Quote from tristancliffe :

How about, before attempting to analyise the failing of a structure, you actually get the first hint of an education about that area. Don't believe what a shitty youtube video shows you, try and think for yourself.

In your favour, you type pretty damn well for someone so clueless about what they write about (apart from 'alot' ). Most feckless people can barely use a keyboard.

I've done a hell of alot more than watch a few shitty youtube vids. More like 100's of hours of videos, every kind. Debunkers vids, the lot. I've read a fair few papers too. Obviously I do think for myself otherwise I'd agree with you, with your qualifications. And why do I need to get an education on the area of how structures fail when there are enough reputable individuals out there who have years of knowledge in this field and I can learn from them, maybe you could too if you even considered taking the time to read some stuff on it. Not look at grainy youtube vids and think all conspiracy theorists are nuts.

A few names if you are interested: Webster Tarpley, Richard Cage, David Griffin and Jim Hoffman(EDIT: also Richard Grove has alot of info on the profiteers of 9/11) are just a few good names I can think of that don't have any crack pot theories like many others do. I would encourage you to do some research and not sit back and think you know it all because of a mechanical engineering degree.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment on the typing. I try my best. One thing I hate is having to make a sentence out for myself. Or blocks of text with no punctuation are the worst.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:16.

Quote from tristancliffe :

There is little point trying to explain anything to you if you think that somehow buildings use a different set of physics to other scenarioes. You've read a little and watched a few videos, and now you seem to think that all buildings have to fall over to collapse regardless of what hits them or how they are build....

I still think you are utterly wrong, but as I can't empirically prove anything specific about the WTC (if only for lack of time and data) you will always think I'm wrong. I would hope that you might see sense, but I very much doubt it.

I hope you are happy believing what you believe, even if it doesn't actually match real life. Have a nice Christmas.

Man, believe what you want. I'll be glad not to read your blabberings here again.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I'd have thought a degree in mechanical engineering would deem me slightly more qualified than you.

You're right, that would deem you slightly more qualified than me.

Quote :

And what has that got to do with it? It was an example of how structures fail when you said that because it had supported the floors above before it would always be able to. My experiement proved that wrong.

Yes, under extreme circumstance like standing on a can, yes it will fail. But this can, even in comparison to one floor, still isn't a good one. If the can does represent one floor, what happens the remaining floors? They all give way in the same way? Did the top section of the towers weight spread evenly across all columns the same way your foot pressed on the can with an even force? I doubt it so how could it fall straight down, like the can gets crushed?

Quote :

Has nothing to do with it.

Maybe the materials side of it has nothing to do with it but certainly the weight of each object has alot to do with it. You try crush a can by dropping another can on it.

Quote :

Why is the section below stronger? Assuming the method of construction was the same from top to bottom, then both 'ends' would be the same strength. But anyway, you are still missing the point about the can experiement.

Yes the ends would be quite similar but the towers were not built the same way from the bottom up. So, obviously the bottom sections, definately the bottom third, would be so hard for that top section to crush.

Quote :

But if you put concrete in it so that it had a lot more mass then it might well crumple once the upper 'floors' failed, as the dynamic failure took hold.

It might? Is that the best you can do? And this dynamic failure again, it's as if nothing got in its way. It's as if this concrete wasn't actually concrete but hard clay and just crushed the instant it got some pressure put on it.

Quote :

I explain that by suggesting that the model is not valid enough to carry out that experiment and end up with sensible results. 1 Was the structure solid (i.e. bolted together). 2 Were the load bearing structures in vaguely the right place? 3 Was the model sufficiently slender to model a twin tower with a similar strength:height:mass ratio to make it comparible. 4 Was the load from the plane distributed in vaguely the right direction? I didn't watch the whole video (only the first 3 seconds). The path of least resistance isn't necessarily falling over sideways, unless a force is used to make it fall over (i.e. it goes out of balance). The building collapsed whilst remaining in balance - a perfectly reasonably state of affairs.

Ok, 1 no it wasn't solid, therefore it had more potential to be unstable and fall over/apart. 2 The load bearing structures in this experiment, the 2 side walls, were alot similar to the towers, as the outer columns of the towers were load bearing. And because there was less outer walls, this added to the potential of this building being crushed. 3 No this "building" did not have similar strength:height:mass ratios because it was not a scaled model test, it didn't need to be. 4 The load from the plane wasn't taken into account here, although there was only two outer walls and no core columns, so we could say the plane totally destroyed the wall it went in through, the core and the wall it exited. Now it should definately fall. You didn't watch it? Fair enough... Ok, so let me get this straight. The path of most resistance was straight down and it's perfectly reasonable to think that the tower could collapse straight down? Just by gravity? I understand the planes went in and steel warped bent out of shape but gravity had to pull this mass through the remaining tower.

