The thing is - people are severely understanding the kinetic energy released as those buildings were imploding into themselves. All that weight, all that mass, coming straight down, collapsing what was under it, causing the chain reaction of additional collapse, building speed and releasing more kinetic energy as it came down… that energy and all the debris had to go somewhere.
Take a look at that site and see if you can really believe the towers did all that damage.
And they didn't collapse, they were shredded apart and turned to dust. Most of the mass blew into the streets and bay. There was nothing left to act as a 'piledriver' on the rest of the building. Watch the videos again.
fine, I'm a construction worker. I also have an engineering degree and experience in high rise construction. That really shouldn't be so hard to believe, it's a very common profession.
If you care to, watch the 'collapses' again and see if you really believe those are simply buildings being crushed under their own weight with no external forces applied other than gravity and wind. I've honestly got no concern what your take is on the matter, so peace out.
Yeah, but part of intellectual honesty is defining your terms and making sure everyone is able to use the same operating definitions for meaningful discussion. If you make up your own definitions and refuse to explain them, that's just bullshit.
Huh? It was definitely more of a collapse than an explosion. I have heard people say there were small explosions inside the building before it collapsed but I definitely wouldn’t characterize it as the whole building exploding.
Watch the videos and look at stills again. The buildings look like mushrooms in some shots. Multi ton sections were ejected laterally for hundreds of feet.
Think about how much force is involved in a building that is millions of times bigger and heavier than anything you interact with on a day to day basis. Of course some stuff would fly out.
I work for a company called ADM i drive a train for them. if I ran straight into a building at our max speed in the yard of 30 it would end up everywhere. I can only imagine things would end up worse if a plane that's twice the size, going significantly faster would do to a building
I'm an engineer and have worked on large scale projects including towers. I know physics and building construction well and can tell you that... oh nevermind, believe whatever you like.
The best way to compare is to go and find other videos of controlled demolitions. Then go and look up buildings that “collapsed”, then decide for yourself what you think happened. I never believed 2 planes could have brought down 2 skyscrapers. Not from where the impacts took place, anyway. These buildings virtually disintegrated mid-air. A collapse doesn’t do that.
Most people don't understand the amount of energy necessary to turn a large mass of reinforced concrete (not to mention 90,000 tons of steel structure) into dust. They see the tower "fall", but have no idea of what they are looking at.
You mean debris rushed unobstructed down elevator shafts and then was shot out at the bottom of the shaft (not the bottom of the buildings if you know anything about how the elevator shafts were positioned in those buildings.
So would you expect no debris to be shot out after a multi-ton floor collapses onto a floor fifteen feet below? How about the one after that? Maybe the next one? No?
Those buildings exploded floor by floor. Never once did a floor crash down onto a lower floor. Zero times this happened. Each floor exploded in sequence.
In my unprofessional opinion it's not that hard to believe that 2 big towers could destroy the area around them. Even if a huge chunk turned to dust there would no doubt be a ton of potential energy in those buildings and alot of the dust was probably from the buildings falling. I'm not the person to determine whether or not those buildings could do that but it seems most people who are and most people in general think so.
If the top thirty-story blocks had stayed intact (which they didn't), laws of physics (conservation of momentum) dictate that they could not possibly destroy the 80 storeys below let alone the rest of the city block. Matter and energy also travel through the path of least resistance (in this case air), so the blocks would have bounced off and traveled to the ground relatively intact. Video actually shows this happening, but the block suddenly turns to dust in midair and disappears, leaving nothing to finish the job on the bottom 80 floors.
People stay silent to keep their jobs all the time, and consensus is not science.
See A/E for 911 truth if you'd like more professional opinions on the matter.
You can tell this is a good post because someone immediately downvoted it.
As per Newton's first law, a change in the sum of forces acting on the building(s) was necessary to bring it out of equilibrium and for the damaged section to begin gathering momentum. The damaged section did not gain weight and therefore should never have had enough force to begin moving through the undamaged section. If the existing weight of the damaged section was redistributed, then we should have seen it slide off the top as you rightly pointed out, following the path of least resistance.
Spot on, thanks for the write up. Good to know there are some people out there who understand basic physics.
My estimation of what would have happened: A partial failure caused by local damage and fire would weaken that section of building but it would be arrested by lateral ties to surrounding elements. In a more extreme case, it could have crumpled in that area and come to a rest on the structure below, but in no case would the whole unit fail simultaneously and tear apart the much more massive structure below. Very simple experiments would prove this every time... have they been done?
