Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
- Thread starter kazakhan
- Start date
leopold99 said:
Dont forget food in your calculations, alot of people would have had a good feed at the airport terminal, lets say 60 big macs & 70 freedom fries, now booze, lets say 200 pints of lager, 30 bottles of wine, & 15 bottles of spirits drunk before the flight.
Drugs aspirins lets say 40 consumed, paracetomols 30, LSD pills 80, safe sex pills 100 for those mid air sex people in the toilets.
Now thats at least a extra tonne there, now if we minus all the pisses they had, and shits on the flight, as it is sucked out in flight & dropped over any passing jehova witnesses (standard airline procedure).
Now if we minus 300 kg for piss & shit, we now have a more accurate figure, and a complete explanation of why these buidings collapsed.
450,000# / 2,000# = 225 tons
375 p - 65 p = 310 p
310 p * 150# = 46,500#
46,500# / 2,000# = 23.25 tons
225t - 23.25t = 201.75t
~200 tons
...
(i) This isn't even counting baggage, which most airlines allow about 75 lbs. per passenger
(ii) The last numbers I saw had the average passenger weight at 75Kg, or 165 lbs.
...
If your point is that the towers weren't designed with a 767 in mind, I can only agree. They were designed when the largest airliner was the 707- a plane which, for all intents and purposes, was about 25% smaller.
The energy transferred from neither plane caused either tower to fall or they would've done so immediately. They did all the damage they were going to do structurally within 1 second, and the towers took only moments to stop swaying.
The towers did not stagger or creak as FDNY firefighters raced up both towers to put out the fires which, by indication of declassified audiotapes, they thought they could control with "two lines," and the evidence outside shows a pair of resilient towers which had, remarkably, absorbed the planes' direct impacts, and stabilized within seconds.
...
I'd be remiss not to suggest that vincent go tow his worthless "piss and shit" opinions out to sea and give them a proper burial.
375 p - 65 p = 310 p
310 p * 150# = 46,500#
46,500# / 2,000# = 23.25 tons
225t - 23.25t = 201.75t
~200 tons
...
(i) This isn't even counting baggage, which most airlines allow about 75 lbs. per passenger
(ii) The last numbers I saw had the average passenger weight at 75Kg, or 165 lbs.
...
If your point is that the towers weren't designed with a 767 in mind, I can only agree. They were designed when the largest airliner was the 707- a plane which, for all intents and purposes, was about 25% smaller.
The energy transferred from neither plane caused either tower to fall or they would've done so immediately. They did all the damage they were going to do structurally within 1 second, and the towers took only moments to stop swaying.
The towers did not stagger or creak as FDNY firefighters raced up both towers to put out the fires which, by indication of declassified audiotapes, they thought they could control with "two lines," and the evidence outside shows a pair of resilient towers which had, remarkably, absorbed the planes' direct impacts, and stabilized within seconds.
...
I'd be remiss not to suggest that vincent go tow his worthless "piss and shit" opinions out to sea and give them a proper burial.
OK, so at 25% more airplane - about 50 tons then - are we at an agreement that the plane that hit them was just too big, then? I don't completely agreed that all the structural damage would have been done then - if their impact parameters had been exceeded, that could easily have caused sufficient structural weakening for a collapse later. Even the collapse times were relatively similar. Sounds like duplicate observations if you ask me.
Geoff
Geoff
The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They did not have the kind of computer simulation tools that we have now.
Vincent you're a fucking moron, take your backalley playground humour into the cesspool. The weight of the plane doesn't matter, it's the speed that counts. This is because kinetic energy is directly dependent on weight, but speed has a square relation.. so KE is much more affected by speed. Total KE of the 9/11 planes = (1/2) (250,000) (795)^2 => 79,003,125,000 kilojoules. But I wouldn't expect you, vincent, to know anything related to usefulness.
Oh shit what is this? The plane disintegrates and all of it's kinetic energy gone to waste??
This analysis came directly from an engineering group asked to see what exactly happened to the planes after impact.
Oh shit what is this? The plane disintegrates and all of it's kinetic energy gone to waste??
This analysis came directly from an engineering group asked to see what exactly happened to the planes after impact.
You got the right answer, factually... i was just thinking out loud... made enough of a bad example of myself, already, elsewhere in SciFor today... not going to be any more of a pin in this thread. Sorry~~~
Hurricane Angel said:
So if the plane weighs a million tonnes, it plays no part in it,
"it's the speed that counts"
So i guess the 50,000 gallons of jet fuel played absolutley no part in it neither, are you for real.
"it's the speed that counts"
So lets say it was going 2000 mph not 500mph, then the plane would have just sheered off the buildings where it hit, but the jet fuel, & explosion would have followed through.
"it's the speed that counts"
Crock of shit
Its all about jet fuel
How can inexpierenced muslim pilots crash 2 planes at 500mph into the world trade buildings, i put it to you the planes were going less than 200mph, so your speed theory sucks.
Take away the jet fuel & the building would still be standing, it was the intense fire caused by the jet fuel, that caused the columns to collapse!!!!!
Last edited:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm
Time delay between the collapses of the WTC towers explained. Although the WTC towers were attacked by virtually identical aircraft, WTC 1 stood for 103 minutes before it collapsed—nearly twice as long as WTC 2, which survived for 56 minutes. The buildings themselves, although not identical, had many similarities. The time delay between the collapses was due primarily to: (1) the asymmetrical structural damage of the aircraft impact to WTC 2 compared to the aircraft damage to WTC 1; (2) the time it took for heat to soften, buckle and shorten core columns that had fireproofing dislodged by debris impact; (3) the structure’s ability to redistribute loads as the core columns shortened; (4) the time it took for fires to traverse from their initial location to the face of the towers where perimeter columns were bowing inward (as seen only minutes before the collapse of each tower); and (5) the time it took for heat to soften and buckle those columns.
* Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires.
The official findings say the same thing, the intense fire caused by the jet fuel was responsible.
I already new that before i checked its basic common sense, its got jack shit to do with weight or speed.
Time delay between the collapses of the WTC towers explained. Although the WTC towers were attacked by virtually identical aircraft, WTC 1 stood for 103 minutes before it collapsed—nearly twice as long as WTC 2, which survived for 56 minutes. The buildings themselves, although not identical, had many similarities. The time delay between the collapses was due primarily to: (1) the asymmetrical structural damage of the aircraft impact to WTC 2 compared to the aircraft damage to WTC 1; (2) the time it took for heat to soften, buckle and shorten core columns that had fireproofing dislodged by debris impact; (3) the structure’s ability to redistribute loads as the core columns shortened; (4) the time it took for fires to traverse from their initial location to the face of the towers where perimeter columns were bowing inward (as seen only minutes before the collapse of each tower); and (5) the time it took for heat to soften and buckle those columns.
* Post-impact capabilities of the WTC towers assessed. Demand to capacity ratios—the calculations indicating whether or not structures can support the loads put on them—showed that for the floors affected by the aircraft impacts, the majority of the core and perimeter columns in both towers continued to carry their loads after the impact. The loads from damaged or severed columns were carried by nearby undamaged columns. Although the additional loads strained the load-bearing capabilities of the affected columns, the results show that the columns could have carried them. This shows that the towers withstood the initial aircraft impacts and that they would have remained standing indefinitely if not for another significant event such as the subsequent fires.
The official findings say the same thing, the intense fire caused by the jet fuel was responsible.
I already new that before i checked its basic common sense, its got jack shit to do with weight or speed.
* The cores were obliterated. There is no gravity collapse scenario that can account for the complete leveling of the massive columns of the towers' cores.
* The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.
* Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.
* The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.
* Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.
* Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.
* The towers' tops mushroomed into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling building and its debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building.
* Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower's intact region. But if the floors -- the only major non-steel building component -- were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the cloud?
* The halting of rotation of the South Tower's top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup.
* The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its "collapse" show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered.
* The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.
You know...I am from New Jersey, hoboken, and from there I saw the two towers burning and the thick white cloud above them...kind of makes me scared that I once was on one of those towers...(I was on the North tower on top). But what scares me the most is that death was so close to me.
* The perimeter walls were shredded. No gravity collapse scenario can account for the ripping apart of the three-column by three-floor prefabricated column and spandrel plate units along their welds.
