Less than Ten Seconds!

[wildbilln864]

"embed this
Video that applies a basic physics equation to the collapse of the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Concludes that high explosives were instrumental in the structural failure of the Tower. Distributed under US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 - Fair Use: Scholarship and Research; nonprofit educational purposes. Also distributed under the GPL and Creative Commons licenses."

link

[Bassman66]

1. Yep. 10 floors a second. Straight down it went.

Practically no resistance from the moment it started.

And Giulian knew it was coming down as well - which he denied - and then was proved a liar.

[wildbilln864]

2. all good points Bassman. thanks. nt

[PatrickSMcNally]

3. Hoffman's timing

Jim Hoffman claims here

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

that the collapse of the North Tower took more than 16 seconds.

[wildbilln864]

4. how long does it take for this building to collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U&feature=related
or this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khD2gZkkSu0

[wildbilln864]

5. This is what should happen....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMtb5Vndo2g&feature=related

[LARED]

6. Very cool animation

That's exactly what a rubber building would look like if it fell over. Nice piece of animation. You know it's fake right? Right?

[wildbilln864]

8. fake doesn't matter.....

the point's the same. The undamaged part of those WTC buildings should have held up!
But instead it went like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbelXy1JNWE&feature=related

[LARED]

20. Willbill, if you seriously think the WTC should have toppled over

like a rubber building, I want what your smoking.

[wildbilln864]

25. I say the top part should have went over the side or been stopped...

by the lower undamaged very robust structure below. I said nothing about a rubber building, you did.
Why do you think this building didn't completely collapse? It should have crushed the bottom floor and then the next and so on if what you believe is true. But it didn't.

[hack89]

31. That is a concrete building

you really think that a steel framed building is going to collapse like a concrete one?


How much do you think the tops weighed? How much KE does that weight produce? What proof is there that the towers were designed to withstand those kinds of dynamic loads?

[LARED]

32. I hope you realize you can saying whatever you want and

having it make sense are to entirely different thing.

1. The two building are built and designed completely differently.

2. one is concrete thw other is steel.

3. One was demoshised the other failed from a progressive collapse

[wildbilln864]

33. and you can "saying whatever you want"!

1)so? care to explain how the concrete would hold up better?
2) see point one above!
3) neither was demoshised! I believe however that both were demolished with explosives and/or incendiaries.

[LARED]

34. Do you have any idea as the design of the little concrete building

that failed to implode? If not there is no way to even guess at your question.

I know this may come as a shock, but these buildings are actually designed for different reason. They specify materials of construction differently for different structures and functions. I know this will ruin your day but youtube videos don't provide much in the way of design requirements.

[wildbilln864]

35. yes lared, I do. I am in the construction business!

Thanks for the laugh though. :rofl:

[LARED]

36. That's great, so tell me how the little concrete building

was designed. Thanks

[wildbilln864]

37. don't have time for that nonsense....

Not playing that distraction. My point still stands! Those towers should not have collapsed so completely and would not without demolition!

[Realityhack]

39. Yes they should not have.

And the engineering and physics communities are in agreement on that.

[wildbilln864]

40. Are they? I don't think so!

http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

[Realityhack]

42. exactly how many (and WHICH) people on that list ...

think the buildings should have fallen over not fallen fairly strait down?

You do understand that it does not indicate that viewpoint ANYWHERE in the petition right?

The engineering and physics communities are in agreement on this specific point just like the scientific community is in agreement about evolution. You will never see 100% agreement. But your petition is the equivalent of biologists for creationism.

[Realityhack]

51. chirp chirp chirp n/t

[LARED]

44. What exactly was your point?

Because a small seemingly highly reinforced concrete building did not collapse the WTC must have been demolished?

Yes?

[wildbilln864]

45. no! nt

[Realityhack]

10. Actually I thought it was pretty bad for animation. n/t

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

11. no, you mis-understand...

deliberately I'm sure. :eyes:

[Ohio Joe]

13. I hate to say it

But after watching the video of what it should look like, I agree with Realityhack. If there is a misunderstanding, I can assure you at least on my part it is genuine. Why would you think that the tower falling should look anything like that?

[wildbilln864]

15. the top part....

of the towers above the impacts should have remained intact and toppled over the side because the rest of the building below impact area was undamaged and retained it's structural integrity unless something(explosives or incendiaries) compromised it. There were 47 massive steel columns running up the towers and ther was no reason for them to give way where they were not damaged. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q

[hack89]

17. Why do you think the tops were rigid?

How many degrees of flex do you think all those joints could withstand before failing? We know that the tops were tilting and twisting as they fell - the tops simply ripped themselves apart as they smashed into the lower floors and all that debris fell straight down.

