9/11

A few of these in particular very close up, you can see the buckling of the external columns, both laterally and vertically across 10 or so floors at once

 

Fall of the north tower from the opposite angle one usually sees, from the Hudson.

Showing the same thing, buckling of the columns before collapse.

And this one actually shows the antenna fell sideways

 

All I can think watching those videos: no way did that fire do that.

 

Gee, I wonder why no one told the guy who used that model to explain the collapse that the Tower had a core structure whose columns were cross-braced. Hard to believe he would actually use a model consisting of only unbraced corner columns, and that none of his friends thought to stop him from making a fool of himself and anyone else who decides to use his ridiculous demonstration to prove something.

 

You can't see the core structure, and yet here you are pretending that you watched it buckle.

And you did not see the antenna fall sideways. You saw it falling downwards, and tipping as it did. You're exaggerating. Now let's get back to reality.

Even if we allow for the impact of the descending upper block to crush the lower block directly below it, it can't crush it while maintaining the downward acceleration,, which is clearly documented on video. In other words--as I've pointed out before--an increased force on the lower block of the Tower must be accompanied by a decrease in the momentum and speed of the upper, falling block. But we don't see that, do we? No, we don't. We don't see even the slightest jolt from the collision. What are your thoughts on that?

Plus, you still haven't answered any questions put to you.

How far should the upper block have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it?

You also failed to explain how you can possibly believe that the lower floors were without definition and "arbitrarily defined."

Your position is that, despite the energy required to bust up the steel and concrete below, the upper block had that energy plus enough left over to push it all down and away as if it weren't there. You are allowing for the upper block to be a cause with an effect. But for your own reasons here, you are not allowing the core structure below the upper block to also be a cause with an effect. This points to the fact that you have very little idea of what the core structure was.

But first, let's have your answer to the question of how far the upper block should have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it, given your understanding of air resistance and other such things? Because what's really odd is that you just accept that the lower structure would essentially just drop down at the same rate as the upper block without so much as even a little jolt to indicate the collision. It's like you believe that one mass can just magically pass through another mass of the same composition. Have you ever looked at it that way? You should watch that video again and see if you can detect a jolt of any kind.

 

Still the same principle, whether you have your head looking up and down, or tilt your head to the side and look along another axis.

The columns and "cross braces", thus the tower failed due to buckling, not compression.

You are basically arguing there the building didnt fall down, no building can fall down if its "cross braced" irrespective of what its buckling or compression loads are

 

why doesn't we crowdfund to build a trade center by design and fly an aircraft into it. to end all argument.

 

Let's. I guarantee you it won't fall down.

 

On the close up videos you can see that section twist along all three x,y,z axes at the initial section of failure

.......or, you went a good 15, 16 , 17 years just listening to some truther on some website just looking at one video purposely chosen because it falls sideways towards the camera, and never bothered investigating further. you also went 20 pages saying, oh put your thumb over a youtube video watch this antenna fall, count 5 mississippis, it didnt fall as fast as it would have in a vaccuum,and now we know it was falling towards the camera as well.....and you are asking me to get back to reality???

"it cant crush it while maintaining the downward acceleration" says who, how? Yes it can. How on earth is it clearly documented on the video? The building fell down. You are saying there its clearly documented on the video the lower floors remained intact and the building didnt fall down

"must be accompanied by by a decrease in the momentum and speed" ......speed is velocity and momentum is mass x velocity, so that sentence really reads "must be accompanied by a decrease in mass times speed and speed"......and accompanied by a decrease in speed, NO IT DOESNT, acceleration due to gravity, any acceleration, is acceleration, rate of change of velocity, IT SPEEDS UP. Fall the distance of only one floor, its already travelling at 15 miles and hour, by the time it gets to near the bottom, its travelling at 120 miles per hour

There is no imaginary upper block or lower block that stays static for the length of the collapse, it doesnt pile drive down, you get that from that idiot F R Greening, nor does it pancake down sequentially, no one ever said that. All those steel columns in the lower floors, once they reach their buckling loads they are flying this way and that. Not like they are ever going to stay put no matter what force is coming down on them

What you define as the upper block at t=0 seconds doesnt exist at t=5s, again, you get the pile driver thing from that idiot FR Greening

If they were with definition, you should easily be able to tell me what height those lower floors came to, building height before plane hit was 417 m not including antenna, so at what height does the lower block not become the lower block, and magically be the "upper block"?

So "bust up the steel and concrete below" is different to "push it all down and away"?

i will let you answer that, as in all of this, you have yet to answer a single question that requires a calculation, I have given you the equations, just start off with the simple version

F=mg -kv^2 for freefall with air resistance, v being distance/time (d/t) so solve for d. Use Greenings simplified 450,000,000 kg total weight of tower1 divided by 110 floors, so roughly 4 million kilograms for each floor, x times how many floors you think that upper block is. Dimension of tower are roughly 417m high, 64m wide, 64 m deep

Use the drag co-effcient of a cube 1.05 for k since you believe the 15 or so upper floors are one thing. Dont forget weight is not mass, weight is mass x local acceleration due to gravity. weight = mg

Then compare it to freefall in a vacuum which is just going to be acceleration = velocity/time = distance/time^2. so d=9.8*25= 245metres


Then on to structural loads, past a certain length every steel column in those lower floors has a buckling load lower than its compression load, any cross braces dont transfer to the vertical load 100%. what load a structure can carry just ends up being what its weakest points are. So pointing downwards you have the force being transferred from all the the floors above, and some of those floors dont even have to exist anymore for the consevation of momentum to apply, force still gets directed downwards and builds up, forces pointing upwards you have air resistance ( which actually increases the faster something is going until terminal velocity) , the other main force pointing upwards is the maximum vertical load any section or floor can carry, which is the sum of the buckling load or the weakest part of each floor, or section of floors if you want to do it that way divided by area its supporting, which is nothing compared to the sum total of the force getting transfered downwards, that force is gigantic

The force of just one floor dropping just the distance of one floor is 147 million joules over a surface area of 64m square, so roughly 64000 Newtons, when the buckling load of steel 4 m columns is roughly in the 200,000 newtons range.

