Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of

# The Impossible Fast Collapse of The Towers

848 replies to this topic

### #1 CarlNelson

CarlNelson

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 1 posts
• Joined:31 May 2011

Posted 31 May 2011 - 07:42 AM

1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.

2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.

3. For the moment, let's assume that the structural strength of the Towers is ZERO - all the tiny particles of steel, glass, concrete, etc. are just magically hanging in place ...but let's also assume that they do possess normal MASS, and that no material begins to fall until it is impacted from above, just as in the actual Tower collapses.

4. It takes energy to push stationary mass out of the way or to set mass into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.

5. Using mathematics or computer programs, it is fairly simple to calculate how many extra seconds, over and above freefall time, can be attributed to overcoming the static inertia of a WTC Tower's mass. That extra fall time is about 5 seconds (see notes below).

6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of about 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's Laws, while ignoring any effects of structural strength whatsoever.

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time will be required to overcome the immense strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.

8. However, we are already certain that the total collapse time can be no less than around 14 seconds due to Newton's Laws alone. Yet, overcoming the steel infrastructure's strength can only INCREASE the total collapse time still further - by many more seconds, if collapse even takes place at all. Yet the towers fell through themselves as if they had hardly any structural strength.

9. Do you believe that the steel infrastructure's strength was no stronger than the surrounding air. No? Well, there you go: a gravitationally-driven collapse is absurd.

10. Even if you assume a collapse time of 20 seconds, this is like saying that the Towers' strength fell apart easily, like wet toilet paper; hardly any resistance at all. The Towers' structural strength was designed to support its mass by a safety factor of several multiples.

Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second! -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework. How much energy does it take to do that? Humongous amounts of energy! But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at the very most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength because the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds.

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?

NOTES:
(1) A mathematics formula by Dr. Kenneth Kuttler, Pg. 6 (last one on the page)
http://www.journalof...alculations.pdf

(2) Dr. Kuttler's straight-forward calculation was written about WTC7 but the formula can be applied to the Towers simply by changing the variables (such as number of floors).

(3) It turns out that the greater building masses found at the bottom versus the lighter masses at the top of the buildings have little effect on the overall delay time due to Newton's Laws and overcoming static inertia.

(4) This puzzle also assumes that ALL of the building's mass was concentrated in the downward vertical direction, ie. none of it was blown outwards as occurred in reality. Obviously, if less mass were concentrated downwards because it was blown outwards, it could NOT have participated in the forces acting on the undamaged infrastructure below. Thus the total collapse time due to overcoming static inertia would have to be even greater. So this assumption favors the official story.

(5) There have been computer programs written to calculate the effects of overcoming mass static inertia also, but I could not locate them quickly.

### #2 aquatus1

aquatus1

Forum Divinity

• 20,550 posts
• Joined:05 Mar 2004
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2011 - 09:54 AM

Welcome to the UM forums.  I noticed you haven't actually done any of the math there.  Get back to us when you have some numbers added in there.  Otherwise, well, it's pretty much the same discussion that has been presented time after time after time.

### #3 mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,635 posts
• Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 31 May 2011 - 10:27 AM

When I watch the videos, I have a difficult time making out when the actual building stops collapsing. I can see the debris (beams and such) falling, and the column of dust left behind, but I am unable to discern the actual collapse "front", or the upper parts of the building in the later portions of the collapse.
Plus, the view is blocked by surrounding buildings in the later stages of the collapse, so this adds to the difficulty in seeing the collapse front as it progresses downward.

Might you be able to point us towards a clear video of each tower collapse that would help here?

### #4 aquatus1

aquatus1

Forum Divinity

• 20,550 posts
• Joined:05 Mar 2004
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2011 - 10:54 AM

And when does the collapse actually stop?  How do they tell when to start the stopwatch and when to end it?

### #5 ali smack

ali smack

Paranormal Investigator

• Member
• 871 posts
• Joined:28 Jul 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:Wertham

• If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing

Posted 31 May 2011 - 12:26 PM

http://www.popularme...ry/news/1227842

http://www.tms.org/p...eagar-0112.html

http://architecture....intowerfall.htm

I think these links prove what really happened

### #6 Rlyeh

Rlyeh

Omnipotent Entity

• Member
• 9,587 posts
• Joined:01 Jan 2011
• Gender:Male
• Location:South Australia

• Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:00 PM

CarlNelson, on 31 May 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time will be required to overcome the immense strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.
Looks like you're saying the towers collapsed from the point of impact with the rest untouched, the videos don't support this.

Edited by Rlyeh, 31 May 2011 - 02:07 PM.