The building below the impact had a 30 story building dropped on it - you really think they were designed to withstand those kinds of dynamic loads? (and think before you answer - we are not talking static or wind loading here.)

[wildbilln864]

18. "..all that debris" did not fall straight down! Are you blind? nt

[hack89]

19. The vast majority did.

even with a 15 degree tilt, most of the top was still within the footprint of the building. Once it broke completely loose gravity meant it was going to fall straight down.

[Ohio Joe]

22. "unless something(explosives or incendiaries) compromised it"

ummm, the plane that hit the building at what... 500MPH and then exploded. I would suggest it did considerable damage. Once it started to go, of course it would tear any remaining columns apart and then fall straight down, not topple over.

[wildbilln864]

52. Complete bullshit! Of course!

"Once it started to go, of course it would tear any remaining columns apart and then fall straight down,..."

[Realityhack]

23. No I don't.

The building should NOT topple. That is reserved for your cartoon buildings.

I think you are vastly underestimating the potential energy released in even a very short movement of the building.
Furthermore I think you are misunderstanding how buildings are constructed and behave. At these scales it is very easy for your mind to trick you into thinking something should behave a different way. Our experience on 'normal' human scales simply does not directly translate to these sky scrapers.

[wildbilln864]

24. Yes it should! What I think is you're just making shit up as you go...

and pretending to know what you're talking about! I have helped build buildings like that so your errant notion that I don't understand is pure folly on your part.

"... At these scales it is very easy for your mind to trick you into thinking something should behave a different way." Yes I'd say that's your problem alright!

[greyl]

26. You would have been better off cancelling this debate, wildbilln864. ;) nt

[wildbilln864]

27. more errant opinion? nt

[greyl]

28. Replace "errant" with "educated". nt

[wildbilln864]

30. not likely!

errant is most appropriate.

[wildbilln864]

29. you would be better off....

providing substance instead of opinion. :eyes:

[Realityhack]

38. No Bill.

It should not have fallen over like a cartoon rubber building. The upper stories DID have a rotational component. You clearly do not understand the physics involved.

How many engineers, physicists, or CD experts support your silly claim?

Care to show your calculations indicating that the building should have fallen over?

You are treating this like a block tower in your living room. That simply isn't the scale we are talking about.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

49. never said anything

about a cartoon rubber building! You did.
I understand the physics quite well. Stop projecting.

[William Seger]

41. Prove it

> "...your errant notion that I don't understand is pure folly on your part.

It's not logical to say that all buildings should topple over or that all buildings should go down like the towers. Please demonstrate your claimed knowledge: Explain to me what the determining factor would be in the specific case of the towers, and explain to me how you determined that the tops of the towers should have toppled over.

[wildbilln864]

46. never said "all" buildings!

That would be like you asking me to prove the sky is blue to someone who's color blind! I could explain all night and offer proof if it was available but you would still deny the obvious.

[William Seger]

47. In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about

Thanks, wildbill. :hi:

[wildbilln864]

48. I know those buildings shouldn't have collapsed completely as they did.

Whether you think I know what I'm talking about is irrelevant! I know you have to try to get a jab in somehow though.

[Realityhack]

50. Yet interestingly you have no calculations or evidence to show us. n/t

[wildbilln864]

53. Interestingly, neither does anyone else have calculations to show ...

why the three buildings completely collapsed for the first time ever. If they do, I'd like to see em. Do you have a link that shows the calculations that show why the building collapsed completely after initiation of collapse? I don't think so.

[Ohio Joe]

7. ok, again I only get 5 minutes in

And the video shown of the collapse certainly looks to me to take approximately 16 seconds. The video then goes on to claim it is only 10 seconds. Sorry, a crap video with a crap conclusion. I stopped watching at that point.

[wildbilln864]

12. It would be good...

to know at what point you begin your timing and what point you end it.

[Ohio Joe]

14. I really don't want to watch it again

It was painfully bad, but I will when I have time and will post the times I see it begin and end. Probably tomorrow, I'm leaving for my pool league soon and will be pretty wasted by the time I get home.

[wildbilln864]

16. thank you and have a great afternoon! nt

[Ohio Joe]

21. OK, looked at it again

It looks to me that the collapse begins at about 4:49 into the video. The collapse ends at approximately 5:06 into the video. I time it at about 17 seconds. There are probably fractions of seconds on either end that I'm waaaay to hung over to even try to figure but 17 seconds is pretty close.