Why do you think South tower collapsed before North Tower did, when North tower was hit first

 

Debris field days after, concerete, concerete, twisted steel everywhere

 

And again, underground, twisted steel, concrete blocks everywhere

 

So you really think that on Sept. 11, 2001, for the first three times in history skyscrapers collapsed due to fires. Lucky break for the terrorists, though maybe they knew something about the towers construction that we didn't. And then they just got REALLY lucky with building 7.

 

Conspiracy theories in over drive

7:40 in to the video. Queen Victoria born in 1819 with haemophilia eventually leads to 9/11

 

What the NIST report actually said in regards to the collapse of WTC 7, they never said from fires alone:


3.2
THE LEADING HYPOTHESIS
Based on observations and analyses of photographic and
video records, critical study of steel framing, and
simplified and detailed analyses to investigate possible fa
ilure modes that could lead to an initiating event,
NIST developed the following collapse hypothesis:
•
The conditions that led to the collapse of WT
C 7 arose from fires, perhaps combined with
structural damage that followed the impact of
debris from the collapse of WTC 1. The fires
were fed by ordinary office combustibles.
•
The fires on Floors 7 through 13 heated the building structure. Being lighter than the
columns and with thinner SFRM, the floor beams,
floor slabs, and connections heated more
quickly and to higher temperatures than the colu
mns. The elevated temperatures in the floor
elements led to their thermal expansion, sagging,
and weakening, which resulted in failure of
floor connections and/or buckling of floor beams.
•
Sufficient breakdown of connections and/or b
eams resulted in loss of lateral support and
buckling of at least one of the critical columns supporting a large-span floor bay on the
eastern side of the building on or below Floor
13. This was the initiating event of the
collapse.
•
The initial local failure progressed upward to the
east penthouse. As the large floor bays
became unable to redistribute the loads, th
e interior structure below the east penthouse
collapsed into WTC 7.
•
Triggered by damage due to the falling debris and loss of lateral support to adjacent interior
columns, the failure progressed westward in th
e region of Floors 7 through 14, where the
floors had been weakened by fires. This u
ltimately resulted in the collapse of the entire
structure.



As for WTC 1 and 2. you know, the big jumbo jets flying into them, then gravity

The hard part to grasp is part of the energy from the collapse of the top floors is still being transferred downwards even though they dont exist a couple seconds into the collapse, and that force is gigantic, up until it all hits ground level and dissipates

I doubt you will find anyone that claims wtc 1 and 2 came down just from fires

 

It appears, despite many peoples need to want to blame the mafia, that the Morandi Bridge collapse was initiated by a cable failure

The bridge was a cable stay bridge, not as smart thing to build as a suspension bridge, and it only had two cables per tower in the first place,most other bridges like it in the world have more

That is, it was a stupid fuckin design in the first place, with a whole bunch of "experts" signing off on it in the first place, as well as all those that monitored it for decades




Italy’s Morandi Bridge Collapse—What Do We Know?

 

Something goes wrong? Blame La Cosa Nostra. Make up a boogie man.

 

No, it is not the same principal. You are trying to draw a parallel between the two squares of wood and the four sticks, and the core structure and the perimeter columns as they collided with the upper block. That is laughable to say the least.

And no, I'm not saying that the Tower didn't collapse. I'm stating that even if we allow for the impact of the descending upper block to crush the lower block directly below it, it can't crush it while maintaining the downward acceleration that was clearly seen on video. In other words--as I've pointed out before--an increased force on the lower block of the Tower must be accompanied by a decrease in the momentum and speed of the upper, falling block. But we don't see that, do we? No, we don't. We don't see even the slightest jolt from the collision. You're not addressing this physical anomaly; you're just talking past it. You're just saying the that the core structure buckled. But that that doesn't explain the upper block just falling right through the core structure below it as if it weren't there.

And this brings us to the other question of how far the upper block should have fallen in 5 seconds without the rest of the Tower below to impede it. Given your understanding of air resistance and other such things, you need to answer that. You need to answer that so that we can decide exactly how close to freefall the upper block fell. You're doing a lot of talking in order to validate your opinion that the lower block of the Tower offered next to no resistance to the upper block. You are right to say that acceleration due to gravity is acceleration, but resistance to that acceleration changes that acceleration, doesn't it! Apparently, your answer to that is that nothing will change the acceleration once something has accelerated, even if that thing is being resisted by a thing of the same composition. Physics is not on your side. Once again you're trying to float your flawed idea that the falling mass is a cause with an effect, but that the rest of the Tower below is a cause without an effect. Does that really sound reasonable to you? Now you can go ahead and try to formulate some theory as to why the rest of the Tower was a cause without an effect, but anyone who has the least little bit of understanding of physics will know that you're trying to tell them that up is down, or that two plus two is four, but that sometimes it isn't, and that you'll let them know when is and when it isn't.

 

At what time mark of this video is there all of the "concrete, concrete"?