventing more crap. All this fixation on bullshit theories is distracting people from looking at the real wrongdoing by the right-wing gits that are trying to remove our civil freedoms.
Fully agreed that we should not abandon reason; we should invoke logic and proven physics to the given event. The concept of the acceleration due to gravity is not a recent invention. In fact, Sir Issac Newtown released "Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica" in 1687, which contains detailed analyses of centripetal forces, including gravitational free-fall.
You talk about proven physics, then you try to tell me that it is only the mass of an object that counts and not how fast it is moving. I'm not attacking you, but your knowledge of physics which is clearly flawed. I could not throw a bullet fast enough to break your skin, but if I fired it from a gun I'd be able to kill you. Tell me honestly that velocity means nothing, and then tell me with a straight face that you understand physics.
As yet, you have no shown any physics equations to prove your theory. Your analogy is flawed. A human being and a steel framed building are 2 separate objects. One is a biological specimen, and the other is an inanimate object.
Champion2k, just because its too hard for you to face the facts doesn't mean that you have a right to criticse us with the courage and maturity to confront this evil and force justice done on the real perpetrators of 911. You can keep your bloodied hands - We are cleaning the blood off ours.
It is immaterial where the collapses started. A true structural failure would have been an asymetrial collapse. The WTC was symetrical. If it were a true structural failure, the tops of both buildings would have remained intact.
F=ma is irrelevant. A structural failure would have had an acceleration close to zero.
It's very difficult to avoid ad hominems when CT-lunatics clearly have no clue of what they're dealing with, copy-pasting mathematics they don't understand and continuously ignoring important facts. Again, you --and this time VERY clearly-- WANT to forget where the collapse actually started, hallucinating about those 110 stores and so on. It seems you have decided what you want to see long before even studying the matter. This, of course, applies to ALL CT-jihadists.
Please avoid ad hominem attacks. This is about mathematics, physics and logic. Please do not get emotional.
The mathematics involved is solid, correct and well understood.
Where is collapses started is not the issue. Pre-positioned explosives can be set to detonate in any order. In either case, if it were a true stuctural failure, the tops of both buildings would have remained intact.
Mjr40: "If it were a true structural failure, the tops of both buildings would have remained intact."
Intact after falling down for over 300 meters (around 1000 feet, it that's easier)? Are you really sure about this? Somehow that doesn't quite convince me.
I doubt the tops would have remained intact either. But instead of the concrete being broken into large and small pieces, it was pulverized into fine dust that covered Manhattan from river to river, further supporting the hypothesis that explosives were used. Watching the videos you can see this dust being forcefully ejected from the towers as they fell.
Also look at WTC building 7 which collapsed into its own footprint, but was not hit by a plane and any fires were relatively small. Later in a videotaped interview Larry Silvertein (lessee of WTC) admitted he suggested they "pull" WTC7. "Pulling" a 47 story building takes quite a bit of planning, so if they "pulled" WTC7, that would suggest pre-planted explosives. If there were preplanted explosives in WTC7, then why not WTC1 and 2?
It did not collapse into its own footprint, it suffered damage that ripped a hole 20 storeys high in it, and the entire building was a raging inferno. Please don't lie to make your point.
Take some of your own advice. The damage from the planes covered 4 floors, and the buildings were not raging infernos. The fires were limited to where the jet fuel burned and ignited office contents. Tee fllors below were not structurally compensated.
It appears that you are referring to the Bankers Trust/Deutche Bank building just south of the site on Liberty St. The South Tower gouged a hole that was about 15 stories tall. However, it did not collapse, nor was it evern in danger of collapsing.
No, it was being pulled down at the rate of acceleration due to gravity. The only way a building can fall at that rate is to have it acted on by outside forces, ie: high explosives.
Again, you (want to?) forget that the collapsing of the towers started from the impact zones. In WTC1 this was around the 90th and in WTC2 the 78th floor. This would be roughly around 350 and 300 meters (1,368 feet /110 stores being 417 meters) ==> much shorter distance to fall.
Still, F=ma; the momentum of the collapsing parts above the impact zones very effectively crushed everything on their way down.
F=ma is not irrelevant, when 20- and 30-floor high chunks of steel and concrete start to fall down. Falling down even a few meters creates tremendous momentum. Every floor beneath them is crushed about immediately, and the collapse goes on. That's a fact, based on laws of physics instead of those out-of-reality hallucinations about 2- or 3-second stops. The structure of the buildings and every single video of the collapse sequence supports that fact.
Of course you know that the "a" in F=ma is acceleration. In this case, it is acceleration due to gravity. Each time a floor collapses onto the floor below, the lower floor would offer SOME type of resistance and impede the increase of velocity (due to gravity) of the fall, especially considering the steel in the lower floors were not exposed to fires. Unless this resistance is taken out by another force such as explosives, there is no way the collapse of the building can reach freefall speeds.
No steel structure is designed to withstand fire without some sort of fire protection. An impact by a 757 very effectively rips away all possible fire insulation, exposing the steel directly to the fire. Very few metal alloys can withstand direct contact with fire without being damaged, and that kind of alloys are quite expensive; far too expensive to be used in skyscrapers. Simple structural steel has no special abilities and needs to be protected by other methods. Check from Wikipedia.
According to the Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, steel melts at 2,500 F. An office fire burning paper and funiture could never come even remotely close.
The steel used to build the WTC was certified to ASTM E119. That means the steel is rated to withstand 2000F temperatures for several hours without significant reduction is strength. Jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1800F under ideal conditions. The towers fell in about 59 and 90 minutes. Doesn't make sense.
Does that certification take into account the impact of a plane flying at 500 mph smashing into the steel structure? No, it doesn't does it. Plus, I'd need you do define "significant", as after the massive impact damage caused by the plane the word "significant" becomes a relative term.
You seem to like to answer your own questions. Rummy? Is that you? Of course there was damage done to the structure, but the plane didn't strike all 110 floors. Any fires that burned didn't weaken the steel frame below the impact point, so that part of the structure would still be capable of sustaining the weight above, as it has for the last 30 years. Your theory that the collapsing upper floors built up enough kinetic energy to pulverize all the concrete below into fine dust is not plausible.
Not plausible? Bollocks, I saw it happen. You just don't want to think it is possible because it doesn't fit in with your conspiracy theory. There is a huge difference between having weight resting on a support and having the same weight dropped onto the same support from height. For the amount of weight we are talking about, even a short fall involves massive pressures well outside the limits of the structure.
And I saw three buildings brought down by explosives. I'm sorry you can't grasp what is going on here. Just remember each time something like this happens, we tried to warn you. The only way it will stop is if we pay attention and hold people accountable for their actions. I pray you'll finally get it someday. Good luck to you!
No, you did not see three buildings brought down by explosives. You saw three buildings brought down, and you've chosen to believe that it was explosives. And this is despite having seen them struck by planes and set on fire. You've said they could not have fallen due to the events that we ALL saw, so you've latched onto a theory that has zero evidence and is highly implausible. So are you blaming the terrorists, the government or the Jews?
You are incorrect. 2 buildings were hit by airplanes. Seven WTC was not struck by any planes; only some debris from the first impact on the North Tower. It had only minimal damage and fires, yet it collapsed at 5 PM at freefall speed into its own footprint. The 9/11 Commission did not address that collapse at all.
