Pages: 1 2

 

2007-06-07 16:55:12
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7036|Portland, OR, USA
...and we were watching a movie about earthquakes.  It was a PBS: Nova special about the earthquakes in Kobe, Japan.  And it really got me thinking..  Take a look at these buildings
https://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1479/taiwansixkr4.jpg

Now see, when a building collapses in an earthquake, generally it's because the frequency of the building has been matched by the frequency of the earthquake.  And, as you see in those images, it's usually only one floor that fails (usually a lobby or something with a lot of open space and not very much support).

https://img179.imageshack.us/img179/7304/bldg5thflek6.gif

nevermind, just found it^^ it was like 10 stories
And there was this one building - I wish I could find the picture - it was only about 4 or 5 stories high, but the third floor collapsed on itself. The rest of the building was fine, I mean.. you could tell that there was a crushed floor in the middle of it, but the whole thing didn't collapse or anything.  So I thought for a while, trying to figure out why the rest of the building wouldn't collapse... and when you think about it, why would it?  The building had been supporting that same amount of weight for quite a while, sure it's center of gravity might be a little lower, but why would that ruin the structural integrity of the entire building.

So, we all now where this one is going... why the hell would the twin towers have collapsed like they did?  A couple of floors were damaged.. on one side of the building, why wouldn't that part have just toppled over like you see in some of the images above.  And why, initially, was there no resistance to the fall.  You still have a very structurally sound building supporting the same amount of weight... why would it all just give way at the same time allowing the building to fall in free fall.  That just shouldn't happen.  I mean, i would expect it had the Twin Towers been made of wood, but underneath the "superheated" section of steel, there was still steel that was just as strong as before the attacks...

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2007-06-07 16:55:48)

2007-06-07 17:01:07
Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7097|Washington, DC

Call me blind to the puppetry of the government, but maybe the plane crashing cause floors to fall out. Said floors caused more floors to fall out. That very likely knocked out various steel beams supporting the whole structure. Also, note that the towers sort of fell on themselves. That is, the top sections fell down, practically into the building. Sure it would knock out more support beams doing that.

edit: Also, that building is very wide. The WTC might've had stronger/different design, but a tall, thin structure probably doesn't have as much wiggle room as a short, wide building does.

Last edited by Hurricane (2007-06-07 17:02:06)

2007-06-07 17:04:40
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7036|Portland, OR, USA

Hurricane wrote:

Call me blind to the puppetry of the government, but maybe the plane crashing cause floors to fall out. Said floors caused more floors to fall out. That very likely knocked out various steel beams supporting the whole structure. Also, note that the towers sort of fell on themselves. That is, the top sections fell down, practically into the building. Sure it would knock out more support beams doing that.

edit: Also, that building is very wide. The WTC might've had stronger/different design, but a tall, thin structure probably doesn't have as much wiggle room as a short, wide building does.
thats what I thought too, but when the top started falling, it fell in free fall (there was like no resistance to the fall)  I would understand had it stuttered every couple floors...
2007-06-07 17:04:46
Master*
Banned
+416|6961|United States
The weight of the upper portions of the building overwhelmed bearing capacity of the structures below which caused the upper part of the building to fall through the lower portions of the building which is my opinion of how the building collapsed.
2007-06-07 17:07:27
Ryan
Member
+1,230|7309|Alberta, Canada

CommieChipmunk wrote:

The rest of the building was fine, I mean.. you could tell that there was a crushed floor in the middle of it, but the whole thing didn't collapse or anything.  So I thought for a while, trying to figure out why the rest of the building wouldn't collapse... and when you think about it, why would it?  The building had been supporting that same amount of weight for quite a while, sure it's center of gravity might be a little lower, but why would that ruin the structural integrity of the entire building.

