Remains of World Trade Tower 1 smoldering in foreground
The photographs above show the top down conversion of World Trade Tower 1 into small smoldering pieces of steel and a fountain of finely pulverized concrete dust. What remains is that pile producing the white smoke in the foreground of this picture (left).
There are absolute limiting factors to how quickly a building of any given height can collapse. Even given free-fall in a vacuum, for example, it would still require about 9.2 sec for the top floor of WTC 1 to reach the ground. Another limit occurs in the context of falling floors in which mass is accumulating floor by floor. As each stationary floor is encountered, the law of conservation of momentum must also be considered. Under the most ideal theoretical conditions, if zero energy was consumed in the destruction of the building, the law of conservation of momentum would still limit the minimum collapse time to about 13 sec. This is roughly the observed collapse time.
Our point is this; the only type of building able to collapse, "at the same rate as" a building that requires zero energy to disassemble. . . is a building that requires zero energy to disassemble. If the World Trade Towers were such buildings, then what held them together all those years?
The critiques presented by the 911 Truth movement are various ways of saying that the buildings simply fell too fast for the collapse to have been driven solely by gravity, or that the energy contained in the building's height, was grossly insufficient to explain the observations of what actually occurred. Additional energy in the form of explosives must have been present.
There are absolute limiting factors to how quickly a building of any given height can collapse. Even given free-fall in a vacuum, for example, it would still require about 9.2 sec for the top floor of WTC 1 to reach the ground. Another limit occurs in the context of falling floors in which mass is accumulating floor by floor. As each stationary floor is encountered, the law of conservation of momentum must also be considered. Under the most ideal theoretical conditions, if zero energy was consumed in the destruction of the building, the law of conservation of momentum would still limit the minimum collapse time to about 13 sec. This is roughly the observed collapse time.
Our point is this; the only type of building able to collapse, "at the same rate as" a building that requires zero energy to disassemble. . . is a building that requires zero energy to disassemble. If the World Trade Towers were such buildings, then what held them together all those years?
The critiques presented by the 911 Truth movement are various ways of saying that the buildings simply fell too fast for the collapse to have been driven solely by gravity, or that the energy contained in the building's height, was grossly insufficient to explain the observations of what actually occurred. Additional energy in the form of explosives must have been present.
First the Governments explanation of why the collapse proceeded as observed
"The upper section of the building then collapsed onto the floors below, within 12s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble." NIST NCSTAR1 2.9
The above sentence is the complete analysis of the World Trade Center 1's actual collapse, as provided in NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers. No further explanation follows. What they think happened in the aircraft impact zone they discuss in some detail, but why exactly the 95 intact floors below the impact zone simply turned into a fine powder and smoldering steel fragments, they chose not to address.
The above sentence is the complete analysis of the World Trade Center 1's actual collapse, as provided in NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers. No further explanation follows. What they think happened in the aircraft impact zone they discuss in some detail, but why exactly the 95 intact floors below the impact zone simply turned into a fine powder and smoldering steel fragments, they chose not to address.
|
John Gross, one of the lead engineers in the government's WTC collapse investigation, explains why NIST felt it was unnecessary to examine or explain the actual building collapses beyond initiation.
His argument works like this; 'It was possible for the collapse to proceed in the manner it did, because we saw it happen on TV, therefore, it must have been possible, so there's no need to look into it.' The real question of course is. . . was what we saw on TV possible without the buildings being rigged with explosives? Basic physics provides a clear answer. No. |
WTC 1 prior to collapse
The only source of energy available to do any further damage to this building, is the energy stored in its height. One way to think about how much energy that actually is, would be like this; it would be the amount of energy an efficient electric crane would consume as it lifted the building's material to its respective height.
The energy required to turn the building you see at left, into the dust cloud and smoldering debris pictured above, must all be accounted for based upon that total energy available. It has to add up. . . but it doesn't even come close.
Jim Hoffman compares energy available to various "energy sinks". For example, a very conservative estimate of the energy required just to explain the observed pulverization of the concrete floors, is about 135,000 KWH per tower (derived from concrete recycling data). However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives this estimate of the total energy available: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours). We already come up short. And the pulverization of the concrete is just one aspect of the collapse. You have to still have to account for all the energy required to disassemble the superstructure and fling it 100's of yards in all directions, as well as distribute the pulverized dust over the entire south of Manhattan (including 1/2 mile into the wind).
The energy required to turn the building you see at left, into the dust cloud and smoldering debris pictured above, must all be accounted for based upon that total energy available. It has to add up. . . but it doesn't even come close.
Jim Hoffman compares energy available to various "energy sinks". For example, a very conservative estimate of the energy required just to explain the observed pulverization of the concrete floors, is about 135,000 KWH per tower (derived from concrete recycling data). However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives this estimate of the total energy available: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours). We already come up short. And the pulverization of the concrete is just one aspect of the collapse. You have to still have to account for all the energy required to disassemble the superstructure and fling it 100's of yards in all directions, as well as distribute the pulverized dust over the entire south of Manhattan (including 1/2 mile into the wind).
|
It's important to keep in mind that the level of destruction witnessed, had nothing to do with the buildings height. This is easy to prove because it happened progressively from the top down, before anything ever hit the ground.
This video is just testimony to the fact that the buildings essentially turned themselves into a fine powder and steel fragments. |
Below are some observations on the WTC collapse made by the 911 Truth movement
David Chandler analyzes the collapse of the North Tower.
|
|
David Chandlers analysis of the South tower collapse |
Jim Hoffman on the physics of 9/11 |
Larry Silverstein explains how he survived on 9/11
|
This is not exactly science but still interesting This is Larry Silverstein, the the owner of WTC 7 who (just two months prior to 9/11), had also acquired the twin towers . Every morning from JULY 26, thru Sept. 10, he had breakfast in the restaurant on the top floor of WTC 1 (the first building to be struck by a plane). In this clip he explains why he didn't have breakfast there on the day of 9/11. |