Quote :

That structure could take the weight, but a building has a lot more mass for a given amount of support, and is a vastly more complex structure. The desk tidies experiement is simply not valid to draw specific conclusions from - indeed, it is no more valid (specifically) than my coke can experiment. One collapses downwards, the other falls over. En passe. And besides, the desk tidies weren't designed to take that load, which is the same argument you used to rubbish my experiement.

The building could take the weight, so could the towers. They stood for over an hour with no signs of saggin, weakening. Buildings are built to take the weight of the top parts. Obviously there is more mass in actual buildings, but it's also obvious that they use stronger materials to hold up that mass.

Ok, you say that's what I used to rubbish your experiment. That's rubbish because, did you see this chap standing on these desk tidies? No, these desk tidies WERE designed to be stacked on top of each other. Same way as if you used another coke can, instead of yourself as the crushing force. These were designed for what this experiment looked at, they were designed to hold more of the same thing on top of itself, no doubt.

Quote :

It almost certainly was the same strength. Same size of core, same dimensions of materials. A building is only supported on one side - the base. Unless the WTC were also supported at the top, somehow. The loads would vary instantaneously (or thereabouts), as weather, temperature and the number of planes flying into varied.

Well technically they would be the same strength at the "ends" but as I covered, the floors and columns were not built with equal strength from the bottom up. The top of the building having less metal beams and also the beams were not as thick.

Quote :

Ah, but I am qualified. In engineering. Which is what we are discussing. The specialisations of civil engineering are neither here nor there at the complexity we are talking about.

True, so if "The specialisations of civil engineering are neither here nor there at the complexity we are talking about " why do you feel the need to try and belittle me with your, "I'm qualified" ego boosting shit? It's not even the same engineering. Structural engineering is a different ball game, especially with regards to buildings crushing themselves. That's more along the lines of physics but neither of us is qualified in atht field, so what happens then? The laws of physics come in and are you, with your mechanical engineering degree, going to say these laws are wrong or wrongly calculated?

Quote :

I don't know why your taking the time to show how little you know either. Perhaps you should stop? Use the time you save to go to uni and study a form of mechanical engineering perhaps?

The reason is because I dislike people like you who believe they know it all because they have a degree. Talk shit and expect people to lap it up, I've seen it with other subjects on this forum. I'm not saying you're a stupid mofo but you do go on like you deserve to be the one telling others whats what, not only about 9/11. I think you talk shit when it comes to 9/11. Ok, you have your beliefs but they're not based on the correct knowlegde. Your degree probably covers building/designing structures but structures failing and the things that happen because of it, you have no clue or qualification.

Quote from mookie427 :

I have to say tristan is speaking much more sense than you U4IK

Each to their own...

Tell me why I should? No one ever said or treats this like an official enquiry. People are just defending what they believe to be true and discussing what others have to say. Nobody has to do any of this, but they chose to.

Quote from mookie427 :

I never said I was taking any computer generated imagery as fact

Ok, you don't take them as fact, so what do you base your theory on, that the towers crushed themselves to pieces?

Quote :

yeah, only a handful of people survived at the base of the hotel because they were in a stairwell that was reinforced after the 1993 bombing. IIRC yes the bottom few floors did survive to some extent but they suffered huge damage, as the rest of the building collapsed onto it followed by the trade centre debris

Yeah, there only survived some floors/stairwells because it was reinforced. Was the towers basement and other sections reinforced? How did they get crushed then? They were obviously larger, stronger steel beams and columns holding that up.

Quote :

Anyway, I'm gonna give this thread a rest for a bit as it's angrying up my blood. You obviously are so set in your ways that nothing will change your mind. You carry on believing it was a controlled demolition or whatever on the twin towers, I won't stop you, I myself used to be one of the people who believed the entire thing was an inside job but I saw sense. In my view the only attack we should be questioning is the Pentagon

The same could be said for many people here arguing for the official theory. Ok, you saw sense, nice one. How can you question the Pentagon but not the towers, or Shanksville?

