I'm sorry, but the claim that office fires brought down a skyscraper is an extraordinary claim. It's not a 'duh' 'you retard' 'can't you see that fires brought it down' 'herp derp' claim.
Fire as far as I know has never caused a skyscraper like wtc7 to collapse before. Therefore there is a burden of proof on the claim that it caused this one to collapse.

http://youtu.be/mZthDtybmTE

I don't see anything to prove that fires caused it to collapse. Can you point me in the direction of some?

>> ^NicoleBee:

Having one side ravaged by the debris from a falling skyscraper probably didn't help much, either.


If falling debris caused any structural damage, then the building would've fell over toward the side with the damage--the path of least resistance.

As seen here:
http://videosift.com/video/Dumb-dangerous-building-demolition-inevitably-ends-in-fail
http://videosift.com/video/Building-demolition-goes-a-little-bit-wrong

Having one side ravaged by the debris from a falling skyscraper probably didn't help much, either.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Hybrid.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by darkrowan. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

@Hybrid, the proper thing to do is:

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Skyscrapers-dancing-a-boogie-in-Tokyo-during-earthquake

WTF!

This isn't NYC! It's footage from Japan's earthquake!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDjcpPgHrbo

EDIT: It's even linked to in the related videos: http://videosift.com/video/Skyscrapers-dancing-a-boogie-in-Tokyo-during-earthquake

I think you forgot your sarcasm checkbox.>> ^budzos:

Pfft we all know from the many times it's happened before that a 110 storey skyscraper will be silent - in particular, free of any booming type noise - until it falls collapses. After all the times I saw this happen before and after, they expect me to believe the WTC is some kinda special case where a 110 storey building with raging fires in multiple locations actually makes loud noises?

Pfft we all know from the many times it's happened before that a 110 storey skyscraper will be silent - in particular, free of any booming type noise - until it falls collapses. After all the times I saw this happen before and after, they expect me to believe the WTC is some kinda special case where a 110 storey building with raging fires in multiple locations actually makes loud noises?

>> ^Bruti79:

Derren Brown said it best: "Extra ordinary statements require extra ordinary proof to back it up."
Showing this guy built steel box cutters (which were impressive) to show how to make cuts, isn't extraordinary enough to prove that the US government took down their own buildings. You still need to find the answers to this things like: Why? How? When did they set it up? And if they're so logistically sound to plant explosives in three buildings and make it look like a terror attack, then why couldn't they plan a strategy for Iraq that matched it?
Jinx said it best: "Plane hit building. Building collapse."
Until someone recreates a Skyscraper in the desert, built the same way the WTC and flies a plane into it, and it doesn't fall. You're not going to convince people that it wasn't an inside job =\


I couldn't agree more. Until someone rebuilds the trade center exactly, and flies a plane into it, and it falls, I won't believe planes alone can bring down buildings.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jwray:
Also, the gravitational energy released by the collapse could put a shitload more heat into things that were already really hot.

I, for one, am very unsure on this idea that the gravitational potential energy of bricks falling a maximum of 800m (the very very top bricks only) are a source of major internal heating in a building collapse.
Random thought experiment - if i dropped 50 kg of wood from 800m, that's a lot of gravitational potential energy. Would it set on fire, then, on impact with the ground?


17.4 degrees C for iron dropped 800m in a vacuum. More or less for other things depending on their specific heat capacity and the exact configuration of the collapse. Things that get a lot of shit falling on top of them may get a 10-100 times larger share of the energy than the average depending on the parameters of all the materials (if you drop a hard thing onto mush, the mush absorbs most of the impact).
Also, imstellar, 99.9% of all legitimate scientists don't support the "WTC was an inside job done with thermite" hypothesis. For one, it violates occam's razor. The planes alone were enough. A lot of people actually DIED on those planes and were never heard from again. Plus there is VIDEO of the planes crashing into the buildings.

I find your answer lacking. 17.4 degrees C for what amount of iron dropped in a vacuum? Saying 17.4 degrees C "for iron" is tantamount to telling me you looked it up on wikipedia. As a statement of fact, it makes no sense! It depends on so many things - shape, the amount, what it lands on.. I have a suspicion you have an idea of what you're talking about, but you'll need to do better than that kind of comment.
And don't forget that only the very top bits are falling 800 m, it falls less and less the further down you go, and the fall is so complex, collisions taking place, things landing on other things, bouncing off things, slowed down, sped up, who knows what's going on in the middle?
It's still looking suspicious that your statement that the GPE of the falling shit will somehow shoot huge temperatures up to even huger temperatures.


You'll have troubles looking up temperature in any scientific literature because the real measure that matters in energy. Temperature is just a measure of how much energy a particular object is storing in the form of heat. Jwray's very valid point is simply that a skyscraper is storing an utterly enormous amount of energy in the form of gravity. If even a small portion of that energy is converted to heat, which a collapse is guaranteed to do, it will raise temperatures of whatever material absorbs that heat. If it is concentrated enough it could melt whatever is heated up. The point is simply that the collapse turned more than enough energy into the form of heat to melt a good mass of steel, the question is only how that energy was distributed through the wreckage. Odds are in a random collapse it will be distributed fairly broadly, meaning less temperature increase per mass, but the already very hot steel may not have needed that much either.

All said, it is absolutely hard to say. Meaning it's hard to rule out the collapse and simmering fires within the wreckage couldn't have melted some steel over time. Hard say that would be expected either. The more complex an event is the harder it is to predict.

Your video, Skyscrapers dancing a boogie in Tokyo during earthquake, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Asian skyscrapers dance a lot like white adolescents.

>> ^Chaucer:

wow. that's probably moving 10 - 20 feet at the top. I would have shit myself if I was up there riding that.


Yep, I'll admit that I'd be covered in my own vomit. Don't act like it wouldn't be scary -- you hope that the engineering behind these buildings is solid, but they've never been tested to this extent.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

@duckman
If you cannot see the problems there I don't hold a lot of hope for you.
In essence, all you're saying is the engineers who built it thought it probably could withstand the impact, and maybe the fire.
Well the engineers who built the Tacoma narrows bridge assumed it would not fall down on it's own. When it did collapse it was the first time a bridge had collapsed due to harmonics and wind shear. I guess it was a government conspiracy because the engineers hadn't planned for it to fall down that way?
Are you trying to say it was the first time engineers have been wrong?


Yes, that it. The facts are wrong, so are the Engineers that designed the towers, and you are right. End of story. ROTFL. By the way I'm not saying anything, the text I posted speaks for itself. The text says nothing about maybes. They tested for these scenarios. Quit making things up, like the site you referred me to, it sounds desperate. The link you provided me outright lies about the jet's size, speed, and fuel capacity and you have the balls to refute the statements on the site I provide with no proof to back up your claims? LOL That's rich. So you're going to actually sit there and say they are wrong? I didn't know you were an expert in building skyscrapers. Oh that's right. this is the internet. We can claim to have any degrees and knowledge we want here...

Additionally, comparing a bridge that was built in 1940 to skyscraper built in the 70's is a joke. Try harder.

Once again you are under the assumption I give a rat's ass about your opinion of me. I say again I don't. So please stop making such statements.