So, we all now where this one is going... why the hell would the twin towers have collapsed like they did?  A couple of floors were damaged.. on one side of the building, why wouldn't that part have just toppled over like you see in some of the images above.  And why, initially, was there no resistance to the fall.  You still have a very structurally sound building supporting the same amount of weight... why would it all just give way at the same time allowing the building to fall in free fall.  That just shouldn't happen.  I mean, i would expect it had the Twin Towers been made of wood, but underneath the "superheated" section of steel, there was still steel that was just as strong as before the attacks...
For the first paragraph, I think the frequency of the earthquake only matched the frequency of that level (maybe it was constructed differently) and caused it to collapse. That's only a guess, and I have never taken physics in my life.

For the second paragraph, the plane hit the building and weakened the support at that level of the building. When it finally gave way, the top of the building had enough momentum to begin falling and bringing the rest of the building down with it.

Again, I'm no expert on this, but these are just my theories.

Last edited by Ryan (2007-06-07 17:08:11)

2007-06-07 17:08:53
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7036|Portland, OR, USA

Masterstyle wrote:

The weight of the upper portions of the building overwhelmed bearing capacity of the structures below which caused the upper part of the building to fall through the lower portions of the building which is my opinion of how the building collapsed.
they had been bearing that weight the entire time.
2007-06-07 17:09:48
RedTwizzler
I do it for the lulz.
+124|7003|Chicago
Maybe I'm just speaking out of my ass here, but then again, that's not uncommon for me...

As the second plane entered the second tower, it dipped one wing down, thus cutting diagonally across several floors. This tower was the one to fall first. Perhaps after that tower fell, the structural integrity of the other tower was impacted, causing it to fall.
2007-06-07 17:10:13
Ryan
Member
+1,230|7309|Alberta, Canada

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Masterstyle wrote:

The weight of the upper portions of the building overwhelmed bearing capacity of the structures below which caused the upper part of the building to fall through the lower portions of the building which is my opinion of how the building collapsed.
they had been bearing that weight the entire time.
No, they haven't.

They have been bearing equal weight the entire time, but since the planes hit the building and weakened the support, the weight was changed and became unbalanced, causing the building to crash.
2007-06-07 17:10:38
SGT.Mays
Member
+2|7209|Ohio
But they fell straight into each other by your logic they were unbalance hence should fall off to a side.
they might have knocked out all few million contact welds and tons of steel beams on the way down, but I dont have the picture on hand but i do recall a nice one of Ground Zero where a steel beam stood up out the debris adn was "broke" at about a 45 degree angle, along with the fact that it melted and hardened on itself also gave credit to the fact that those planes alone didnt bring the towers down. And even if it was the planes the buildings collapsed in "freefall" which shouldnt happen because of the fact that it is reinforced steel. Hell you could detonate some explosives in the lobby....... and it still wouldnt topple. Anyone here everplay jenga??? Ever seen what happens when you knock out a whole level real fast?? Nothing, everyone can have their opinions but mine is something else brought those towers down.

Last edited by SGT.Mays (2007-06-07 17:20:02)

2007-06-07 17:19:00
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6913|Chicago, IL
physics dude, F=MA, the mass of the tower's top 20 floors, combined with the acceleration required to stop it from falling further, would produce far more force than any other floor can hold, and once the floor gives, the falling mass gets even larger.
2007-06-07 17:19:57
[HOF]Mercenary
o_O
+53|6645
Heres what i seem to remember from one of the many PBS, NOVA's, and Frontlines at the time.
The World Trade center, like any building, has "Fracture Points" If you knock out just a few of these, the building will collapse. With that it mind, lets move on. When the world trade center was built, it was made to withstand a crash from the biggest plane of the time, i believe it was a 737 or something of the sort, but, somewhat obviously, a 747 is way bigger. as above pointed out, it went in at a diagonal, hitting many fracture points. This , in any building would bring it down. In the other building, it hit less fracture points, but, inside of the trade center, the floors were devided by Sheet rock, a very week material. So even though the core was steal, it was broken, and if you can imagine, with part of the box broken, the top half or so of the tower began to fall over onto the broken section (think of a lumberjack cutting a wedge out of a tree to make it fall) but, because of its great wait, the other half was pulled along, and it fell only slightly tilted, not however, that the colapse did destroy several sorounding buildings, so it diddnt fall exactly straight. So i can conclude, that a combo of old engineering, cheap meterials, and really luck, the buildings collapsed as they did.
2007-06-07 17:30:14
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7036|Portland, OR, USA