The damage was not minimal, neither were the fires. The firefighters at the scene, who saw it with their own eyes, described a hole 20 storeys high, and video is available on the Internet showing smoke billowing out from every floor of the building. Why do you not believe the statements from eye witnesses that said the building was in a badly damaged state before it fell down? You don't think firemen know a damaged building when they see one?
This is incorrect. Firefighters that made it up to Skylobby 77 in the South Tower radioed to their Command that the fire were minimal and could be "knocked down with 2 lines". Smoke was not billowing out from every floor; the floors below the impact point were clear. On the South Tower, many of the floors *above* the impact point were not billowing smoke either. Badly damaged is not equivalent to structural failure.
Don't change your story. First you were discussing damage to WTC 7, which my comment replied to. Now you are trying to twist my comments to apply to the Twin Towers instead. That is not what I was talking about, and neither was it what you were talking about. Care to address my question in the context in which it was raised?
That's twice now you've dodged the question on WTC 7. Not unusual for a conspiracy theorist. Once more with feeling then: you said that there was no damage and little fire in WTC 7. I pointed out that the firefighters said there was. You then started talking about WTC 1 or 2 instead. Go back to WTC 7 and answer the question I asked, namely why won't you believe the statements of the firefighters who said that it was an inferno, and that it was heavily damaged?
Seven WTC was never hit by a plane at any time, the damage from the first impact was minimal and the fires were very small. Viewing videos of Seven WTC indicates that the fires were confined to one or two floors.
And after being asked 3 times you still haven't answered the question I posed. Why do you not trust the statements of the firefighters that said the building was SEVERELY damaged? They were there, they saw it, they said it was severely damaged. You've avoided answering the question, but please address it now. Why are you calling the firefighters liars? (Or at best, incapable of judging that a building is damaged.)
Answered previously, but I will state it again. The building was damaged, but it was never in danger of structural failure. The FDNY was intentionally held back all day from fighting the fires, so they eventually spread to other parts of the building. Even when they had spread by midafternoon, it was still not enough to cause a structural failure. Keep in mind, 7 WTC also went into freefall collapse and fell onto itself, which is characteristic of a controlled demolition.
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."
And here is a video of how bad the fires were later:
Sure there was damage. But not nearly enough to cause a structural failure. Applying h=(1/2)(a)([t]sqd) to 7 World Trade will show that it went into freefall collapse, as such:
Keep in mind Champion2k, what you saw were TWO separate events. The first was the plane impacts; the second was the building collapses. But we are meant to connect the two in a sequential cause and effect chain of events. In looking at the physics of the collapses, it becomes clear that the second event was not connected to the first.
Total bollocks. Giant planes hit giant buildings and later they fell over. Pretty simple set of cause and effect there. There is nothing in the physics of the collapses to say otherwise, except in the minds of the nutters that have a specific agenda to promote. Total, utter, bollocks. I tell you, it would be worth having another event of this type just to shut the loonies up when they see the same thing happen again.
The only agenda is physics and physics is not bollocks. Blair and Cheney can talk all they want about terrorists and the "war on terror". It will not change the physics of the collapses. Physics is neither liberal nor conservative; in and of itself it is neutral.
The damage caused by the second impact was significant, but it was not enough to compromise the ability of the Tower to sustain a vertical load. If it had done so, it would have collapsed immediately after the impact. Since it stood, the structure was able to successfully shift the vertical load to other (intact) parts of the structure.
You conveniently leave out the fact that after this impact you now have 10,000 gallons of fuel (amongst other things) burning away and further weakening the structure. It was a minor engineering miracle that the towers held after the impacts, it was the fire that dealt the death blow.
This is incorrect. The majority of the fuel burned upon impact. Recall the huge fireball that came out of the South Tower over Church St. after the 2nd impact. Please note it was not a miracle that the Towers held after the impacts. They were designed to withstand the collision with a Boeing 707, which is 160,000 pounds (86,184 kg). The 767s that hit weighed 164,800lb (74,752kg).
The impact that the building was prepared to withstand was that of a 707 at approach speed (the assumption being coming in to land and lost in fog). A 767 travelling at 500+ mph had a kinetic force of over 7 times greater than this. So yeah, it was a miracle that it held up to the impact in my book.
Nonetheless, the mass was similar to a Boeing 707. And, keep in mind, planes are thin-skinned objects hitting a massive strucutre made of steel I-beams. And don't forget the Inner Core:
The mass was similar? By the horns of Jesus you are missing the point aren't you? My hands have the same mass as those of Bruce Lee, but I can't hit anywhere near as hard as he could. Under your rules I could. It is all down to the kinetic energy, the same plane flying faster hits harder. You talk a lot about physics, then show that you know fuck all about the subject. Similar mass ... oh now that is so funny, in a scary kind of way.
It would be helpful if you would provide mathematics and formulas, like I have, as such:
Height = (1/2) (acceleration due to gravity) * (time)squared - 1,368 = (1/2) (32) (t)squared - 2,736 = 32t(squared) - 85.5 = t(squared) - 9.2 sec = time - an object that goes into complete freefall hits the ground in 9.2 seconds (in a vacuum)
- Time for collapse: approx 10 seconds (.8 second difference for drag from air)
Also, a description of the amount of time a floor is crushed of "about immediately" is not very convincing. The steel below the fires certainly was not heated enough to cause structural weakness. If the floors below were unable to provide ANY resistance due to the collapse of the top portion of the building (which were supported below for over 30 years) then a building so fragile would have already twisted and fallen over long before 9/11.
Once again, excellent points. The WTC Towers, like most buildings, are over-engineered to be able to withstand more than their normal load. The steel below the fires were completely undamaged and intact.
Incredible that you still keep believing on this "fire was not hot" -nonsense. Of course it was hot. Not hot enough to melt steel, but hot enough to cause both thermal expansion and serious loss of strength. Even ordinary fires in normal houses can easily reach temperatures of over 800 °C in only a few minutes, without any flight petrol to fuel them.
As MrEveryman eloquently stated below, assuming a true structural failure, there would be resistance from undamaged floors. Using F=ma, "a" (or acceleration) would be slowed eventually to zero, leaving "F" (or force) as zero, as such: (0)*(10,000,000) = 0. Also, you are assuming that each floor, though damaged asymetrically, falls symetrically. Your assumptions do not explain the disintegration of the Central Core, possible only though high explosives and/or a low-yield nuclear weapon.
I understand what you are saying, but the force always remains constant because 1) the mass never changes and 2) the acceleration due to gravity is a constant 9.8 m/s^2. What is changing is the momentum (p=mv) because the falling portion of the building increases in downward velocity due to the acceleration of gravity. As each lower floor resists the fall, the velocity is reduced somewhat and the acceleration must pick up at that point and is never able to attain a freefall velocity.
Of course the floors resisted the fall, but the trusses being very lightly constructed, this was not much and there is no way they could ever have actually stopped the fall.
To mjr40: You seriously believe in nukes or explosives? There is a limit (the critical mass) to how small nukes can be. Smallest possible nuke would have blown pieces of the WTC over miles, and there would have been radiation.
And can you respond to this: WHO would have planted all those explosives and WHEN?