### #7 flyingswan

flyingswan

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,975 posts
• Joined:13 Sep 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:UK

Posted 31 May 2011 - 06:52 PM

CarlNelson, on 31 May 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?
The flaw lies in believing your own expectations rather than doing the maths to see how large the expected effect of structural strength actually is.

aquatus1, on 31 May 2011 - 09:54 AM, said:

Welcome to the UM forums.  I noticed you haven't actually done any of the math there.  Get back to us when you have some numbers added in there.  Otherwise, well, it's pretty much the same discussion that has been presented time after time after time.
It's just as well that four engineers have done the maths and published the results.  Their paper is here:
http://www.civil.nor...TC collapse.pdf
They end their paper: These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the eﬀects of ﬁre.

Edited by flyingswan, 31 May 2011 - 07:22 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

### #8 The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 30,312 posts
• Joined:02 Dec 2004
• Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2011 - 07:16 PM

CarlNelson, on 31 May 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

Dude, I hope your up on your CT's because these guys will eat you alive    Welcome to U.M. and have fun and good luck

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.

The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

### #9 MID

MID

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 14,490 posts
• Joined:06 Aug 2005
• Gender:Male

• ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 31 May 2011 - 11:11 PM

CarlNelson, on 31 May 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

1. Freefall from the height of a WTC Tower is 9.2 seconds.

Yes, freefall in a vacuum, aerodynamic drag notwithstanding, and all that boring nonsense like terminal velocity.  Velocity under the same circumstances would be ~ 201 SMPH, or ~ 295 FPS.

Quote

2. The towers fell in about 15 seconds. Everyone has seen the videos.

Really?
It's just a wee difficult to time the fall of either "tower", as they were progressively collapsing and being pulverized into a menagerie of various sized particles, and pieces of bulding invisible due to the spreading , descending dust clouds.
Part of the debris was lower than other parts during the descent, and the fact is, some of the building remained airborne for a good while.  The bulk of the buildings were likely on the ground in 15-25 seconds.  It's excedingly difficult to get a view that allows one to actually time the finish of a collapse.

If your point is to show that the towers did not collapse in "free fall" (and old and silly CT claim put forth), then you've succeeded.

Quote

3. For the moment, let's assume that the structural strength of the Towers is ZERO - all the tiny particles of steel, glass, concrete, etc. are just magically hanging in place ...but let's also assume that they do possess normal MASS, and that no material begins to fall until it is impacted from above, just as in the actual Tower collapses.

4. It takes energy to push stationary mass out of the way or to set mass into motion. If a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, the moving object is slowed down while the stationary object is sped up and total momentum is conserved. This is simple physics and is known as The Law of Conservation of Momentum. It works in all directions, even in the direction of Earth's gravitational pull.

5. Using mathematics or computer programs, it is fairly simple to calculate how many extra seconds, over and above freefall time, can be attributed to overcoming the static inertia of a WTC Tower's mass. That extra fall time is about 5 seconds (see notes below).

6. So absolute freefall is 9.2 seconds; adding 5 seconds to this number gives us a collapse time of about 14 seconds due to mass alone and Newton's Laws, while ignoring any effects of structural strength whatsoever.

7. Ok, now let's add back in structural strength. How many MORE seconds of collapse time will be required to overcome the immense strength of the towers' undamaged infrastructure below the impact zone? Remember, you have to not only overcome supporting strength but you also have to shred it to bits as well and pulverize all the concrete and other materials to fine powder. All of this work takes energy that is only available from gravitational potential energy if the official story is correct.

8. However, we are already certain that the total collapse time can be no less than around 14 seconds due to Newton's Laws alone. Yet, overcoming the steel infrastructure's strength can only INCREASE the total collapse time still further - by many more seconds, if collapse even takes place at all. Yet the towers fell through themselves as if they had hardly any structural strength.

9. Do you believe that the steel infrastructure's strength was no stronger than the surrounding air. No? Well, there you go: a gravitationally-driven collapse is absurd.

10. Even if you assume a collapse time of 20 seconds, this is like saying that the Towers' strength fell apart easily, like wet toilet paper; hardly any resistance at all. The Towers' structural strength was designed to support its mass by a safety factor of several multiples.

Imagine trying to crush and shred the monstrous strength of a WTC Tower's steel infrastructure in 1 second! -- all those immensely strong core columns and peripheral columns tied together in an integral steel framework. How much energy does it take to do that? Humongous amounts of energy! But, as you have seen, you have only a second or two delay time at the very most that you can attribute to the effects of structural strength because the Towers actually DID fall in about 15 seconds.

It seems that structural strength really WAS virtually zero on 911. Where is the flaw in this logic?

I have a feeling that your logic may have missed something.
Who said that the structure of the entire tower's infrastructure was destroyed in one second?

Your item 10) is a flawed assumption.  That type of failure wasn't necessary to cause these progressive collapses.

Each floor of a WTC tower was capable of supporting a load of ~ 2,600,000 lbs.
The collapse began when 25 floors or so of the tower began to fall into the weakened floor where damage from heat had weakened the floor's structure.

