London Apartment Tower ENGULFED in flames for a day but NO COLLAPSE!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Same thing applies to gub'mint hatin' right-wingers.
Yep. And that matches up perfectly with what we saw. Planes hit, no instant fall, a fire raged for hours, then the collapses. At that point the weight of 20 floors (roughly) above that impact and fire zone was sufficient to collapse the single next uncompromised floor, then 21 as that mass accumulated, and even more enough for the next, and so forth. And that is exactly what is seen, a failure at the fire floors, then collapse from that point downward. Burn a candle, does it tip over or burn down? Slide a donut on rebar, does it tip over or slide down? Does gravity fall down or sideways? If the jets didn't knock them over, the damn things wouldn't thereafter fall like a goddamned tree felled by an ax. If it fell like BAC wants, like a tree or something other than downward, only then I would be suspicious. I EXPECTED to see it fall, if at all, as it did. I guess I'm just a superior intuitive engineer.
These conspiracy theorists lack common sense and ability to even read 10 salient pages of the official report. They (TDAK et al) are so gullible and stupid, they will believe ANYTHING any dumbass conspiracy theorist without any expertise believes over actual experts who examined ad nausium ALL the real evidence.
I agree with that of course, but re: how long the fires burned in the two main towers, I think it was less than an hour. I think most of the heat damage to the steel was caused by the initial fireball.
I think BAC feels that the portion of the towers ABOVE the impact zone are what should have fallen to one side or the other.
If it hadn't happened the way it did and hadn't been on video, I would have figured the same. I'd have never guessed the collapse would've been straight down.
But it was and there was no controlled demolition or govt conspiracy.
Nope. Even if the debris ripped off all of the fireproofing (which it probably did), heating of steel takes time. Put a propane torch on a steel bar and see how long it takes to soften. The heat was more intense in the inner square of columns relative to the perimeter square, since the perimeter was cooled by the surrounding air. The light gauge steel bar joists that supported the floors and braced the columns laterally heated up, deflected and sagged, pulling the perimeter towards the center. Losing bracing and being hottest, the interior columns probably gave way first. Thus an implosion-type failure followed by a rapid fall of the upper floors onto the damaged section.
The only way for a building like that to topple over like a tree is to have a perimeter corner column collapse first, and those were the most exposed to cooling air, and braced very strongly in two (X and Y) directions by the adjacent column-to-column connection.
As I said earlier as soon as I saw the extent of the flames, having knowledge of the construction method used along with engineering expertise, I expected the towers to collapse exactly like they did. When the first one fell the TV announcer had no idea what happened and took him several minutes even to theorize that the tower had collapsed, so I can see why the average layman would have reacted the same way, basically in disbelief.
There is one aspect that I have never yet heard a comments about the planes entering the Trade Towers:
When the fire ball explosion occurred the fiery jet fuel and debris would open & expose the elevator shafts ---and thus "fiery jet fuel and debris" would drop down the shaft(s).
Thus three notes:
a] fiery jet fuel and debris would descend to lower floors
b] the falling flames would seek out and ignite the air in the shafts
c] the fresh air in the elevator shafts would provide a bellows-effect to the flames above
When the fire ball explosion occurred the fiery jet fuel and debris would open & expose the elevator shafts ---and thus "fiery jet fuel and debris" would drop down the shaft(s).
Thus three notes:
a] fiery jet fuel and debris would descend to lower floors
b] the falling flames would seek out and ignite the air in the shafts
c] the fresh air in the elevator shafts would provide a bellows-effect to the flames above
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Did the government check for explosives or controlled demolition?
Answer: NO Question: Why
If buildings can melt from furniture fires, why hasn't that EVER happened before with much larger and consuming building fires? How is that not a legitimate question?
Have you ever seen a building collapse like what happened 3 times on the same day but never before or since .. Answer: No, you haven't. How do I know that?
Have you ever seem smaller, lighter falling mass ever force much larger mass straight down?
WTC 7 eliminates plane crashes and jet fuel from the equation.
Do you consider these and MANY other unanswered questions to be inappropriate to ask?
Simple questions
Getin the ring
Verified User
sOOOOO, Bush brought the Twin Towers down to start a war?
Simple question indeed,
more like simple minds with too much time on their hands, where did you read that by the way? JET magazine
lolololololol
So much misinformation here and ignorance of basic science.
1. The jet hit the building at over 400 mph, so the debris and fuel had tremendous momentum in the horizontal direction. Horizontal momentum doesn't just stop and suddenly drop vertically.
2. The elevator shafts were in the center surrounded by a perimeter of closely spaced, thick steel columns. Not exactly a magical opening for debris to fall into.
3. Flames exit a burning mass in an upwards direction, they don't 'fall and seek air'.
3. Air does not ignite; it is not flammable. Instead, a fire consumes air, thus creating a vacuum, thus air comes rushing in towards the fire by way of a path of least resistance.
4. The lower levels of the elevator shaft are sealed therefore no air is available from the shaft. Air was available from the gaping hole that the airliner created in the side of the building.
Dumb question regarding smaller mass collapsing larger one straight down. Your error is supposing the entire mass beneath has an additive effect that increases the strength of any single given support elements of a single floor. It doesn't. The mass above and below were not solid. Additive mass below is irrelevant. Rather, the mass of 20 floors is apparently enough to crush and break a heat weakened single one below. Then mass of 21 falling, is apparently enough to break a single one too, so too the mass of 22 falling is apparently enough to break the next one, and so forth. If you can wrap your mind around 20 breaking and releasing a single one, and you believe in a snowball getting larger as it goes down, you should have no problem buying the conventional explanation relating to what you saw that day.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
This is a brilliant description of the events as they unfolded.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...toricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm
Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...toricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm
Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Not bad for a layman's understanding.
The columns in the crash/ fire area collapsed because the light steel floor joists that braced them laterally softened, sagged, which forced their connections to the columns to break. Suddenly the columns became unbraced for two floors, then three floors. The strength of a column is related to its braced length by 1/(LxL), so that the strength decreases by a factor of 4 when length is doubled, and by a factor of 9 when tripled. When a column collapses due to overlength it does so instantaneously (buckles). To demonstrate this yourself, use a plastic straw.
Here's where you're very correct. After the columns buckled the solid mass of upper floors accelerated in free fall two or three floors (20 to 30 feet). The dead load on the columns immediately below was suddenly subjected to a huge dynamic load. Think of a hammer weighing one pound hitting a nail- it imparts a force which is a multiple of it's weight onto the nail, driving it deep into the wood. The faster the hammer swing, the deeper the nail drives into the wood.
So the upper floors travelling in free fall for 20 or 30 feet hit the floor below, buckling the columns on that floor. This continued in subsequent floors all the way down to the ground, accelerating under the force of gravity the entire way, the only check on the speed being the extremely small amount of time required for the columns to buckle.
The Nist report has the jets hitting at around 560 MPH, just to enhance your point.
Not a report I bothered to read.
I don't blame you. You'd have to dig. It is thousands of pages. I just happened on that and remembered. I'm good like that.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Read this it saves having to wade through God knows how many pages in the NIST report.I don't blame you. You'd have to dig. It is thousands of pages. I just happened on that and remembered. I'm good like that.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...toricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm
Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
Ok I will, thx
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Nice try . Thanks .. but again, it makes absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever. Buildings do not react like that .. AND, your theory does nothing to explain WTC 7 which went from a standstill right into free fall collapse within seconds.
Buildings ALWAYS topple over.
You also missed the question of the day .. if buildings can collapse from furniture fires .. why has that never happened before of after 9/11?
Last edited: