posted
I was given a link to 911 Mysteries on Google video. It is an interesting CT video in that it does not have loud rock music or a New World Order plot established.
At first I was very impressed with the video. I decided to do some research. I have found most, if not all of the points, refutable. Much like Loose Change. The movie is much more misleading then it appears when you watch it.
However, I cannot get over the rate at which the WTCs fell. 10 seconds? That seems awfully fast for the pancake theory. And I have not seen how the steel core collapsed below the planes entry point.
Was the weight of the top of the buildings enough to pulverize the steel core in such a short time?
I found extensive research pointing out fallacies from the rest of the documentary, but I can't find anything to explain the near free fall speed of the towers.
I only found this site which is a CT website--but at least it attempts a scientific explanation of the near free fall collapse of the towers. It says it is not possible. It concludes there must have been explosives.
Does anyone have any information on how they fell so fast?
The "squibs" can be easily explained by air pressure. The pulvarized concrete and WTC steel beams being ejected into surrounding buildings can be explained by the energy of the towers comming down. The quotes about security seem to be taken out of context. The whole CT threory seems a stretch--except for that final lingering question in my mind.
How does a pancake collapse happen in only .8 seconds longer than free fall speed?
Note: CT = Conspiracy Theory
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe the downward kinetic energy of the planes was a factor. I can't really help too much with this though, or find a decent explanation for you at the present moment. I'll look later.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how pancaking could take a substantial amount of time more than that of freefall.
quote:...each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300tons beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000tons.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300ton design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000ton of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200kilometres per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300kilometres per hour.
There is a bit left unexplained which makes this particular article somewhat misleading: 500thousand tons per tower divided by 110stories is 45hundred tons of mass per story. ie Each story that was collapsed by the weight of the stories falling from above added 45hundred tons of mass to the falling portion. (metric tons, btw, 1.1 American tons) However, mass isn't weight*. For practical purposes relevant to this discussion, mass doesn't change but weight does. Suppose you step on a bathroom scale, and the dial reads 100pounds/45kilograms. Now jump on the scale from a step on a foot stool: the dial will peak higher, say ~200pounds/90kilograms. The higher you jump from, the faster you will be falling when you land on the scale, and the higher the number that the dial will peak at. Those changing dial readings are weights. So as the mass of the falling upper portion increases steadily story by story as it falls downward, the weight of that falling portion upon impact with the floor below increases even faster.
There's a lot more going on which increases the speed of structural collapse. But the bottom line is that folks who dream up these conspiracy theories don't do their arithmetic.
posted
Can't see the video from here, but I've heard this before.
quote:It concludes there must have been explosives.
Besides the several thousand gallons of burning jet fuel that was casually making its way down the elevator shafts?
The reports I've seen on TV have explained that the intense heat generated by the fuel accumulated at the building's core basically turned the metallic supports at the core in to molten slag. Once that happens, it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot for it to give way.
The only way that it wouldn't fall at a freefall rate is if the structure itself resisted, and that resistance would slow the descent. But, as you say, if each floor can only hold 1300 tons, it only would have taken complete collapse of the first or second top floors. From then on, the sheer weight that was accumulated made each floor collapse. They'd cut through the floors, one by one, as if they were paper.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you aspectre. That was the finale nail in the coffin.
I hate being emotionally manipulated. I got all sorts of riled up after watching 911 Mysteries. After stepping back, tacking a breath, and looking at all the sources for information, my curiosity has been satisfied.
That was a great article.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that we are talking about dynamic loading here, not static loading. A floor designed to support the floor above it is not designed to support the floor above it falling on it from 10 or 12 feet. The weight hasn't changed, but it now has a lot of kinetic energy that has to go somewhere.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Keep in mind that the building design in question resembles a pencil as a central core, and a ring of toothpicks along the perimeter. Amazingly efficient, but not a design that was liable to withstand extreme structural loading, particularly after both structural elements were compromised. That's one of the limitations of using steel as a structure, particularly in such an excessively engineered situation.
As to how a building could pancake that quickly, keep in mind it wasn't one floor falling on to the next, and then those two on to the next. This started as 20 floors falling on to one, and then 21 on to the next. Any significant increase in fall time could only have occurred if only a few floors had fallen from above (which is likely what the original design had intended, for only a slab and a floor's worth of content to collapse).
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't physics. Physics are all lies. Its a real true conspiracy.
The top 5 real reasons why the World Trade Center fell.
5) The democrats did it so as to bring on the chain of events which allowed them to take over congress.
4) Hussein did it so we would go after Al Queda and leave his sorry backside all alone. Ooops.
3) The Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster did it by dropping his favorite invisible meatball in the wrong spot.
2) Marvin the Martian with his Illudium E-38 Space Modualtor.
1) For lo upon the highest tower did sit the remnants of the one ring. After quests that took months to complete, our band of hero's were finally able to open up a crack into the Mt Doom that lies below New York (why else would the Native American's sell it for $24?) and destroy the Tower and Ring. Luckily the hero's were saved by giant flying eagles.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