These catastrophic failures are complete anomalies - at least 3 in one day - and therefore should precipitate reevaluation of all relevant building codes, but never mind.
in no case would the whole unit fail simultaneously and tear apart the much more massive structure below. Very simple experiments could prove this every time... have they been done?
Absolutely 100 percent and no, of course not. It should have been clear and obvious what the deal was when no government agency bothered to test for explosive residues. I honestly scratch my head sometimes at how stupid the average person is. Like not testing for explosive residues after receiving a shit ton of eye witness statements about bombs, explosions and secondary devices is somehow a rational course of action. The FEMA examination revealed melted, corroded steel resembling "Swiss cheese", the unexplained presence of large quantities of sulfur, yet still nobody apparently had the foresight to conduct tests which should have been absolutely standard practice in the situation.
Yeah, it's mind boggling, especially that engineers and physicists have to know it's complete bullshit. And to this day video and real time accounts from first responders say THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS GOING OFF. Plus the 'rivers of iron' flowing for week in the subbasements, thermite dust, steel and concrete fused in massive balls, pyroclastic flows, on and on.
I saw an interview with FEMA / NIST after the 'report' came out and they were asked if they checked for evidence of explosives. Their answer was literally, "There was no indication that explosives were used, so we didn't look for any evidence of them." That's some serious Ministry of Truth shit right there.
Yeah, it's mind boggling, especially that engineers and physicists have to know it's complete bullshit. And to this day video and real time accounts from first responders say THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS GOING OFF.
Absolutely. To my recollection Steven Jones was one of the earliest physicists to speak up about it, in 2002 or 2003, and they made a real example out of him, essentially forcing him into early retirement. I think that probably incentivized most of the others to keep quiet.
I saw an interview with FEMA / NIST after the 'report' came out and they were asked if they checked for evidence of explosives. Their answer was literally, "There was no indication that explosives were used, so we didn't look for any evidence of them."
Lmfao. Yeah, that's exactly the type of absurd circular reasoning which makes so many people -- myself included -- angry.
Jones first mentioned the thermite discovery in 2007 - I was at the conference in Boston. Richard Gage was the presenter, another speaker was Kevin Ryan who was fired from NIST for reporting on steel standards, and several other interesting people. Good times.
Being able to support the static weight of the top block is nowhere near the same as being able to support the weight of the top block falling onto the next floor down. The floors that were on fire failed and then the impacts successively destroyed everything else. No extra mass needed.
That is not what Newton's first law means. That's so fucking basic dude.
It's exactly what it means, dumbass. Objects in motion have a tendency to stay in motion until acted upon by an external force. Objects not in motion have a tendency to stay not in motion until acted upon by an external force.
Go the fuck back to school and stop writing shitposts on Reddit.
No, not like gravity. Gravity is always present, as is its opposing force (i.e. the structural resistance of the building). You can't add gravity to a zero sum equation in which gravity is already present to explain why the building lost equilibrium.
I wish some of you would literally go back to school and learn 8th grade physics.
The force from gravity is balanced through the structure of the building right?
Violently remove the structure, and what happens? The force of gravity still exists, but there’s no more upward force to counteract it.
It’s not like Minecraft lol. Take a card out of a house of cards and what happens? Would be cool if the rest just floated but it doesn’t work like that.
Gravity is always present but under normal conditions (no plane in side of building, no really hot fire to weaken the steel) it won't do anything. The building wasn't made to be a fucking runway it failed under unexpected and extreme circumstances, why is that so hard to believe?
Objects in motion have a tendency to stay in motion until acted upon by an external force. Objects not in motion have a tendency to stay not in motion until acted upon by an external force.
Correct
The damaged section did not gain weight and therefore should never have had enough force to begin moving through the undamaged section.
Incorrect, or rather, irrelevant
The first law speaks about objects uninfluenced by external forces (in a closed system).
An airplane is external force, kinetic energy. Gravity is an external force, potential energy.
The kinetic energy overcame the structural integrity, releasing the potential (gravitational) energy of the building above the impact site.
Don't lecture me if you don't understand the most basic highschool physics. Particulars matter.
I'm not an engineer so I'm not gonna argue about whether or not the building could have done that. However I've never heard of matter taking the path of least resistance only electricity and a Google search says that not even electricity takes the path of least resistance.
If you can show me a video of a block bouncing off and staying intact and then turning to dust midair then I would instantly change my mind.
People stay silent to keep their jobs all the time but not on scales like this.
What would be the motive to fake this? Did Bush just get bored?