S.Lythberg wrote:

physics dude, F=MA, the mass of the tower's top 20 floors, combined with the acceleration required to stop it from falling further, would produce far more force than any other floor can hold, and once the floor gives, the falling mass gets even larger.
right, but I would have expected jutters inbetween each floor to get it started... I mean, these buildings are built very well... they don't just collapse.  It would have made more sense that the side which was hit would have collapsed first, resulting in either the top half of the building to fall or the building to collapse at an angle, not in on itself
2007-06-07 17:32:46
HeavyMetalDave
Metal Godz
+107|7124|California
911 -  Building collapsed from top...

Earthquake - from the bottom, and back n forth...

simple...
2007-06-07 17:35:47
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6913|Chicago, IL

CommieChipmunk wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

physics dude, F=MA, the mass of the tower's top 20 floors, combined with the acceleration required to stop it from falling further, would produce far more force than any other floor can hold, and once the floor gives, the falling mass gets even larger.
right, but I would have expected jutters inbetween each floor to get it started... I mean, these buildings are built very well... they don't just collapse.  It would have made more sense that the side which was hit would have collapsed first, resulting in either the top half of the building to fall or the building to collapse at an angle, not in on itself
well, if you knock out one side of a four sided building, it stil has all for corners, and would not fall, but the jet's fuel melted the supports in the center, and the center likely started to sag, and eventually fall, bringing the walls down with it.  In the pictures, there are stil large pieces of the walls intact, but no floor/cieling sections.

Basically, the floors collapsed on themselves, leaving the walls without support, and they fell inward.
2007-06-07 17:36:14
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7036|Portland, OR, USA

HeavyMetalDave wrote:

911 -  Building collapsed from top...

Earthquake - from the bottom, and back n forth...

simple...
*facedesk*

You should teach physics somewhere
2007-06-07 17:41:47
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|7121

Earthquakes are far different from planes crashing into buildings! With earthquakes, the foundation of the building is destroyed and thus it collapses. But in the twin towers, the structural integrity of the inside was ruined, the steel core was greatly weakened, and thus the whole building collapsed. With earthquakes, the core of the building is still intact, it's just that the lack of foundation causes it to fall over. In the WTC, the beams buckled and stretched and could not handle all the stress and strain.

And for the love of God, people, take some materials engineering or civil engineering classes before you start claiming other stuff brought the towers down or that this was a government conspiracy. All it takes is some research and knowledge and the evidence is right there in front of you.

Last edited by mtb0minime (2007-06-07 17:45:04)

2007-06-07 17:43:04
UnknownRanger
Squirrels, natures little speedbump.
+610|6811|Cali
Thats alot of boom...
2007-06-07 17:46:00
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|7159
The force of each floor falling caused the next to give way. This is what happened, I know someone whos dad is a firefighter, he was in the building when it came down and he heard *THUMP..THUMP..THUMP..THUMP..* etc.
x
2007-06-07 17:48:29
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7036|Portland, OR, USA

Superior Mind wrote:

The force of each floor falling caused the next to give way. This is what happened, I know someone whos dad is a firefighter, he was in the building when it came down and he heard *THUMP..THUMP..THUMP..THUMP..* etc.
That's resistance, it would have slowed the fall wouldn't it have?  Because the building fell at the rate gravity pulls things down (9.8 m/s)

(that could have just been the demolition or thermite )
2007-06-07 18:24:38
BolvisOculus
Spagett!
+167|7085|Manitowoc, WI
Shhh, don't tell the "Lose Change" theorists.
2007-06-07 18:28:42
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6811|Twyford, UK
Well, the planes took out a whole load of support structure. Everything above crashed down when the beams burnt through after the fireproofing had been blasted off, causing the levels below to crash down on top of the ones below THEM, and so forth until it hit the ground.