Btw, if you did once think the entire thing was an inside job, I'd like to see what made you see sense because I'm finding it hard to believe.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:39.

Quote from mookie427 :

what, and they would go undiscovered for 8 years? Don't be so silly

Of course, who would be searching for these devices in the walls and floors? Anyway, it's just as crazy an idea as any of the official ones.

Quote from mookie427 :

that IS piss-poor mechanics. How someone can do an experiment with few desk tidies stacked on top of one another and say they've disproved the 9/11 stories is laughable. You obviously know very little about what you're trying to talk about. Just reading some of the comments posted on that 'experiment' should be enough to convince you that it's a load of rubbish!

Better experiment: get hold of soft drink cans. Nail/glue 4 to the ground in a square, and glue lots more on top building a tower. Drop something heavy on top. What will happen? My money is on the tower collapsing straight down....

If you think that's piss poor but you'll take a computer generated animation as FACT then I'm sorry, I can't continue to converse with you...

Quote from mookie427 :

you're wrong. The Marriott Hotel making up part of the WTC complex was all but wiped out by the debris falling from the sky. That wasn't a small building by any means, small compared to the twin towers yes but at 22 or 23 storeys it wasn't tiny! Get your facts straight

Eh, I think you may be wrong yourself, actually I know you're wrong because I just covered that in this thread. The bottom 4 or 5 floors still remained intact. People survived in there, firefighters and citizens. So ehmm, you get your facts straight...

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:28.

Quote from wsinda :

You were misreading my post. Your remarks are still about point [1], i.e. why the standard theory is supposedly wrong. At point [2] and [3], you prove that it was possible to smuggle large quantities of explosives into the building and place them carefully on the crucial points in the structure, all without raising suspicion.
Not precisely. The simplest theory becomes the default. You can overturn it, but you need to have a good case.

Ok, what about the power downs the weekend before 9/11 happened? Have you heard about them? Google Scott Forbes.

Also, do you think it's possible that, during the fixing of the trade towers after the first bombing, that devices could have been planted? I understand this is speculation but, so is the story of hijackers hijacking planes, all we have is some phones calls and a statement from one of the pilots, wrongly transmitted to the air traffic controllers. Where are all the security videos of them boarding the planes or even checking in? Show me them and then I will believe that part of the theory.

Quote :

For example, I could claim that the towers fell because they were shot down by an invisible Martian UFO. (Or by the hand of God/Allah. ) It would be a perfect explanation -- except that it goes against Occam's razor.
Bin Laden, or any other terrorist would do as an explanation of the facts. They are a much fit than the Bush administration.

In you eyes maybe Bin Laden fits better, not in the FBI's eyes though. He's not even wanted by them over 9/11.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

...can you explain how all the buildings from the WTC complex, numbers 3, 4, 5 (maybe not exact same numbers), how they survived the direct fall from the WTC 1 and 2 debris? They sustained significant damage but NOT ONE collapsed, NOT ONE...

You make a good point there Boris.

How come the top section of the tower had the strength to crush the remaining floors but when it hit the other WTC buildings it failed to crush them? I'm sure the towers were alot stronger than any other building in Manhatton, never mind other buidlings in the WTC complex. And I'm also sure, judging by Juls' calculations, that the amount of energy was far, far greater than the energy at the beginning of the collapse, but the other building had the strength to withstand the towers falling on them. Not just one tower, both towers debrit!

Quote from tristancliffe :

I am qualified, thank you very much. Now that we've established that, I can happy say you don't know what you're talking about. At all.

Yeah, it's been established in your mind alright, you expect me to believe you? Just take your word for it? Pfff....

Quote :

Is that experiement being carried out with desk tidies? And you said my coke can experiement was weak (which also shows you haven't got the faintest clue about either approximations or load paths)! If I made one out of lego it would probably survive me throwing a bicycle at it, but that doesn't mean you could throw an aircraft carrier at the real ones without them falling over.

Aircraft carrier? Wha? Ok, lets look at these experiments.

Your coke can... First of all, the can was never designed to take the weight of a person, that's only possible because of how it's designed, it was never planned that way. You weigh alot more that the structure below you, also, if you didn't realise, you are made from different materials. As I said, make a model of the towers yourself and I guarantee you will not get the same results as what happened that day. Also, the difference in weight of the can and you is quite the opposite of the tower, the structure below was considerably stronger and heavier than the section falling onto it. So your coke can "experiment" is laughable in comparrison to the towers. Now a way you could use a can is if you build a tower of an exterior wall and an interior "core" wall of cans stacked on top of each other and secured, then smash a big section out near the top, set it on fire and wait to see what happens. I can, without any doubt in my mind, say that this structure will not be left as a crumpled pile of coke cans. (EDIT: you could add some floors if you like but that'll only make it stronger.)