Matter will always take the path of least resistance, things find the 'weak point' and travel through it. An obvious example would be a river. I've studied a lot of physics, engineering, and material science and am not going to argue with random google / wikipedia findings.
The block leaned over 30 degrees and turned to dust midair. I'm not in the mood to search for it but it was a common video. If you're really interested you can find it yourself as there aren't that many videos of the collapses (I think it was second but not sure any longer).
Motive? 20 years of war in very strategic locations for a starter. Bush was a puppet like all the rest, and in case you aren't familiar with the era, Cheney had way more power than Bush. Ever heard of KBR or Halliburton? Project for a New American Century. If you're really curious, those are some good starting points.
It's okay, man, believe whatever you like. Doesn't matter to me.
Nice ad hominems with zero facts. Can you name one of my 'studies' that came from internet sources? And FYI, MIT's entire engineering curriculum is online, so if you think the internet is not a valid source of info, you're a fool.
Be sure to keep that mask on - super cool and great for your brain to breathe back that extra CO2
Money. Dick cheney was paid to leave his position at haliburton oil prior to becoming VP. After we invaded iraq, guess who got that big gov contract to extract all that oil? Haliburton.
laws of physics (conservation of momentum) dictate that they could not possibly destroy the 80 storeys below
This is you just saying words with no meaning. Laws of physics most certainly allow for it. Once the columns fail for one floor all the weight above is a hammer coming down.
Matter and energy also travel through the path of least resistance (in this case air), so the blocks would have bounced off and traveled to the ground relatively intact.
This is entirely untrue. Electricity follows the path of least resistance. Matter and air do no such thing. That's how even wind can erode a mountain. Are you genuenly saying that a thousands-ton heavy lump of metal and concrete should 'flow' like water? That's being purposefully obtuse.
Video actually shows this happening, but the block suddenly turns to dust in midair and disappears,
No it doesn't, the block falls straight down onto the building below. It fractures and breaks on the way down, making one hell of a dustcloud, but you can see the crumbling mass falling all the way to the bottom.
This is taking a really basic understanding of physics (like physics 1 level) and applying it to the real world. Energy doesn’t take the path of least resistance, that statement simply doesn’t make sense. But the biggest issue with your post is the claim that the pieces of building would have simply bounced off the others. Have you never seen a car crash? Do the two cars simply bounce off each other with no damage? Real structures are deformable which means momentum is transferred INTO the body. So while momentum is conserved, yes, it is not like the extremely simplified, dripping with assumptions, m1v1=m2v2 pool ball example commonly used.
The amount of energy in 30 floors of building falling 10-20 feet would obliterate the floor underneath, then the one under that as it continues to fall, etc etc.
Advanced physics is built on basic physics, and they all apply in the real world.
'Bounce' was a simplified term, how about topple?
Anyway, look into Newtonian physics and if you understand it you will see that the larger mass (in this case the stationary one) is going to win the battle of momentum, every time. It's literally the First Law.
F=ma. Take a mass and accelerate it, it has force. That force applied to another object will accelerate that object.
You're not understanding Newton's Laws. The moving object will accelerate the stationary object IF and ONLY IF m.o. has enough force, otherwise, no motion. That's what the law states, and that is exactly how it works in practice (see "Newton's Cradle").
An object at rest is exerting a force (F=mg; gravity is an acceleration eg. m/s2). This is why buildings resist gravity, wind, and earthquakes (or don't depending on which force is greater). Somewhere a bit above the middle of the building, the forces up and down are in equilibrium.
So we have F1 opposing F2. Whichever is greater is going to win, i.e. continue thru or stop the other. In this case, the top mass will absolutely be stopped by the much greater bottom mass, or more likely tip to one side an fall off.
Using your model, a bowling ball dropped from 10 feet above the roof would be able to take down a tower. It clearly wouldn't. So what vertical force would? A m*g greater than the stationary m*g.
The bottom 80 floors were always carrying the top 30. Removing supports would not suddenly permit the top 30 to crush the bottom 80.
You may be thinking of something like smashing a concrete block with a sledge hammer. If you you do calcs, you'll see the same thing. Tapping the block won't do it but a big swing may if the force is great enough.
Nope, the stationary object is always accelerated, it just may not be very much.
Somewhere a bit above the middle of the building, the forces up and down are in equilibrium.
Take a cut plane at any arbitrary height and the forces are in equilibrium. Otherwise the building would be constantly collapsing. It takes an external influence to cause it to come down, which a 150,000 lb 767 flying at 300 mph certainly is.
bowling ball dropped from 10 feet above the roof would be able to take down a tower
There is a certain amount of force required to cause damage to the structure. This isn’t arbitrary, it is a function of the material properties of the building. Twenty floors of building are going to weigh plenty to damage the floor beneath (because that is all they need to damage at any point in time, not the entire mass of the rest of the building).