Exactly the same principle as collapsing a building in it's own footprint with explosives, only done a lot messier due to the flaming and the dust and the sheer mass.
2007-06-07 18:30:02
SplinterStrike
Roamer
+250|6877|Eskimo land. AKA Canada.
I went to Ground Zero. It wasnt pretty.
Here's a picture of one of the steel beams recovered there:
https://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u47/SplinterStrike/NewYork355.jpg

The intense amount of heat generated by a full load of fuel (Max. Fuel capacity: 57,285 U.S. Gallons / 216,840 Liters) would melt the beams within seconds. With the core gone, along with numerous other supports being sheared off by the impact and explosion, the weight was spread out to the surviving ones. If you know anything about stress, you would know that that's not a good thing. The added press eventually caused them to buckle and snap, bringing down the floors on top of the others.

Due to the impact force on the floor below, the support beams of the lower floors buckled and snapped in turn, adding more mass. So if the original mass was enough to break through the first floors, what would more mass do to the lower ones, at an even greater speed?


EDIT
If you remember the news footage, you'll see that in the south tower impact, the plane goes nearly straight through the towers.
Here's a movie of the North Tower impact:


Multiple angle South Tower impact+collapse:

Another South Tower vid: (FYI the vid title says you can see Satan's face at 0:31(for embed). I see a vague skull, but that's it)


Notice how it crumbles inwards(the core being destroyed) and then outwards(as the impact force between the floors send debris flying)

Last edited by SplinterStrike (2007-06-07 18:45:41)

2007-06-07 18:31:41
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6913|Chicago, IL

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

The force of each floor falling caused the next to give way. This is what happened, I know someone whos dad is a firefighter, he was in the building when it came down and he heard *THUMP..THUMP..THUMP..THUMP..* etc.
That's resistance, it would have slowed the fall wouldn't it have?  Because the building fell at the rate gravity pulls things down (9.8 m/s)

(that could have just been the demolition or thermite )
not by much, imagine the weight of the collapsing mass, accelerating at 9.8m/s, coming down on a few soggy bolts, they'd snap like twigs, and the human eye can't really tell the difference between 9.81m/s and 9.78m/s anyway.
2007-06-07 18:34:18
MAGUIRE93
High Angle Hell
+182|6660|Schofield Barracks
earthquakes arent the same as airplanes crashing into buildings
2007-06-07 18:45:09
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|7036|Portland, OR, USA

SplinterStrike wrote:

I went to Ground Zero. It wasnt pretty.
Here's a picture of one of the steel beams recovered there:
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u47/ … ork355.jpg

The intense amount of heat generated by a full load of fuel (Max. Fuel capacity: 57,285 U.S. Gallons / 216,840 Liters) would melt the beams within seconds. With the core gone, along with numerous other supports being sheared off by the impact and explosion, the weight was spread out to the surviving ones. If you know anything about stress, you would know that that's not a good thing. The added press eventually caused them to buckle and snap, bringing down the floors on top of the others.

Due to the impact force on the floor below, the support beams of the lower floors buckled and snapped in turn, adding more mass. So if the original mass was enough to break through the first floors, what would more mass do to the lower ones, at an even greater speed?


EDIT
If you remember the news footage, you'll see that in the south tower impact, the plane goes nearly straight through the towers.
Here's a movie of the North Tower impact:


Multiple angle South Tower impact+collapse:

Another South Tower vid: (FYI the vid title says you can see Satan's face at 0:32 in the embed. I see a vague skull, but that's it)


Notice how it crumbles inwards(the core being destroyed) and then outwards(as the impact force between the floors send debris flying)
you'll notice however, in that video, it can be assumed that the massive fireball, is most of that jetfuel.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard