for those who believe in controlled demolition

[sabbat hunter]

lets just say for a moment that WTC 1,2 were brought down by controlled demolition/explosives. (which some believe based on video evidence interpretation)

what should have the collapses looked like if they WERE NOT brought down by demolitions/explosives? how long should have the collapses taken?

serious question folks. i would like to hear what the collapses should have looked like without explosives/demolition

[eomer]

1. Should have looked like a WTC still standing...

with firefighters extinguishing the fires, helicopters rescuing people from the roofs, firefighters finding or opening up paths through the damaged floors and helping people down.

[mirandapriestly]

2. The towers above where they were "hit"

might be damaged but not below. And something identical would not likely happen to both buildings.
They might look similar to what the empire state building might have looked like after it was hit by a plane and not as bad as the shell left by the building in Spain that blazed for over 24 hours, but did not "collapse". No jets, no flashes, no charges going off evenly around an entire floor, then breaking off and if the floors "pancaked" they would pancake, not pulverize.

[dchill]

13. Excellent points.

I agree with you 100%. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or spontaneous collapse. Nor do I believe almost anything in the "Official Version of 9/11". The people who do are not aware of the unjustifiable conclusional leaps that they must make to get there. There is less concrete, credible evidence for the OCT than against it.

[simonm]

3. Partial collapse at worst

At worst, small sections would have collapsed. Like all other steel building structures throughout human history that withstood fires.

The fires in all three buildings are not sufficient to cause full symmetrical collapse. If they did have the capability, there would be no need for professional demolition companies.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. What collapses?

The buildings couldn't collapse without the failure of the core and without explosives that would not be possible.

[petgoat]

5. I'd believe localized collapses of floors, possibly taking out parts

of several floors underneath, but find the complete instantaneous failure of entire floors incredible.
If localized floor collapse caused perimeter column buckling beyond the impact region, I would expect
any collapse to be assymetric. I also find it difficult to believe that a birdsnest of disorganized
debris tore down the lower 500' of the 47 14" X 36" steel core columns.

My thinking on this is biased because I have been made suspicious by the collapse of building 7, the
destruction of the steel, the secrecy about the blueprints, the volcanic dust cloud, and the molten
steel in the basements. If not for these factors I would probably find the total progressive collapse
phenominon surprising but plausible.

[Poll_Blind]

6. I'll give you a range....

At best, it would have looked like a much larger version of what happened to the empire state building after it was hit by a bomber in 1945. You can see that damage below and compare it to what you saw on 9/11 and since:



At worst- and even this is a little reaching in my opinion, you would have seen the central core standing at about 60-70% (rough estimate) height of the tower.

I don't have an example picture for the second case because even that speculation is far beyond what has ever happened to any building of its type in history. If the tower is a finger then imagine it stripped of skin and missing everything from the first knuckle to the nail. But the bone, the central core, would be left mostly (at least 60-70%, as I've said) intact. This was no ordinary building- a trade center is designed to withstand enormous loads- much stronger than similar buildings.

PB

[mirandapriestly]

14. Empire State Building

Sounds to me like someone got some ideas from the Empire state building crash.


"One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. "

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

[number6]

7. I vote , Partial collapse at worst

would have stood up longer before partial collapse

[Christophera]

8. Building Topples, Hinging On Perimeter Wall Opposite Impact Area

Meaning that even if they had toppled it would have fallen the wrong ways.


However, with the concrete core

http://concretecore.741.com

the likelyhood of that is non existant.

[dailykoff]

9. Couldn't be done.

But if two large passenger planes had really hit the towers, I think there would have been:

1) More and messier exterior damage, though not more damage to the perimeter columns -- less in fact. The planes would have broken up on contact with them, torn off more aluminum facing over a wider area, and scattered debris and human remains all over the plaza.

2) No damage to any core columns and no "collapses" beyond the immediate collision damage.

[sabbat hunter]

11. why should have

1) why should have planes traveling at 400+ MPH disintigrate on impact?

[dailykoff]

12. Mainly because of the construction.

A passenger plane is designed to fly as cheaply as safely possible; that means the lightest practical bones and skin. It's essentially a metal bird.

The Trade Center on the other hand, by design or accident, was constructed like a huge fortress with unusually robust outer walls:



When a silver bird meets an iron forest at 400 mph, it's pretty clear which one disintegrates.

[sabbat hunter]

16. well then

why didn't the plane that hit the empire state building disintegrate upon impact. it left a substantial hole in the building\




nor did it fall to the ground below the impact area.

plus of course there are a ton of eyewitnesses that saw the second plane hit the tower.

if it wasnt a plane what hit the tower? nothing? an illusion?

[dailykoff]

17. The ESB outer walls are non-structural masonry.

That doesn't mean they aren't substantial, only that they don't need to support anything, including themselves. They're hung from the steel frame.

The WTC outer walls were much more robust because they had to support themselves AND half the weight of each floor diaphragm (the part outside the core).

As to what hit the buildings, I'm not sure, but I don't think either was a jumbo passenger jet.

[Jazz2006]

18. You don't think airplanes hit the towers?

Have you a working hypothesis in mind as to what did hit them, then?

[Kai]

10. There is an ongoing discussion concerning this

which can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=80026

building collapsing from earthquake:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=80026#80032

[libertypirate]

15. Lets take belief out of this shall we? :)

Seriously, belief is where everyone runs whose argument is not based on anything factual.

When the top portion started to move despite being such a large chunk, should have eventually traveled towards a path of least resistance.

Instead the exact opposite occurred; the moving portion of the buildings traveled the path of MOST resistance through the undamaged structure bellow. Two times the structure that held up the top portion for years suddenly lost all structural integrity; zero resistance.

It is a science fact that an object in motion will follow the path that least resists its motion until it is motivated otherwise. That is not what we are watching when the towers collapse; on the silent TV footage.

Falling debries does not have the mass or acceleration to move 2-3 inches of dust farther then it fell to begin with not even close. Something moved it, but it was not the fall.

[rman]

19. partial collapse - if any at all

[Wexus]

20. I think the top would have toppled over and off.

[petgoat]

21. That would have conserved the angular momentum of the tipping

top of WTC2.

[sabbat hunter]

22. kick

kicking back to top to continue discussion