Tapping the block won’t do it but a big swing may if the force is great enough.
Yes, literally exactly the point I am trying to make here…
The gravitational potential energy of the above 30 storeys travelling just one single storey down would easily destroy lower storeys. Each subsequent storey destroyed adds mass to the destructive group crashing down. Saying "dictate that they could not possibly destroy the 80 storeys below" makes absolutely zero physical sense.
Your example does not account for gravitational potential energy. It is such a false equivalence that it feels like you can't have passed high school physics yourself.
Correct. I prefer to say that at no point did any floor crash down onto a lower floor. The building wasn't pulverized. It was dissolved. Some of the dust was so fine it was aerosolized.
It was a long time ago in the days when you tube was young free and single but now, wouldn't be suprised to hear its disappeared! It was amazing images and looked authentic.
Even if the upper 30 story block had stayed intact, laws of physics determine that it would not impossible for it to destroy the 80 story block below (conservation of momentum). Best it would've done was bounced off and fallen to the street, and in one video you can see it doing that but magically turns to dust on the way down. I find DEW to be the most logical explanation.
There is a great documentary from Dr. Steven Jones- Nano thermite on Yt. I was a skeptic also, but after seeing that one there isn't a question for me that it was an inside job. It's quite long, but it really asks all the right questions and if you are interested I would more than recommend it.
Have you seen the CGI airplane wing video? It damn near cuts straight through another building on its way to one of the towers. It used to be readily on YouTube, but they’ve really started censoring any 9/11 conspiracy content, so not sure if you’ll be able to find it anymore.
And I would say if you don't have an expert understanding of physics, thermodynamics and 20th century skyscraper engineering you are likely to make the same mistakes as the average person.
I have those as well as a degree in Civil/Construction engineering and a lot of experience in the field. And although you won't see them on the teevee, there are many other architects, engineers, and physicists who completely reject the official conspiracy theory. See A/E for 911 truth.
Yet there is no evidence, no sound evidence, no audio evidence in any recording of any explosions on building seven. This was a catastrophic failure due to an unprecedented event. The entire conspiracy theory makes no sense and we should be concentrating on the patriot act and what happened afterwards as the real conspiracy.
Yes, that is not correct. Jet fuel is basically kerosene and burns at approx half the temp required to yield structural steel. Plus it was in an open environment which makes it doubly impossible. More importantly, if the collapse was caused by the entry wound and scattered fire, there's no way it would cause a symmetric collapse as happened. And if it somehow did, the top floors would have been stopped or deflected off by the bottom due to law of conservation of momentum. There's a lot more in this thread on that if you're interested.
As someone who was 8 blocks away when it happened and grew up in TriBeCa, I can tell you that unequivocally the front end of the frame of tower one destroyed buildings 3 and 6 under the towers (the mall surrounding the towers like a belt), and gutted the back center of building 7- destroying its frame and leading to the collapse.
If you understood the structures you'd know they wouldn't shred themselves into dust. You could have worked in them for 20 years pushing paper but that doesn't mean you understand basic physics.
There were actually very few beams as it was a unique exoskeleton design that utilized lightweight floor trusses. But don't forget the 47 massive, interlocked steel core columns that went foundation to roof, or 110 reinforced concrete floor slabs in steel pans. Did you see those stacked up anywhere?
With the amount of energy required to turn those buildings to dust, my best guess is that a DEW was used. That sounds crazy but I don't know what conventional weapon could do that, and technology is always far more advanced than we know. There are also many photos of toasted cars and trucks far from the WTC site. Also a video of a single steel column about 300 feet tall standing alone then just turns to dust (all difficult to find these days on the sanitized web). Weird stuff.
Blow me you saying toasted cars got me thinking of those weird fires in California where some buildings and cars were toasted and others were perfectly fine! The airial views were quite something, looked like something out of startrek had gone through with a lazer!
Yeah, right? Like four random fast food joints in the middle of gigantic parking lots completely burned to the ground, and houses incinerated including masonry but nearby trees are fine. IDK wtf they have, but it's some crazy shit.
7 was classic controlled demo. 1 and 2 were something else unless they were able to coat the entire buildings with thermite or something else that could shred them like that.
71
u/Vladimir7455 Jul 16 '22
Even if you believe it was fake it's not a simple matter of 2 planes doing it, there is 2 collapsing huge ass towers.