* Nearly all the concrete was pulverized in the air, so finely that it blanketed parts of Lower Manhattan with inches of dust. In a gravity collapse, there would not have been enough energy to pulverize the concrete until it hit the ground, if then.
* The towers exploded into immense clouds of dust, which were several times the original volumes of the buildings by the time their disintegration reached the ground.
* Parts of the towers were thrown 500 feet laterally. The downward forces of a gravity collapse cannot account for the energetic lateral ejection of pieces.
* Explosive events were visible before many floors had collapsed. Since overpressures are the only possible explanations for the explosive dust plumes emerging from the buildings, the top would have to be falling to produce them in a gravity collapse. But in the South Tower collapse, energetic dust ejections are first seen while the top is only slightly tipping, not falling.
* The towers' tops mushroomed into thick dust clouds much larger than the original volumes of the buildings. Without the addition of large sources of pressure beyond the collapse itself, the falling building and its debris should have occupied about the same volume as the intact building.
* Explosive ejections of dust, known as squibs, occurred well below the mushrooming region in both of the tower collapses. A gravitational collapse explanation would account for these as dust from floors pancaking well down into the tower's intact region. But if the floors -- the only major non-steel building component -- were falling well below the mushrooming cloud above, what was the source of the dense powder in the cloud?
* The halting of rotation of the South Tower's top as it began its fall can only be explained by its breakup.
* The curves of the perimeter wall edges of the South Tower about 2 seconds into its "collapse" show that many stories above the crash zone have been shattered.
* The tops fell at near the rate of free fall. The rates of fall indicate that nearly all resistance to the downward acceleration of the tops had been eliminated ahead of them. The forms of resistance, had the collapses been gravity-driven, would include: the destruction of the structural integrity of each story; the pulverization of the concrete in the floor slabs of each story, and other non-metallic objects; and the acceleration of the remains of each story encountered either outward or downward. There would have to be enough energy to overcome all of these forms of resistance and do it rapidly enough to keep up with the near free-fall acceleration of the top.
You know...I am from New Jersey, hoboken, and from there I saw the two towers burning and the thick white cloud above them...kind of makes me scared that I once was on one of those towers...(I was on the North tower on top). But what scares me the most is that death was so close to me.
vincent28uk said:
God, you're still a moron. Apparently the royal family still enjoys keeping you commoners a little below the "norm".
Let me put it to you in simple terms; if you have a car and its going at a certain speed, it will need a certain amount of distance to stop. If you double its weight, it will need twice the distance to stop. However, if you double its speed, it will need four times the distance to stop. Get it? No?
And the 500mph is directly from the US Government's optical (television) calculated estimates, so there goes your second insult.
Speed has jackshit to do with it, if someone poured 50,000 gallons of jet fuel in the world trade & set it alight they still would have collapsed, the temp. was over 3000 degrees the steel melted everything melted.Hurricane Angel said:
You call me a moron, yet the US government came to the same conclusion, there is no building above ground that can withstand massive amounts of jet fuel burned in it.
fuck me even murderers wanting to get rid of bones or evidence will use excelerants as they help to destroy everthing.
It was not the weight the speed or gremlins, it was jet fuel that brought the towers down, that is a fact, if you ignore that you are the moron not me.
You are a Joke for not to Find out who was in power at that time and why there was no hunt down for it.GeoffP said:
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/clintonhunt.html
here is the preview
GeoffP said:
What a waste of TIME, The buildings did Collapse. Thats not the issue, the issue is why will the building collapse below the planes.
Think about this,
Do U think all thoes building demolistion teams all over the world are foolish to plant expensive explosivies all over the buildings, when they can just use propagation of collapse to flatten buildings.
Anomalous said:
So...what you're saying is...the secret demo teams didn't want to look foolish by planting expensive explosives all over WTC 1 and 2 (the nearly infinitely more expensive buildings that were supposed to be destroyed as part of the big conspiracy) so, instead, they didn't plant the explosives and let the propagation of fire from the airplanes that hit the buildings destroy the buildings. Rendering their services moot in the first place.
...speaking of foolish, where exactly is this going?
And HA, the kinetic energy was "used up" in the impacts, but look at where the plane bodies are going - literally tearing a giant hole through the building. Are you implying that wouldn't damage supports?
Geoff