Now the office desk tidies... Ok, each one represented 10 floors so we have a somewhat accurate representation of what the towers looked like. Unfortunately it has less exterior walls and no core columns so this should be a cake walk, it should just crumble when he drops the top few sections onto the remaining ones. But no, even when he add weight to the top section, it still wont fall. What happens? It follows the path of least resistance and falls OFF the desk tidy tower. How do you explain that? Do you agree that any physical objects, if thrown, dropped, whatever, will always follow the path of least resistance? Then why on this day did they take the path of MOST resistance and nobody bats an eyelid?

Quote :

The model was also, size for size, lighter, and was more slender (as in the ratio of height to cross sectional area).

The lower section was the same strength as the upper section, although (considering it as a classical cantilever) the bending, shear and torsional loads would of course vary with height.

But the model showed perfectly how an UNSECURE structure could withstand 1/5 to 1/4 of itself falling on it. I'm telling you that any structure in that proportion will never get the results that happened on 9/11.

The lower section was the same strength as the upper section? And you consider it as a classic cantilever? Only supported on one side? Amazing... And of course bending, shear and torsional loads would vary but do these things happen in a instant?

Quote :

The opinion of 'professionals' (whatever that means) and physics experiements are very much open to debate and discussion, as are their motives and what they are trying to say (as opposed to what they do say, and how eejits comprehend that with no relevent background knowledge at all).

Again taking pop shots at me personally. Anyway, I'll continue. You could say exactly the same about your own knowledge, it is open for debate and discussion. Not, I know it all and have the right to judge you because you are not qualified, what bs.

I seriously don't know why I'm taking the time to discuss this with you but I just feel it has to be done, just like Boris there. He sees inconsistancies but yet you, with your qualifications, think that's the way it's supposed to happen?

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:59.

Lmao, what a response. You are not qualified to judge me because you are not qualified, are you? My grasp of mechanics is piss poor. What a piss poor arguement, they're just words mate, prove me wrong. (EDIT: Actually it's not ME you have to prove wrong, you do your own experiment and use whatever materials you like and reproduce what happened in the towers.)

Did you not see the video? Well it used weaker and alot less material and it still could not produce a collapse anywhere near what happened the towers. So a stronger, more structurally rigid building, fell alot easier?

Here's the link, again... - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related You can't say that this is piss poor mechanics. This is a physical test, better than anything NIST or the Commission report could come up with.

Quote :

Also, do you think the structure below this falling 15-20 floors of the tower was stronger of weaker?

Quote :

Stonger or weaker than what?

Do you think the top section(15-20 floors) of the tower falling was stronger or weaker than the lower section(85-90 floors)?


EDIT: Once again Tristan you ignore my questions and try to put me down without stating any facts. I have never once made a derogatory term about anyone here or any of their views. Arogant people like you are the worse type of people to have a converstaion with because you think you know it all, atleast I admit when I don't know something and you put me down for that? Saying my grasp of mechanics is piss poor, please give examples because the only mechanics I have shown is either from professionals or actual physical tests which cannot be disputed. So, lets have a good converstaion about the subject and not about any of our own thoughts or ideas about how certain things work.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:52.

Listen Tristan, I have a fair idea of what can physically happen and what cannot physically happen. And I'm almost certain you are not qualified to judge me on this. That video I linked to PROVED that 1/5 of a structure, no matter how it's built, will find it a difficult task to crush the other 4/5's of the structure if it's dropped from a height, 8-10feet or to scale of that height. You don't need to be an engineer or scientist to know what can or cannot happen to a falling piece of a building.

Tell me, do you think if they built a scale model, say 20ft high, that it will react exactly like the towers did?

Also, do you think the structure below this falling 15-20 floors of the tower was stronger of weaker?


EDIT:@Juls: I've been reading up on what energy is needed to produce certain amounts of joules. So since you can work these things out better than I can, can you figure out how many joules or watts of energy was created by the planes hitting the towers? Or the fuel burning off in one big fireball, how many joules was involved there?

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:15.