The bulk of the load was carried by a 47 column cenral core, which was far from lightly constructed:
tinyurl-dot-com/5pmf4
How did this core collapse with little resistance?
Guessing "who" and "when" now is counterproductive. It is quite reasonable to hypothesize that explosives assisted in the destruction of the WTC based on Conservation of Momentum alone. The fact that it was never even considered in any official investigation is just as suspicious as anything else in this case.
Put a steel bolt carefully uder heavy stress and it will propably bend over time. Heat it, and it will bend much faster. Hit it hard with a hammer, and it will bend irreparably or even snap. And this is the case with WTC. No floor structure could have stopped the collapse even for a fraction of a second; the momentum simply was too great.
The steel could have only been heated local to the fires. The remaining structure below would not have lost any structural strength, and would still be capable of carrying some sort of load.
But you bring up a great point. Consider the top of the building acting as a hammer slamming down on the lower floors. Your hypothesis is that the steel exposed to heat may bend or even snap. Applied to the WTC, you would have seen the building topple over instead of telescope straight down.
Good point, MrEveryman. One would have observed an *asymetrical* collapse, with one part of the building starting to fail first. What was observed were *symetrical* collapses.
Why would the building topple over? What force is being applied to push the building to one side? Answer: none. Gravity makes things fall down, there was nothing acting on the building pushing it to one side.
As you can see in any of the video evidence, the top portion of the buildings tilt to one side as the collapse begins, proving that the collapse is nonsymmetrical. The fact that it still came straight down violates the conservation of angular momentum.
"The fact that it still came straight down violates the conservation of angular momentum"
You've read that phrase somewhere and have copied it into your arguments. Care to explain, in your own words, what it means? Because I don't think you even know what it means. I could be wrong, but I'm calling you on your science as it looks like just another example of a cut 'n' paste from the conspiracy websites,
Electrical engineer by trade, but still had to take 6 semesters of physics. Since the top of the building tilts off axis, it is rotating around a center point. Conservation of angular momentum states that the rotation must continue at the same velocity unless 1) the distance to the center point changes or 2) it is influenced by external force. Even if I had taken that from somewhere else, that doesn't make it any less true. The top of the building should have toppled over into the streets.
You're forgetting about all the matter that was thrown outward hundreds of feet. Chunks of exoskeleton hundreds of tons in size were thrown into other buildings. Think about the energy requirements to do that, reduce all the concrete to dust (from the onset of collapse, not the result).
great vid. a bit redundant though to see all the floors being done.... Did you forget to include the sections in the building that 'segmented' it into 3 parts? (seen as those grey bands around the building at the 1/3 and 2/3 points, equipment floors of some type I believew)
ok cool...i thought there was some different 'sections' in there, but i wasn't really sure because it didn't look significantly different than the others (except for color I guess)...i figured they would be vastly different structures than the rest of the floors.
Excellent and well engineered video. This gives one an idea of the massive and strong structure the WTC was. It is apparent from this animation alone that it would take much more than a thin-skinned airliner to bring it down. An animation that speaks a thousand words.
Ok, sounds good. Just an idea, if you can do an animation on the North Tower impact, it would be most powerful, since it would visually show only a few of I-beams on the north face were severed. This was not nearly enough to bring it down. Please feel free to use some things from my own video on the North Tower:
That's what a typical CT lunatic probably wants to see, but considering the huge scale of the building, the construction is still remarkably light, designed to bear the loads just as long as it remained intact. Punching a huge hole in the wall, cutting off several pylons and setting an uncontrollable kerosene/aluminum fire truly was more than enough to bring the buildings down. Conspiracy theories are just another goddidit-way to explain things that some people very clearly fail to understand...
- Each building has a huge inner core that helped keep the buildings up hence it was not a light costruction. - The WTC sucessfully withstood the direct hits. Thus, they sucessfully were able to shift the vertical load to the undamaged parts of the buildings. - h=(1/2)(a)*([t]sqr). The North Tower went down in 10 sec, indicating that it went into complete freefall. The only way a building can go into complete freefall is through the use of pre-planted explosives.
*The core seems huge, but do you think it was solid steel/concrete? The core was not designed to bear the load alone. The outer walls took about 40 % of the building's weight.
*Over time, and "thanks" to the fires, the tensions became too great to withstand.
*F=ma. Once the huge mass over the impact zones started to fall, the light floor trusses were pretty much as good as nothing in terms of even slowing the fall. Besides, the collapse started from the impact zone, not from the top.
The building was able to transfer the vertical loads to the other parts of the building; both Towers stood immediately after impact.
The fires were relatively cool, as evidenced by the tremendous amount of smoke that they produced.
The collapses actually started in the center. The inner core had to be demolished first. In the demolition industry, aka "gravity well". In videos of 1 WTC, the radio antenna starts to sink before the outer walls, indicating that the inner core failed first.
Naturally. Steel structures are flexible, but they can't withstand additional stress and fires forever.
Typical (and erroneous) CT-argument/lie. The color or quantity of the smoke tells nothing about the temperature of the fire. Lots of damage+lots of burning stuff (airplane parts etc.) => (very) big fire => lots of smoke. Understood?
Again, naturally. The core took heavy damage, as the plane hit it almost directly:
If it was a true structural failure, it would have occured at the moment of impact.
The North Tower demolition started above the impact point. Floors 77 - 110 of the South Tower (above impact point) should have been intact, yet they were disintigrated.
Avoid ad hominem attacks.
Jet A fuel flash point is 100 degrees, which is not enough to weaken structural steel.
The north face of the North Tower took the force of the impact; metal parts were the only thing that made it inside.
There is a long time between 59 minutes and forever. The steel used in the WTC was certified to ASTM E119 which allows for 2000F exposure for several hours without any substantial decrease in strength.
Maximum burn temperature for jet fuel is 1800F under ideal conditions, and due to heat dissipation through "the giant heat sink" known as "the rest of the building", the effect of the burning jet fuel would have been reduced. The strength of the steel was not compromised after only 59 minutes.
40% ? Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction mgr for the WTC, on 1/25/2001 said, "The [WTC] was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it...I believe [the WTC] could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners b/c this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
It's a bad comparison, and he was wrong. The impact of the jets did not cause the collapse. It was the massive, uncontrolled fire that burned across the entire building's footprint that caused the collapse - not the impact of the jetliner.
WilfredIvanhoe, Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management is on record stating the Towers were designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. He goes on to say that he believes the towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners. The structure is like the mosquito netting , it really does nothing to the screen door. And DeMartini DIED in the collapse on 911!!!
This animation proves nothing of the sort. It doesn't tell us the mass of each floor, the structural strength of the steel beams used, or the temperature of the fire that occurs when jet-fuel is spread across a complete floor and ignites other materials.
The video shows the tremendous structural redundancy inherent in the WTC. As such, if would have taken much more than a fire to bring it down, ie: high explosives.
@rromantykpl you can actualy hear the explosions on the Sauret video(use headphones!) Timed explosions which i heard in New York! You hear a rattle sound 3 times followed by 3 big deep explosions, this happen 2 times and than the tower comes down! The sounds are blocked, but you can still hear it in this video, most people don't know about this!!!
