Doh, What are the chances!
- Thread starter spraduke
- Start date
Upvote
0
Usually they don't go near the building after it just stops falling like that, the original contractors probaby just waited for it to eventually fall over or take it down with a wrecking ball, but I don't think anyone rewires a building its just too dangerous.
Upvote
0
That's pretty weird, I mean shouldn't the combined weight of all those stories above, with their support instantly removed, have created enough energy to bust the first floor when it impacted the ground, therby removing the support from the above story, and than likewise all the way up (i.e. pancaking)? I didn't see any fissures or anthing in the structure, not even a window breaking.
Eh, oh well, only thing I know about how buildings collapse I got from Fox News.
Eh, oh well, only thing I know about how buildings collapse I got from Fox News.
Upvote
0
Jack said:
I don't think they were trying to get it to pancake, it looks like they were just trying to get it to fall on its side; there are only explosions on one side of the building. Also, to get it to pancake, they'd probably have to take out a few floors, rather than just the bottom supports.
If you look at this one (it's a gif, but it takes a short while to load before it starts playing), you can see that there are explosions on many floors at the same time, then it just pancakes down.
This second one looks like what should have happened in the video; only the bottom floor is blown, and the building just topples over.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This makes me wonder even more about 9/11.. as usually buildings requires very well-placed exposives to go down like that (imploding), I guess the planes cutting away steel could explain the twin towers, but how could bulding 7 (47-story MASSIVE, extra strenghtened building (DoD had some floors in it) in the far end of the WTC estate) just do a "perfect" implosion 5 hours after the other collapses? I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything, but it would be interesting , and probably very valuable for future builders to know how it could happen..
Upvote
0
I too am not a building engineer or a demolitions expert. but as far as no windows breaking, I think the clear all that to avoid shrapnel. Lets face it, people just aren;t smart enough to stay away from things that can kill them.
As far as the WTC. They said it was the fuel buring that weakened the structure. As hot as that stuff burns, I think that would be a fair explanation as far as an initial breech to the remaining structure, and the only think I could think of that would add to it was the weight of the plane. Most buildings are not fitted to hold the entire weight of a 747. I do not dismiss conspiaracy theories, some of them are even interesting and make a some sense.
My thoughts on the building that didn't fall over, you can see in the video where a good section of the bottome was removed. I too think that it was supposed to fall over because of that and the explosives only being placed at the bottom. Maybe poorly placed charges are part of the reason for it not going over, but it could be contributed to one tough stinkin building.
As far as the WTC. They said it was the fuel buring that weakened the structure. As hot as that stuff burns, I think that would be a fair explanation as far as an initial breech to the remaining structure, and the only think I could think of that would add to it was the weight of the plane. Most buildings are not fitted to hold the entire weight of a 747. I do not dismiss conspiaracy theories, some of them are even interesting and make a some sense.
My thoughts on the building that didn't fall over, you can see in the video where a good section of the bottome was removed. I too think that it was supposed to fall over because of that and the explosives only being placed at the bottom. Maybe poorly placed charges are part of the reason for it not going over, but it could be contributed to one tough stinkin building.
Upvote
0
Or perhaps the explosiosn did not go off on the upper floors, but why are we spending time trying to figure it out? At the end of the day it's awesome because someone ****ed up somehow and we can all point and laugh. And explosions (even somewhat failed explosions) are always 1337.
Upvote
0
Valac said:
The problem with the meltin metals theory is ofcourse that people were seen actually leaning towards these melting beams, just before the collapse..
Also, As far as WTC1 and 2 goes, I can sort of accept that, what gets me wondering is Building 7, and why on earth it collapsed:
Upvote
0
Those were not the beams in question; the beams they are talking about are the ones that connect the internal structure to the external shell. Also, it should be noted that steel loses much of its structural integrity long before it reaches its melting point.
Upvote
0
BobdogG5 said:
Still doesnt explain why building 7, out of bloody nowhere, just collapsed in 5 seconds.
Secondly, there are skyscrapers that have been burning for 20 hours, until all thats left is just the metal beams(windsor Tower, Madrid) , how come they never collapsed? If anything made the towers collapse, IMO it would be the planes cutting the beams on impact. but again, this does of course not even begin to explain the WTC 7 collapse, because that building was not hit by any planes, nor any significant debris from the other collapses, nor were there any major fires in it.
Upvote
0