Quote from Juls :

Before the collapse begins, as soon as the upper floors fell 50 cms before they reach the first lower floor...there is 10 times enough energy to crush that floor...enough energy to crush it, burn everything, and throw some parts dozens of yards away. And contrary to demolitions where the entire building is falling almost at the same speed, here there was a collision between moving upper part and steady lower part. Like a collision between two trucks, one moving faster and faster...

After 50 cms fall, that is to say 0.31s the upper floors (80 000 tons) has acquired 400 million joules of kinetic energy....it means the fall is providing at the very beginning 1.29 billion watts of crushing power. And this power increases as the upper parts continues falling. This is what you call no energy?

Oh man, like 2 trucks you say? So... lets say 1 truck is on the highway cruising at 90kmph and it hit a truck which is stationary at the side of the road. You are telling me that the stationary truck will be crushed to pieces!?

Again only picking up on things that you can argue with, listen, look at that experiment with the office equipment and then come back with your thoughts please. Here's a link so you don't have to search for it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related

EDIT: Where are you grabbing these figures from? 400mil joules? 1.29billion watts? I hope it's not from that paper by Mr. Greening because I couldn't trust his conclusions if he calculates it wrong. Dividing by only 110 and not 116, so the total mass would be alot larger therefore the total energy would be a wrong calculation. Ok, I understand you obviously have a better knowledge of these things than me but how come the experiment I linked to didn't work? There's no way in hell that top few floors could crush the rest of the building, to the ground! No way. Even a scaled down model should act exactly like the towers, if of course what they say is true, if not then it'll act like the experiment I linked to.

EDIT2: "This is what you call no energy?" I still stick with what I said, "there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to make parts fly off and dust/debrit clouds to start coming from the building." I'm making that statement based on videos and accounts I have read of heavy things falling, you prove to me I'm wrong? Spitting out numbers and figures is all well and good but what if your calculations are wrong, just like Mr. Greenings? Show me evidence of this energy, or something with this amount of potential energy, something releasing a force of 400mil joules or 1.29billion watts.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:39.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Unless you've been living in a hole then you'll know that I do fulfil some of those critera.
I would like to know how much engineering education and experience U4IK has.

Ha...nice. Why do I need an education in such fields when many, many more people, alot more educated than you or I, can do proper research and get results from experiments, which I see and agree with. But then you come along with "some" engineering experience and think you should be bowed down to? Get real my friend. And I rarely give my personal views on this so whatever eduction I do have doesn't come into it. I am either asking educated people like yourself questions about their conclusions OR repeating what people with a higher knowledge base than I say.

Listen, you choose to pick at certain things I say and leave out others. What's the deal there? Comment on the experiment with the office "equipment" and tell me the top section of the tower was able to crush the bottom part which it held there for a coniderable time while damaged.

Quote from Jakg :

The video was released with the frame showing the actual "plane" removed.

The camera from on top of the hotel was never released.

I linked to the videos in a later post, replying to mookie. Here it is - http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=924792#post924792 - I'm not sure which video you describe with the frame actually showing the plane being removed but these videos show no plane because they are so far away and not at the right angle to see anything other than a puff of smoke. Maybe you talk about the first official released images, the frame wasn't removed it was never there to start with becase it's a time lapse camera.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:50.

Quote from Boris Lozac :

And why not say ANYTHING to the public? Why oh why wouldn't they say "we collapsed WTC7 on purpose in order not to injure our workers if it colapse by itself" or something like that, instead, their official reason was "fire"?? ....

Exactly, they would have said something if they later decided to take it down, I've seen footage of people talking about taking building six down. Also, there are firefighters and other witnesses who knew that WTC7 was going to fall, they heard it over the radios. How come they are not all over the news saying this?

Read this -
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080829205835711
"the collapse baffled FEMA who lamely concluded, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence."

And this -
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html
"The [Commission]Report fails to mention the total collapse of 47-story st ... med skyscraper Building 7 at 5:20 on the day of the attack."

Then say everything is fine and dandy, nothing to see here...

Quote from mookie427 :

Quote from durbster :

And here's a couple of building collapse simulations that might interest those who think it's impossible for a damaged building to fall as the WTC towers did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H-mz...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PSt2AOfejc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpBUiZfnEu4&NR=1 this is better

I just had the chance to look at these and they are very fine pieces of animation and alot of work must have been put in, but the pieces that are used to put this together are not secured very well. The towers were rigid, not able to shake as much as those animations show. I'm also sure that if each floor of those "buildings" was an actual floor it would be a total different collapse.