74pbg 6 months ago
Did you do all 110 stories
Donblon12 11 months ago
Americans live in system, they dont think dont use the brain :) thats the reason of 30000 views. Its simple belived that somebody hate you.
stanlerstasik 1 year ago 2
I think they fell down from a huge blast from Howard Stern's asshole!
phendformyself 1 year ago
This animation is produced by Blender, a linux 3D animation software.
It's got NOTHING to match an FEA analysis piece of software, like LS-DYNA.
IF you want to, go get LS-DYNA, its here, and it's free:
oasys-software. com/ dyna/ en/ downloads/ ls-dyna _7600_1224. shtml
LOL, Blender doesn't require that the 3d images actually be composed of anything, or hold up against gravity.
LS-DYNA DOES.
Merlin5x5 1 year ago
I would like to know how in the world the hat truss was demo'd. It clearly was, the antenna is the first thing to drop. That's not right. And it's no easy hat trick, to turn a phrase. The entire 110 acres is dust. Concrete dust w/o a computer, desk, chair, etc in the debris. First the hat truss. And not one pancake is in the rubble. Just pancake batter
IExposeMormonism 1 year ago
I had dinner at the top of the WTC 2x in 1978. When the wind blew I felt as though I were back in California experiencing about a three-point-0 earthquake...
DarkStarAZ 1 year ago
The mosquito netting principle to absorb a plane impact is obvious here as is the sheer strength of the core columns.
Dont forget the collapse was vertical and those core steel beams are designed to support an absolutely enormous vertical load.
Both buildings did what what they were designed to do ie withstand a large airliner impact.
They had no chance of surviving controlled demolition however.
zenoist2 1 year ago
Americký paka si to shodily sami pomocí řízené destrukce aby mohli ovládat a buzerovat svět.NWO.Lidi nestojí o informace. Jsou příliš líní,než aby si je pořídili.Když jim je nabíbneš, mávnou rukou"nesmysl",Jdou čumět na Novu a lemtat aspartamovou limonádu.Až to vypukne plnou silou,budou brečet a chcípat.A já s nima.
enrageant 1 year ago
and you mean to tell me a little as plane destroyed that amazing work in only 102 minutes? not buying it
7185247189 2 years ago
Being an architect you should know that saying that a building is impossible to bring down is about as accurate as saying a ship is unsinkable. You are disregarding the unforeseen factors of jet fuel burn, uncontrolled fires raging for hours fueled by unknown collective common materials. The building was made to withstand impact not extraordinary fire.
XSlayerALE 2 years ago
Unfortunately you're incorrect. it was not an extraordinary fire. FEMA and NIST even acknowledge that all the jet fuel burned off within 10 minutes & it was just a normal office fire from that point on. Further, there was a MASSIVE amount of black smoke indicating that it was an oxygen deprived fire and yet there were huge openings to the outside air from the planes. if the fires were big and strong they'd have reached these openings we'd have seen massive flames coming out the openings.
dankums 2 years ago
@XSlayerALE one building might be remotely possible but not 3 all on the same day .
The historical equivalent of 3 Titanics sinking all on the same day one of which never even hit an iceberg.
zenoist2 1 year ago
Being an architect, I can tell this building's impossible to have been brought down by a simple 757. It was crushed during the initial impact with those thousands of tons of concrete... the WTC floors weren't even damaged when the airplane hit it, do you remember? Floors were nearly intact. Core structure was LIGHTLY damamged.
The core should not have failed, the floors can fail but never the core. That's a very strong build. Vertical loads are a lot stronger than the horizontal loads.
ArcanineKing 2 years ago 2
@ArcanineKing Hi, I know you left this message (9 months ago), but id like to know the conclusion to what you were trying to get at as you didnt quite finish off...so are you saying that explosives were planted within the WTC?..almost like a demolition?
giro07 1 year ago
@giro07 I'm not so sure what to tell you. No side has evidence that explosives were in the scene because they never did include explosives were the thing they had to search for. However, FEMA did indicate they found traces of thermite, which is rich molten iron within a steel building at melting points in the masses for nearly a month buried within the rubble. That's the only evidence we have of a controlled demolition; mass buildup of molten steel.
ArcanineKing 1 year ago
@ArcanineKing Thank you for your reply, im actually an Architecture student graduating in a few weeks, so i was interested in your views, as I remember last year having a lecture with a structural engineer and all we could take away from it was the fact that....steel had melted due to the increase in temperature...but to be honest I didnt really buy it all!....Anyway you say your an architect right?, so how long have you been in the profession, and are you in the UK or elsewhere?
giro07 1 year ago
@giro07 I did not say I am an architect, but like you, I was a student in Architecture, also learning some structural engineering in order to know how a structure's supposed to hold itself from the stress of weight and such, it's what every student at my school goes through. Eventually, after two years, I had to switch schools.
Steel melts at 2750F, temperatures of that intensity from jet fuel is impossible unless it had additives, which could melt the jet engines, LOL. Nothing adds up here.
ArcanineKing 1 year ago
twin towers II is right for america not the freedom tower!
takahashiwongwong 2 years ago 2
and you want to belive planes alone brought down the buildings.if cant see this was way beyond 19 terrorist and some box cutters wtf are people that blind
wacthing3 2 years ago
take your paranoia meds or do another bong hit to medicate your sick self
stevenstreets3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
now fly a fake plane into it and see if it falls ;p
Homeworkboy2 3 years ago
Comment removed
stevenstreets3 3 years ago
Well, i can see what a flimsy bld the WTC was. No wonder a plane smashed thru the outer and inner steel spine, all the steel reinforced concrete floors for some 10 floors. The wing tips were stronger than anything the WTC had to offer. i understand a japanese architect was primary designer the wtc. hmm, maybe thats it!or maybe not...
hypnotstcollector 3 years ago
wow 21 000 views against 30 000 000 for the robot dance.
Its funny how americans are interessted in WTC attacks. They always find the easy way to believe. Osama bin laden the bad terrorist.
case closed!!!
so so sad
AtoK47 3 years ago 9
you're a funny guy
rjs87 3 years ago
And one jet made these free fall collapse in an hour, what a joke!
jcline87 4 years ago 14
@jcline87 it was a boeing 747 not a jet
MrTatamijo 1 year ago
@MrTatamijo it was a boeing 767 actually...
jichaelmackson1958 6 months ago
It is a joke. I think the center structures were damage from the bottom pulling the floors downward by the center structures. Perfect implosion! Please watch this video showing a camera shaking 10 sec before collapse - 9/11: North Tower "collapse" (Sauret)
rromantykpl 1 year ago
@jcline87 not the jet, it was the kerosene. a diesel fuel fire did this. really. that's why there's no office contents in the remains. not one desk in 220 acres/110 stories. and not one chunk of concrete over 100lbs in 220 acres. it's what naturally happens when fuel oil burns a floor, it effects everything everywhere.
IExposeMormonism 7 months ago
*clap* *clap* *clap*
TEGnSAR 4 years ago 2
The only way these two building came down is to be blasted apart. It's so obvious that they were.
metrofilm9 4 years ago 3
Yet.. Some people are incompetent closed minded individuals that lead a life believing in a mystical god and heaven that will make everything alright instead of taking responsibility for their own actions on this planet.
Luke123098 4 years ago
wat software is this?
software4junk123 4 years ago
The truth is so beautiful!!
Princess truth you are my love.
Icrywtc 4 years ago
Dam! I really miss the sight of those buildings. NYC looks so naked now.
Galanttttt 4 years ago
Wow.. good.. you made every single floor!
dzanicjasmin 4 years ago
Crap this is AS BORING AS BATSHIT!
red5llaw 4 years ago
genial.
Andy00011 4 years ago
Nice job. A little repetative a points but good overall.
At 3:45 i saw a cia agent planting explosives. ;-) Watch - 911 In Plane Site
clonemewhenidie 4 years ago
ur a fucking idiot, you know that?
KWLERD 4 years ago
how stupid can you be did you see the airplanes?
redbeast2 4 years ago
fuckin nice job.
iamthejake2000 4 years ago
Impressive...
Jourei91 5 years ago
I dont know why is goverment lying, but I think that they are.
andrej880 5 years ago
Like mike ruppert said, if you don't understand these two things, you won't understand 911, one is oil, and the other is drugs.
christophermarshall 4 years ago
... ok so why don't you stop buying gasoline to fix our problem with oil...
redbeast2 4 years ago
why dont you stop asslick the goverments ass? to stop the problem of we still NEED oil?
Aanthanur 4 years ago
wtf are you talki aout??
redbeast2 4 years ago
ull know in a few years.
stop NWO
Aanthanur 4 years ago
What? Stop NWO who what ?? eh?? wtf is wrong w/ u.
redbeast2 4 years ago
new world order but its bullshit
godzilla1234567890 4 years ago
The Jet fuel that was burning the inside of the building needed to be almost 600 ferenheit higher then what it was to melt the structural beams,(over 300)
Gotta love big government and the manipulation techniques used to shock and awe all the world to believe we are under attack from terrorists (HA)
Noam Chomsky hit right on the button
Hegemony or survival, america's quest for global dominance. Gotta get that Oil!
teske99 5 years ago
You're a fool if you buy that Loose Change crap- do some research of your own and you'll quickly find everything they say is pure fantasy.
nyceaf 5 years ago
idiot.
gotlogg 4 years ago
did you see it? in some moment floor of "segment" have many harder floors not two like at first segmented why?
coorvahmuch 5 years ago
good animation who shows how were flats of wtc built
asablic 5 years ago
Nice animation. Yes, the video doesn't show the mechanical floors at 1/3 and 2/3 of the building.
Kurtiskurtical 5 years ago
Very cool
skypelt 5 years ago
Just because Bush and Blair and their lot are all evil bastards exploiting the situation for their own agenda, does not mean that we have to abandon all reason and start inventing more crap. All this fixation on bullshit theories is distracting people from looking at the real wrongdoing by the right-wing gits that are trying to remove our civil freedoms.
Champion2k 5 years ago
Please avoid ad hominem attacks.
Fully agreed that we should not abandon reason; we should invoke logic and proven physics to the given event. The concept of the acceleration due to gravity is not a recent invention. In fact, Sir Issac Newtown released "Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica" in 1687, which contains detailed analyses of centripetal forces, including gravitational free-fall.
mjr40 5 years ago
You talk about proven physics, then you try to tell me that it is only the mass of an object that counts and not how fast it is moving. I'm not attacking you, but your knowledge of physics which is clearly flawed. I could not throw a bullet fast enough to break your skin, but if I fired it from a gun I'd be able to kill you. Tell me honestly that velocity means nothing, and then tell me with a straight face that you understand physics.
Champion2k 5 years ago
As yet, you have no shown any physics equations to prove your theory. Your analogy is flawed. A human being and a steel framed building are 2 separate objects. One is a biological specimen, and the other is an inanimate object.
mjr40 5 years ago
Champion2k, just because its too hard for you to face the facts doesn't mean that you have a right to criticse us with the courage and maturity to confront this evil and force justice done on the real perpetrators of 911. You can keep your bloodied hands - We are cleaning the blood off ours.
Midex 5 years ago
Avoid ad hominem attacks.
It is immaterial where the collapses started. A true structural failure would have been an asymetrial collapse. The WTC was symetrical. If it were a true structural failure, the tops of both buildings would have remained intact.
F=ma is irrelevant. A structural failure would have had an acceleration close to zero.
mjr40 5 years ago
It's very difficult to avoid ad hominems when CT-lunatics clearly have no clue of what they're dealing with, copy-pasting mathematics they don't understand and continuously ignoring important facts. Again, you --and this time VERY clearly-- WANT to forget where the collapse actually started, hallucinating about those 110 stores and so on. It seems you have decided what you want to see long before even studying the matter. This, of course, applies to ALL CT-jihadists.
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
Please avoid ad hominem attacks. This is about mathematics, physics and logic. Please do not get emotional.
The mathematics involved is solid, correct and well understood.
Where is collapses started is not the issue. Pre-positioned explosives can be set to detonate in any order. In either case, if it were a true stuctural failure, the tops of both buildings would have remained intact.
mjr40 5 years ago
Mjr40: "If it were a true structural failure, the tops of both buildings would have remained intact."
Intact after falling down for over 300 meters (around 1000 feet, it that's easier)? Are you really sure about this? Somehow that doesn't quite convince me.
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
I doubt the tops would have remained intact either. But instead of the concrete being broken into large and small pieces, it was pulverized into fine dust that covered Manhattan from river to river, further supporting the hypothesis that explosives were used. Watching the videos you can see this dust being forcefully ejected from the towers as they fell.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
Also look at WTC building 7 which collapsed into its own footprint, but was not hit by a plane and any fires were relatively small. Later in a videotaped interview Larry Silvertein (lessee of WTC) admitted he suggested they "pull" WTC7. "Pulling" a 47 story building takes quite a bit of planning, so if they "pulled" WTC7, that would suggest pre-planted explosives. If there were preplanted explosives in WTC7, then why not WTC1 and 2?
Videos:
tinyurl-dot-com/bf2ye
tinyurl-dot-com/h72x9
MrEveryman 5 years ago
It did not collapse into its own footprint, it suffered damage that ripped a hole 20 storeys high in it, and the entire building was a raging inferno. Please don't lie to make your point.
Champion2k 5 years ago
Take some of your own advice. The damage from the planes covered 4 floors, and the buildings were not raging infernos. The fires were limited to where the jet fuel burned and ignited office contents. Tee fllors below were not structurally compensated.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
"Tee fllors below were not structurally compensated."
Your science is as bad as your English. You are not going to win a debate by exposing your own flaws so easily.
Champion2k 5 years ago
Simple typo. "The floors"
MrEveryman 5 years ago
And you didn't mean to say "structurally compromised" rather than "structurally compensated"?
Champion2k 5 years ago
It appears that you are referring to the Bankers Trust/Deutche Bank building just south of the site on Liberty St. The South Tower gouged a hole that was about 15 stories tall. However, it did not collapse, nor was it evern in danger of collapsing.
mjr40 5 years ago
What - it was in a weightless environment? Do yourself a favor and study physics on earth.
jbtascam 5 years ago
No, it was being pulled down at the rate of acceleration due to gravity. The only way a building can fall at that rate is to have it acted on by outside forces, ie: high explosives.
mjr40 5 years ago
Fact: The Towers went into complete freefall:
Height = (1/2) (acceleration due to gravity) * (time)squared
the North Tower:
- Height = 1,368 feet
- Acceleration due to gavity = 32 feet/sec(squared) - 1,368 = (1/2) (32) (t)squared - 2,736 = 32t(squared) - 85.5 = t(squared) - 9.2 seconds = t
- time = 9.2 seconds
- Meaning: an object hits the ground in 9.2 seconds (in a vacuum)
- Time to collapse: approx 10 seconds (.8 second difference for drag from air)
mjr40 5 years ago
Again, you (want to?) forget that the collapsing of the towers started from the impact zones. In WTC1 this was around the 90th and in WTC2 the 78th floor. This would be roughly around 350 and 300 meters (1,368 feet /110 stores being 417 meters) ==> much shorter distance to fall.
Still, F=ma; the momentum of the collapsing parts above the impact zones very effectively crushed everything on their way down.
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
A true structural failure would have taken a much longer time to collapse:
-110 floors/2 floors collapsing/second = 55 sec
-110 floors/3 floors collapsing/second = 36.6 sec
Neither 36.6 nor 55 seconds are even remotely close to 10 seconds.
mjr40 5 years ago
F=ma is not irrelevant, when 20- and 30-floor high chunks of steel and concrete start to fall down. Falling down even a few meters creates tremendous momentum. Every floor beneath them is crushed about immediately, and the collapse goes on. That's a fact, based on laws of physics instead of those out-of-reality hallucinations about 2- or 3-second stops. The structure of the buildings and every single video of the collapse sequence supports that fact.
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
Of course you know that the "a" in F=ma is acceleration. In this case, it is acceleration due to gravity. Each time a floor collapses onto the floor below, the lower floor would offer SOME type of resistance and impede the increase of velocity (due to gravity) of the fall, especially considering the steel in the lower floors were not exposed to fires. Unless this resistance is taken out by another force such as explosives, there is no way the collapse of the building can reach freefall speeds.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
Excellent point, MrEveryman. The mass of the floors could never reach freefall speeds without external forces acting on the system.
mjr40 5 years ago
No steel structure is designed to withstand fire without some sort of fire protection. An impact by a 757 very effectively rips away all possible fire insulation, exposing the steel directly to the fire. Very few metal alloys can withstand direct contact with fire without being damaged, and that kind of alloys are quite expensive; far too expensive to be used in skyscrapers. Simple structural steel has no special abilities and needs to be protected by other methods. Check from Wikipedia.
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
According to the Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, steel melts at 2,500 F. An office fire burning paper and funiture could never come even remotely close.
mjr40 5 years ago
Why would it need to? At half that temperature steel becomes warm enough to lose 75% of its strength.
Champion2k 5 years ago
The steel used to build the WTC was certified to ASTM E119. That means the steel is rated to withstand 2000F temperatures for several hours without significant reduction is strength. Jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1800F under ideal conditions. The towers fell in about 59 and 90 minutes. Doesn't make sense.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
Does that certification take into account the impact of a plane flying at 500 mph smashing into the steel structure? No, it doesn't does it. Plus, I'd need you do define "significant", as after the massive impact damage caused by the plane the word "significant" becomes a relative term.
Champion2k 5 years ago
You seem to like to answer your own questions. Rummy? Is that you? Of course there was damage done to the structure, but the plane didn't strike all 110 floors. Any fires that burned didn't weaken the steel frame below the impact point, so that part of the structure would still be capable of sustaining the weight above, as it has for the last 30 years. Your theory that the collapsing upper floors built up enough kinetic energy to pulverize all the concrete below into fine dust is not plausible.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
Not plausible? Bollocks, I saw it happen. You just don't want to think it is possible because it doesn't fit in with your conspiracy theory. There is a huge difference between having weight resting on a support and having the same weight dropped onto the same support from height. For the amount of weight we are talking about, even a short fall involves massive pressures well outside the limits of the structure.
Champion2k 5 years ago
And I saw three buildings brought down by explosives. I'm sorry you can't grasp what is going on here. Just remember each time something like this happens, we tried to warn you. The only way it will stop is if we pay attention and hold people accountable for their actions. I pray you'll finally get it someday. Good luck to you!
MrEveryman 5 years ago
No, you did not see three buildings brought down by explosives. You saw three buildings brought down, and you've chosen to believe that it was explosives. And this is despite having seen them struck by planes and set on fire. You've said they could not have fallen due to the events that we ALL saw, so you've latched onto a theory that has zero evidence and is highly implausible. So are you blaming the terrorists, the government or the Jews?
Champion2k 5 years ago
You are incorrect. 2 buildings were hit by airplanes. Seven WTC was not struck by any planes; only some debris from the first impact on the North Tower. It had only minimal damage and fires, yet it collapsed at 5 PM at freefall speed into its own footprint. The 9/11 Commission did not address that collapse at all.
mjr40 5 years ago
The damage was not minimal, neither were the fires. The firefighters at the scene, who saw it with their own eyes, described a hole 20 storeys high, and video is available on the Internet showing smoke billowing out from every floor of the building. Why do you not believe the statements from eye witnesses that said the building was in a badly damaged state before it fell down? You don't think firemen know a damaged building when they see one?
Champion2k 5 years ago
This is incorrect. Firefighters that made it up to Skylobby 77 in the South Tower radioed to their Command that the fire were minimal and could be "knocked down with 2 lines". Smoke was not billowing out from every floor; the floors below the impact point were clear. On the South Tower, many of the floors *above* the impact point were not billowing smoke either. Badly damaged is not equivalent to structural failure.
mjr40 5 years ago
Don't change your story. First you were discussing damage to WTC 7, which my comment replied to. Now you are trying to twist my comments to apply to the Twin Towers instead. That is not what I was talking about, and neither was it what you were talking about. Care to address my question in the context in which it was raised?
Champion2k 5 years ago
Which question would you like addressed? I have sucessfully answered all of your previous posts.
mjr40 5 years ago
That's twice now you've dodged the question on WTC 7. Not unusual for a conspiracy theorist. Once more with feeling then: you said that there was no damage and little fire in WTC 7. I pointed out that the firefighters said there was. You then started talking about WTC 1 or 2 instead. Go back to WTC 7 and answer the question I asked, namely why won't you believe the statements of the firefighters who said that it was an inferno, and that it was heavily damaged?
Champion2k 5 years ago
Avoid ad hominem attacks.
Seven WTC was never hit by a plane at any time, the damage from the first impact was minimal and the fires were very small. Viewing videos of Seven WTC indicates that the fires were confined to one or two floors.
mjr40 5 years ago
And after being asked 3 times you still haven't answered the question I posed. Why do you not trust the statements of the firefighters that said the building was SEVERELY damaged? They were there, they saw it, they said it was severely damaged. You've avoided answering the question, but please address it now. Why are you calling the firefighters liars? (Or at best, incapable of judging that a building is damaged.)
Champion2k 5 years ago
Answered previously, but I will state it again. The building was damaged, but it was never in danger of structural failure. The FDNY was intentionally held back all day from fighting the fires, so they eventually spread to other parts of the building. Even when they had spread by midafternoon, it was still not enough to cause a structural failure. Keep in mind, 7 WTC also went into freefall collapse and fell onto itself, which is characteristic of a controlled demolition.
mjr40 5 years ago
Here is what the firemen on the scene had to say:
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."
