Unplanned Collaspe
I believe that one of the strongest cases Against the traditional narrative of how the buildings fell on 9/11 in and on New York is to compare how the buildings fell on 9/11 to REAL unplanned collapses of buildings.
The logic behind is this; if indeed the buildings that fell on 9/11 were unplanned collapses due to internal structural failure, then they should share similarities to other unplanned collapses around the world:
So take a look at REAL unplanned collapses and demolition attempts gone awry (please scroll to 4m 35s, the video is bit long):
Look at what these unplanned collapses have in common:
1. Often not all parts of the buildings collapse at the same time, often large pieces are left standing.
2. Sometimes when the building collapses in "pancake" fashion, there is a starting and stopping. The bottom of the building collapses, the 2nd floor then begins to fall (the start of the fall). It takes time (free fall time) for the entire floor to strike the ground, when the 2nd floor strikes the ground it stops (the stop of the fall) BUT, the 3rd floor was also connected to the 2nd floor so it too moves when the 2nd floor moves and stops momentarily when the 2nd floor stops. The force that caused the 2nd floor to stop is transmitted through the supports upwards to the 3rd floor causing them to fail. This is the key, not only does it take time for each floor to fall and strike the ground, it takes time for supports to fail, that's what slows a "real" unplanned collapse below the acceleration of gravity at 32 ft/sec^2.
Not to mention that in "real" unplanned collapse the supports may not all fail at the same time, or in the same way, in fact some don't fail at all!! Take a look at the building starting to collapse at 8m 52s, there was some slight pancaking but also combined with tilting, the upper floors began moving as if it was a card house.
3. Also notice that in most cases (albeit small sample) large portions of the buildings are left standing. For example in the collapse occurring on 5m 9s, the building was built so well that even when the foundation supports were demolished the upper portion of the building fell on the ground and remained intact and upright!
P.S. (9/17/18)
Here is even more video footage of demolition attempts gone wrong, take a look. One can see that buildings, even shoddily constructed buildings are much stronger than we think. Even when the structural integrity of the buildings is significantly compromised large portions of the building are left standing upright and intact!! Also buildings tend to tilt completely intact as they fall, when demolition attempts go wrong.
To avoid complaints of cherry picking evidence I have put links to youtube searches for building collapses. Look at what happens to MOST building collapses not just the one that fit a preconceived notion.
Compare MOST Unplanned Collapses (aside from the 9/11 buildings) with the 9/11 collapses:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=building+collapse
vs
If the buildings that fell on 9/11 were unplanned collapses they share very little in common with MOST "real" unplanned collapses, and also share very little with MOST high rise fires. Most high rise fires don't result in a complete, symmetric collapse into their footprint.
Compare Demolition Attempts Gone Wrong with the 9/11 collapses:
https://youtu.be/f8VjFBPQm2k?t=20
and
https://youtu.be/f8VjFBPQm2k?t=49
vs
https://youtu.be/ft2uIYucsXo?t=186
The unsuccessful demolition attempts go to show that even when significant amounts of the structural integrity is compromised parts of the building are left standing and if the buildings do fall they tilt over intact.
https://youtu.be/ft2uIYucsXo?t=186
Just by the most superficial inspection; do the buildings that fell on 9/11 resemble MOST unplanned collapses, MOST high rise fires, MOST demolition attempts gone wrong, or do they MOST resemble a successful demolition attempt?
The logic behind is this; if indeed the buildings that fell on 9/11 were unplanned collapses due to internal structural failure, then they should share similarities to other unplanned collapses around the world:
So take a look at REAL unplanned collapses and demolition attempts gone awry (please scroll to 4m 35s, the video is bit long):
Look at what these unplanned collapses have in common:
1. Often not all parts of the buildings collapse at the same time, often large pieces are left standing.
2. Sometimes when the building collapses in "pancake" fashion, there is a starting and stopping. The bottom of the building collapses, the 2nd floor then begins to fall (the start of the fall). It takes time (free fall time) for the entire floor to strike the ground, when the 2nd floor strikes the ground it stops (the stop of the fall) BUT, the 3rd floor was also connected to the 2nd floor so it too moves when the 2nd floor moves and stops momentarily when the 2nd floor stops. The force that caused the 2nd floor to stop is transmitted through the supports upwards to the 3rd floor causing them to fail. This is the key, not only does it take time for each floor to fall and strike the ground, it takes time for supports to fail, that's what slows a "real" unplanned collapse below the acceleration of gravity at 32 ft/sec^2.
Not to mention that in "real" unplanned collapse the supports may not all fail at the same time, or in the same way, in fact some don't fail at all!! Take a look at the building starting to collapse at 8m 52s, there was some slight pancaking but also combined with tilting, the upper floors began moving as if it was a card house.
3. Also notice that in most cases (albeit small sample) large portions of the buildings are left standing. For example in the collapse occurring on 5m 9s, the building was built so well that even when the foundation supports were demolished the upper portion of the building fell on the ground and remained intact and upright!
Just like most of the architects and engineers said the AE911 video, when buildings fall, they tend to tilt then fall. They don't just fall through the greatest path of resistance, perfectly into their footprint. Just ask yourself how many of the "real" unplanned collapses seen the video above looked ANYTHING like what we saw in 9/11?
Tower Collapse on 9/11:
Demolition attempt gone wrong and other assorted unplanned collapses:
P.S. (9/17/18)
Here is even more video footage of demolition attempts gone wrong, take a look. One can see that buildings, even shoddily constructed buildings are much stronger than we think. Even when the structural integrity of the buildings is significantly compromised large portions of the building are left standing upright and intact!! Also buildings tend to tilt completely intact as they fall, when demolition attempts go wrong.
To avoid complaints of cherry picking evidence I have put links to youtube searches for building collapses. Look at what happens to MOST building collapses not just the one that fit a preconceived notion.
Compare MOST Unplanned Collapses (aside from the 9/11 buildings) with the 9/11 collapses:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=building+collapse
vs
Take note that many of the buildings that DO collapse in a fire are wood frame or concrete frame buildings.
Even more realistic compare MOST high rise fires to what occurred on 9/11:
vs
Compare Demolition Attempts Gone Wrong with the 9/11 collapses:
https://youtu.be/f8VjFBPQm2k?t=20
and
https://youtu.be/f8VjFBPQm2k?t=49
vs
https://youtu.be/ft2uIYucsXo?t=186
The unsuccessful demolition attempts go to show that even when significant amounts of the structural integrity is compromised parts of the building are left standing and if the buildings do fall they tilt over intact.
Now MOST Compare Successful Demolitions of high rise buildings to the 9/11 Collapses:
vs
Just by the most superficial inspection; do the buildings that fell on 9/11 resemble MOST unplanned collapses, MOST high rise fires, MOST demolition attempts gone wrong, or do they MOST resemble a successful demolition attempt?
Comments
Post a Comment