Other 47 story buildings collapsing?

Question

Conspiracy fanatics claim that the proof that the World Trade Center Building 7 was imploded is that if fell too fast (usually stated at 16-17 seconds) even though it had a 10 story gash into the building and stood for most of the day. Obviously these people think they know how fast a 47 story building "should" fall. Is there any video record of any other 45-50 story building going down "slowly"?

Mac Man, you misunderstand. Building 17 is the one across the street that was fully evacuated and fell about 5pm. Conspiracy nuts claim it fell too fast, thus was imploded, thus "proving" the main towers had planted explosives.
So they should have video of a tall building falling slowly to prove it happens.

Answer 1

Do you really think even video proof of a different building collapse would satisfy conspiracy fanatics? Some of the theories are really bizarre and twist small elements of engineering and physics. The problem is a large aircraft with a nearly full load of fuel carries a great deal of mass and thus even at low speeds has a very high kinetic energy. The structural damage to the impact floors had to be significant. Throw in a massive fire on the structural beams (exposed to the fire by the impact), and those floors would be growing weaker and weaker with each passing moment. I personally watched the collapse live on TV and couldn't see much through the cloud. I desparately wanted it to be a secondary explosion or something other than the building falling. I, as an engineer, couldn't believe it was possible at the time.

At the same time, I can promise you, that no engineer or architect ever designed those building to endure what they had gone through. You normally factor in a margin for the unknowns, but the more you factor in, the more expensive and "over engineered" the design becomes.

Don't waste your time on people who seem to believe their own ideas no matter what proof they are shown.

Sorry about that. But to expand on the idea, the main buildings had tons of rubble that severely damaged some of the surrounding buildings. Much like a house of cards, if you pull the bottom one out the ones on top only add more energy to the collapse.

Building implosion on the other hand are carefully controlled. Charges are planted at various points on the structure to weaken it in a very methodical manner. If anything I would characterize an implosion as a much slower, controlled collapse. But once again, if the situation warrants, they can simply knock the base out and have it all come tumbling down. The building has the same potential energy to fall, but the mechanism of the collapse can play a role in how quickly this progresses. If you slowly remove supports, then the collapse will start slowly. If you suddenly knock out all the supports, then more energy will be expended quickly. When you think about it, the other building had actually been falling the whole time since the towers had collapsed. It just finally reached the point that things moved quickly (i.e. had finally lost supports in an exponentially increasing rate).

The city where I live tore town an old industrial complex several years ago, using demolition explosives. The building was located on the river in the heart of downtown. Charges were detonated in a very specific sequence so that the building collapsed in sections. The whole sequence took minutes and this building was only 4 or 5 stories tall, but a couple of blocks long. Las Vegas has had quite a few well documented implosions that should have video available.

Actually the best proof that it was NOT likely an implosion is the earlier attempt to bring it down. With severe damage to the lowest levels the trade towers still stood. Even the bombing in Oklahoma City managed to knock out a critical section of the building, but did not bring the whole structure down.

Again, conspiracy theorists will cling to a theory simply based on belief.

Answer 2

i'd surely keep in concepts, so would you, so would maximum persons. i'd even don't have any mission telling every person what I remembered, because I actually have this mission about telling the reality; i'm certain you're an similar. yet, would would maximum persons? i'm no longer so certain that the answer to that question will be sure. a lot of human beings received't have self belief any evidence it really is opposite to what they have been instructed with the help of the "independent and trustworthy" MSM--some received't even seem! because this can take them out of their element and zone of convenience, lead them to ought to address info that teach that each and each and every man or woman isn't nicely interior our u . s . a .. they don't pick to ought to attend to it and they are terrified that someone would call them a conspiracy theorist (I advise, my God, what's going to be worse than that?). So, that, alongside with the actual undeniable actuality that this guy likely fears for his job were he to inform the reality, motives me to no longer be in any respect a great deal shocked with the help of what he reported.