And here is a video of how bad the fires were later:
http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi
Minimal? My arse.
Champion2k 5 years ago
Sure there was damage. But not nearly enough to cause a structural failure. Applying h=(1/2)(a)([t]sqd) to 7 World Trade will show that it went into freefall collapse, as such:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema/wtc-7-small.gif
mjr40 5 years ago
Keep in mind Champion2k, what you saw were TWO separate events. The first was the plane impacts; the second was the building collapses. But we are meant to connect the two in a sequential cause and effect chain of events. In looking at the physics of the collapses, it becomes clear that the second event was not connected to the first.
mjr40 5 years ago
Total bollocks. Giant planes hit giant buildings and later they fell over. Pretty simple set of cause and effect there. There is nothing in the physics of the collapses to say otherwise, except in the minds of the nutters that have a specific agenda to promote. Total, utter, bollocks. I tell you, it would be worth having another event of this type just to shut the loonies up when they see the same thing happen again.
Champion2k 5 years ago
The only agenda is physics and physics is not bollocks. Blair and Cheney can talk all they want about terrorists and the "war on terror". It will not change the physics of the collapses. Physics is neither liberal nor conservative; in and of itself it is neutral.
mjr40 5 years ago
The damage caused by the second impact was significant, but it was not enough to compromise the ability of the Tower to sustain a vertical load. If it had done so, it would have collapsed immediately after the impact. Since it stood, the structure was able to successfully shift the vertical load to other (intact) parts of the structure.
mjr40 5 years ago
You conveniently leave out the fact that after this impact you now have 10,000 gallons of fuel (amongst other things) burning away and further weakening the structure. It was a minor engineering miracle that the towers held after the impacts, it was the fire that dealt the death blow.
Champion2k 5 years ago
This is incorrect. The majority of the fuel burned upon impact. Recall the huge fireball that came out of the South Tower over Church St. after the 2nd impact. Please note it was not a miracle that the Towers held after the impacts. They were designed to withstand the collision with a Boeing 707, which is 160,000 pounds (86,184 kg). The 767s that hit weighed 164,800lb (74,752kg).
mjr40 5 years ago
The impact that the building was prepared to withstand was that of a 707 at approach speed (the assumption being coming in to land and lost in fog). A 767 travelling at 500+ mph had a kinetic force of over 7 times greater than this. So yeah, it was a miracle that it held up to the impact in my book.
Champion2k 5 years ago
Nonetheless, the mass was similar to a Boeing 707. And, keep in mind, planes are thin-skinned objects hitting a massive strucutre made of steel I-beams. And don't forget the Inner Core:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg
mjr40 5 years ago
The mass was similar? By the horns of Jesus you are missing the point aren't you? My hands have the same mass as those of Bruce Lee, but I can't hit anywhere near as hard as he could. Under your rules I could. It is all down to the kinetic energy, the same plane flying faster hits harder. You talk a lot about physics, then show that you know fuck all about the subject. Similar mass ... oh now that is so funny, in a scary kind of way.
Champion2k 5 years ago
Avoid ad hominem attacks.
It would be helpful if you would provide mathematics and formulas, like I have, as such:
Height = (1/2) (acceleration due to gravity) * (time)squared - 1,368 = (1/2) (32) (t)squared - 2,736 = 32t(squared) - 85.5 = t(squared) - 9.2 sec = time - an object that goes into complete freefall hits the ground in 9.2 seconds (in a vacuum)
- Time for collapse: approx 10 seconds (.8 second difference for drag from air)
mjr40 5 years ago
Also, a description of the amount of time a floor is crushed of "about immediately" is not very convincing. The steel below the fires certainly was not heated enough to cause structural weakness. If the floors below were unable to provide ANY resistance due to the collapse of the top portion of the building (which were supported below for over 30 years) then a building so fragile would have already twisted and fallen over long before 9/11.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
Once again, excellent points. The WTC Towers, like most buildings, are over-engineered to be able to withstand more than their normal load. The steel below the fires were completely undamaged and intact.
mjr40 5 years ago
Incredible that you still keep believing on this "fire was not hot" -nonsense. Of course it was hot. Not hot enough to melt steel, but hot enough to cause both thermal expansion and serious loss of strength. Even ordinary fires in normal houses can easily reach temperatures of over 800 °C in only a few minutes, without any flight petrol to fuel them.
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
As MrEveryman eloquently stated below, assuming a true structural failure, there would be resistance from undamaged floors. Using F=ma, "a" (or acceleration) would be slowed eventually to zero, leaving "F" (or force) as zero, as such: (0)*(10,000,000) = 0. Also, you are assuming that each floor, though damaged asymetrically, falls symetrically. Your assumptions do not explain the disintegration of the Central Core, possible only though high explosives and/or a low-yield nuclear weapon.
mjr40 5 years ago
I understand what you are saying, but the force always remains constant because 1) the mass never changes and 2) the acceleration due to gravity is a constant 9.8 m/s^2. What is changing is the momentum (p=mv) because the falling portion of the building increases in downward velocity due to the acceleration of gravity. As each lower floor resists the fall, the velocity is reduced somewhat and the acceleration must pick up at that point and is never able to attain a freefall velocity.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
Of course the floors resisted the fall, but the trusses being very lightly constructed, this was not much and there is no way they could ever have actually stopped the fall.
To mjr40: You seriously believe in nukes or explosives? There is a limit (the critical mass) to how small nukes can be. Smallest possible nuke would have blown pieces of the WTC over miles, and there would have been radiation.
And can you respond to this: WHO would have planted all those explosives and WHEN?
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
The bulk of the load was carried by a 47 column cenral core, which was far from lightly constructed:
tinyurl-dot-com/5pmf4
How did this core collapse with little resistance?
Guessing "who" and "when" now is counterproductive. It is quite reasonable to hypothesize that explosives assisted in the destruction of the WTC based on Conservation of Momentum alone. The fact that it was never even considered in any official investigation is just as suspicious as anything else in this case.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
The trusses are not the issue; the issue is the Inner Core. The destruction of the Inner Core has never been explained.
"Smallest possible nuke would have blown pieces of the WTC over miles."
This is precisely what happened. Now, 9/11 rescuers are starting to die from exposure to the debris in the weeks immediately afterwards.
mjr40 5 years ago
Put a steel bolt carefully uder heavy stress and it will propably bend over time. Heat it, and it will bend much faster. Hit it hard with a hammer, and it will bend irreparably or even snap. And this is the case with WTC. No floor structure could have stopped the collapse even for a fraction of a second; the momentum simply was too great.
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
The steel could have only been heated local to the fires. The remaining structure below would not have lost any structural strength, and would still be capable of carrying some sort of load.
But you bring up a great point. Consider the top of the building acting as a hammer slamming down on the lower floors. Your hypothesis is that the steel exposed to heat may bend or even snap. Applied to the WTC, you would have seen the building topple over instead of telescope straight down.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
Good point, MrEveryman. One would have observed an *asymetrical* collapse, with one part of the building starting to fail first. What was observed were *symetrical* collapses.
mjr40 5 years ago
Why would the building topple over? What force is being applied to push the building to one side? Answer: none. Gravity makes things fall down, there was nothing acting on the building pushing it to one side.