That's about 227 million pounds falling onto a floor designed to support 2.6 million lbs. It fell of course with acceleration,and crushed into the floor below, making it fail, and the next thing you know, 235 million pounds are descending again into another floor that can only support 2.6 million pounds...etc., etc.

I'm thinking maybe you're not quite understanding that the energy produced by that mass moving is what caused the collapses, not the strange idea that the toweres didn't have any structural strength...

### #10 flyingswan

flyingswan

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,975 posts
• Joined:13 Sep 2006
• Gender:Male
• Location:UK

Posted 02 June 2011 - 09:55 AM

MID, on 31 May 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

I'm thinking maybe you're not quite understanding that the energy produced by that mass moving is what caused the collapses, not the strange idea that the toweres didn't have any structural strength...
Once again, the numbers are available in a published paper, which shows that after a drop of just one floor, the kinetic energy of the moving mass is more than eight times that required to crush the next floor, columns and all:
http://www.civil.nor.../Papers/405.pdf

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

### #11 Rafterman

Rafterman

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,409 posts
• Joined:27 Sep 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:Upstate

Posted 02 June 2011 - 07:13 PM

Methinks that old Carl is a troll and stroll.

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World:  Science as a Candle in the Dark

### #12 MID

MID

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 14,490 posts
• Joined:06 Aug 2005
• Gender:Male

• ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 02 June 2011 - 10:34 PM

flyingswan, on 02 June 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

Once again, the numbers are available in a published paper, which shows that after a drop of just one floor, the kinetic energy of the moving mass is more than eight times that required to crush the next floor, columns and all:
http://www.civil.nor.../Papers/405.pdf

It seems very hard for people to understand this kinetic energy thing, you know Swanny?

I'm wondering if your efforts here will have any effect at all...or if Mr. Nelson will come back and read the report???

### #13 pallidin

pallidin

Telekinetic

• Member
• 7,656 posts
• Joined:09 Dec 2004
• Gender:Male
• Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

• "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 02 June 2011 - 10:42 PM

MID, on 02 June 2011 - 10:34 PM, said:

...or if Mr. Nelson will come back and read the report???

Perhaps Mr. Nelson has "collapsed" realizing the wrongfulness of his position.

### #14 MID

MID

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 14,490 posts
• Joined:06 Aug 2005
• Gender:Male

• ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 02 June 2011 - 10:53 PM

pallidin, on 02 June 2011 - 10:42 PM, said:

Perhaps Mr. Nelson has "collapsed" realizing the wrongfulness of his position.

Wouldn't be the first time...

### #15 Q24

Q24

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,924 posts
• Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 05 June 2011 - 12:14 AM

Regarding the topic... well, I could muse how fast a pig should fly... but I'll wait for someone to show they can really get off the ground first.  The official story has yet to prove that the towers should or even could have collapsed due to the impact and fire conditions present on 9/11.

The NIST study demonstrated only that a damage scenario greater in severity than that present on 9/11 could initiate a collapse.  The simulation most closely matching the actual damage characteristics did not lead to collapse in their model.

There is no way around this.

And then this, thank you flyingswan...

flyingswan, on 02 June 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

Once again, the numbers are available in a published paper, which shows that after a drop of just one floor, the kinetic energy of the moving mass is more than eight times that required to crush the next floor, columns and all:
http://www.civil.nor.../Papers/405.pdf
... a blatant faulty paper.

A few of the most glaring errors: -

• Assumes unimpeded initial drop of upper block.
It did not happen - the tilt alone shows this.

• Treats upper block as solid hammer/piledriver throughout collapse.
It did not happen - Newton's third law dictates upper block must deteriorate.

• Assumes complete impact energy transfer to lower structural columns.
It did not happen - energy was lost in breaking connections and debris falling outside building footprint.

• States (correctly) that a "powerful jolt" at impact of upper block is a necessity.
It did not happen - engineering analysis has shown the roof acceleration to be relatively linear and this missing jolt is completely incompatible with the theory.

Again, there is no way around this.

The paper, produced within two days of the collapses, still forms the crux of the official collapse progression theory.

A U.S. attorney has noted with examples how the author is given favourtism in the peer-review process: -

"As will become apparent below, the rules at JEM that govern other authors do not apply to Dr. Bazant."

The view of a European structural engineer on the author: -

“I think he is a criminal. You can quote me because I’ve already said that on my web site,” he said. “This guy is a Lysenko-type scientist. He’s presenting a false theory for whatever purpose. I don’t know why he does it.”

And another 1,500+ architects and engineers who disagree with the author.

So what are we left with?  An inconclusive study and assumptive/incorrect paper.

Well then, I guess pigs can fly... or back to reality, scrutiny shows that the official conclusions are farcial.

The Silver Thong, on 31 May 2011 - 07:16 PM, said:

Dude, I hope your up on your CT's because these guys will eat you alive    Welcome to U.M. and have fun and good luck
You take these guys seriously?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users