Champion2k 5 years ago
As you can see in any of the video evidence, the top portion of the buildings tilt to one side as the collapse begins, proving that the collapse is nonsymmetrical. The fact that it still came straight down violates the conservation of angular momentum.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
"The fact that it still came straight down violates the conservation of angular momentum"
You've read that phrase somewhere and have copied it into your arguments. Care to explain, in your own words, what it means? Because I don't think you even know what it means. I could be wrong, but I'm calling you on your science as it looks like just another example of a cut 'n' paste from the conspiracy websites,
Champion2k 5 years ago
Electrical engineer by trade, but still had to take 6 semesters of physics. Since the top of the building tilts off axis, it is rotating around a center point. Conservation of angular momentum states that the rotation must continue at the same velocity unless 1) the distance to the center point changes or 2) it is influenced by external force. Even if I had taken that from somewhere else, that doesn't make it any less true. The top of the building should have toppled over into the streets.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
Excellent explanation MrEveryman. The rotation of the top of the South Tower was stopped by an external force, ie: high explosives.
mjr40 5 years ago
You're forgetting about all the matter that was thrown outward hundreds of feet. Chunks of exoskeleton hundreds of tons in size were thrown into other buildings. Think about the energy requirements to do that, reduce all the concrete to dust (from the onset of collapse, not the result).
DarthKazi 5 years ago
great vid. a bit redundant though to see all the floors being done.... Did you forget to include the sections in the building that 'segmented' it into 3 parts? (seen as those grey bands around the building at the 1/3 and 2/3 points, equipment floors of some type I believew)
Thrashaero 5 years ago
I made a special point to include the mechanical floors. They are the ones with the blue I beams, not the green trusses.
mmmlink 5 years ago
ok cool...i thought there was some different 'sections' in there, but i wasn't really sure because it didn't look significantly different than the others (except for color I guess)...i figured they would be vastly different structures than the rest of the floors.
Thrashaero 5 years ago
www.UniveralSeed.org = divide and conquer = creeping fascism = designer corruption = end game = ignorance gives corruption power.
Connect the dots and scream bloody murder. If not now, when?
Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
chucksheen 5 years ago
Excellent and well engineered video. This gives one an idea of the massive and strong structure the WTC was. It is apparent from this animation alone that it would take much more than a thin-skinned airliner to bring it down. An animation that speaks a thousand words.
mjr40 5 years ago
Keep watching, the best one is yet to come.
mmmlink 5 years ago
Ok, sounds good. Just an idea, if you can do an animation on the North Tower impact, it would be most powerful, since it would visually show only a few of I-beams on the north face were severed. This was not nearly enough to bring it down. Please feel free to use some things from my own video on the North Tower:
http://www.archive.org/details/Sept12200112accelerationduetogravitytimesquared
A shorter one is also on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QFlxwlQiBb4&search=
mjr40 5 years ago
That's what a typical CT lunatic probably wants to see, but considering the huge scale of the building, the construction is still remarkably light, designed to bear the loads just as long as it remained intact. Punching a huge hole in the wall, cutting off several pylons and setting an uncontrollable kerosene/aluminum fire truly was more than enough to bring the buildings down. Conspiracy theories are just another goddidit-way to explain things that some people very clearly fail to understand...
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
- Each building has a huge inner core that helped keep the buildings up hence it was not a light costruction. - The WTC sucessfully withstood the direct hits. Thus, they sucessfully were able to shift the vertical load to the undamaged parts of the buildings. - h=(1/2)(a)*([t]sqr). The North Tower went down in 10 sec, indicating that it went into complete freefall. The only way a building can go into complete freefall is through the use of pre-planted explosives.
mjr40 5 years ago
*The core seems huge, but do you think it was solid steel/concrete? The core was not designed to bear the load alone. The outer walls took about 40 % of the building's weight.
*Over time, and "thanks" to the fires, the tensions became too great to withstand.
*F=ma. Once the huge mass over the impact zones started to fall, the light floor trusses were pretty much as good as nothing in terms of even slowing the fall. Besides, the collapse started from the impact zone, not from the top.
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
The building was able to transfer the vertical loads to the other parts of the building; both Towers stood immediately after impact.
The fires were relatively cool, as evidenced by the tremendous amount of smoke that they produced.
The collapses actually started in the center. The inner core had to be demolished first. In the demolition industry, aka "gravity well". In videos of 1 WTC, the radio antenna starts to sink before the outer walls, indicating that the inner core failed first.
mjr40 5 years ago
Picture of the Inner Core of 1 WTC under construction:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg
mjr40 5 years ago
Naturally. Steel structures are flexible, but they can't withstand additional stress and fires forever.
Typical (and erroneous) CT-argument/lie. The color or quantity of the smoke tells nothing about the temperature of the fire. Lots of damage+lots of burning stuff (airplane parts etc.) => (very) big fire => lots of smoke. Understood?
Again, naturally. The core took heavy damage, as the plane hit it almost directly:
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/photoart/021104-13Ba.gif
WilfredIvanhoe 5 years ago
If it was a true structural failure, it would have occured at the moment of impact.
The North Tower demolition started above the impact point. Floors 77 - 110 of the South Tower (above impact point) should have been intact, yet they were disintigrated.
Avoid ad hominem attacks.
Jet A fuel flash point is 100 degrees, which is not enough to weaken structural steel.
The north face of the North Tower took the force of the impact; metal parts were the only thing that made it inside.
mjr40 5 years ago
There is a long time between 59 minutes and forever. The steel used in the WTC was certified to ASTM E119 which allows for 2000F exposure for several hours without any substantial decrease in strength.
Maximum burn temperature for jet fuel is 1800F under ideal conditions, and due to heat dissipation through "the giant heat sink" known as "the rest of the building", the effect of the burning jet fuel would have been reduced. The strength of the steel was not compromised after only 59 minutes.
MrEveryman 5 years ago
40% ? Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction mgr for the WTC, on 1/25/2001 said, "The [WTC] was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it...I believe [the WTC] could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners b/c this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL4isaZRapY
MrEveryman 5 years ago
It's a bad comparison, and he was wrong. The impact of the jets did not cause the collapse. It was the massive, uncontrolled fire that burned across the entire building's footprint that caused the collapse - not the impact of the jetliner.
jbtascam 5 years ago
This is incorrect. The fires were not enough to melt and/or weaken steel.
mjr40 5 years ago
WilfredIvanhoe, Frank A. DeMartini - Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management is on record stating the Towers were designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. He goes on to say that he believes the towers could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners. The structure is like the mosquito netting , it really does nothing to the screen door. And DeMartini DIED in the collapse on 911!!!
www^youtube^com/watch?v=XL4isaZRapY
Midex 5 years ago
This animation proves nothing of the sort. It doesn't tell us the mass of each floor, the structural strength of the steel beams used, or the temperature of the fire that occurs when jet-fuel is spread across a complete floor and ignites other materials.
jbtascam 5 years ago
The video shows the tremendous structural redundancy inherent in the WTC. As such, if would have taken much more than a fire to bring it down, ie: high explosives.
mjr40 5 years ago
That was absolutely fantastic!
MelloB 5 years ago
Wow!!
That thing is a HUGE mesh of steel. Look at all that steel!!!!
Yet, it crumbled like it was made of talcum powder.
How strange.
DarthKazi 5 years ago