Also, I know it's a slowmo and not to scale of the towers, atleast I don't think it is, did you see how long it took? See, friction/materials prevent free fall, so obviously something was done to the tower so that the falling section was on the ground in ~10seconds, near free fall speed. The remaining tower was a solid structure, a mesh of steel and concrete floors, 40+ interior columns that got thicker as the got nearer the bottom.

Both explinations I heard today for what happened the top section of each tower seem wrong to me. One is it fell apart as it got to the closer to the bottom but still kept its strength, enough to crush the rest of the tower and two is it stayed intact, crushed the rest of the tower and then collapsed itself once reaching the ground. Both contradict each other and both seem to be impossible. A bunch of debrit falling and not just falling straight down, some getting thrown outwards, still has the strength and force to crush columns which are standing straight up and rigid, it's not right.

And then the other, it stays together... unreal. How can it stay together and crush an object made of the same materials but 4 or 5 times the size of it? I understand it's falling but shit doesn't just disintegrate on impact allowing it to continue falling close to free fall. I know atoms aren't actually solid objects but this is taking the biscuit, 1/4 or 1/5 of a structure can go through the other 3/4's or 4/5's and nearly free fall speed and through the path of MOST resistance... amazing how anyone can believe that. I could totally understand if it was the other way round, 4/5's crushing 1/5, but this is incomprehensible.



EDIT: Ok, I just found this video on youtube. It tries to duplicate what happened. Not totally the specs of the towers and not a strong as the towers were, but it is a more accurate experiment than any computer generated animation I have seen yet. It goes with what I was saying, 1/5 of any structure would find it very hard to totally crush the other 4/5's of the structure by falling the distance the tops of the towers fell, or to scale of that distance. And as one of the comments said, why can't they just build a scaled down replica of the towers and see how it falls with the affects of fire and gravity?

If you still feel that the way the towers fell was not influenced by any other force except fire and gravity after watching this, then I don't think you will ever understand this even if it is common knowledge. Here's the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v ... NIBys&feature=related

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:00.

Of course you would, the top section would lean and then fall after a couple of seconds, not just fall straight through the structure that's already holding it up.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:21.

Quote from mookie427 :

I totally fail to see your logic in this. The building collapsed in on itself from the top downwards. Pieces of the steel/concrete/glass outer 'shell' (for want of a better word) were pushed outwards by the force of the collapsing building. Building collapses by their very nature are unpredictable, and even more so if the building in question has had a 757 flown into it

I'm sorry but gravity collapses at their beginning, do not have alot of energy(edit: I should have said "do not release alot of energy"), not matter how much weight is invloved. Gradually signs will begin to show that something is going to happen. Not bang, girders, debrit and huge sections of the towers going away from the building, not just falling off it, getting flung 100's of meters away. Not the characteristics of a gravity collapse.

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon, 15 Sep 2008 23:22.

Quote from danthebangerboy :

This is true, but the buildings did exactly what they were designed to do. When hit in the side by a heavy, fast moving object, such as a plane, to not tip over or collapse. They did fall, for whatever reason but both towers took the initial hit without falling or collapsing.

As for not taking into account the heat caused by burning avaition fuel, how can you take that into account? Everything has a melting point, however high. Steel has to be able to be melted in order to construct girders and supports to the desired shape and size for the application they are produced for. If such a material that wouldnt melt under that intense heat could be found then it must be impossible to use it as there is no way of converting it from its raw state into anything usable.

I don't care for how long, hours, days, burning jet fuel, in the conditions that were in the tower, will never melt steel because it can never reach those temps. If you think it will then you need to do more research.

Quote from mookie427 :

when the buildings were originally constructed they were designed to take a hit from the biggest plane flying at the time. Not a modern 757 which was much much larger than anything the designers had thought about

Not a 757, no, but a 707. It's not that much smaller actually. 707 and 757.The 757 has the same diameter fuselage as the 707. Also, the 757 could carry approx 11,500 gallons of fuel compared to the 707 which could carry 23,000 gallons.

Quote :

"Boeing quickly developed the larger 707-320 Intercontinental series with a longer fuselage, bigger wing and higher-powered engines. With these improvements, which allowed increased fuel capacity from 15,000 gallons to more than 23,000 gallons, the 707 had truly intercontinental range of over 4,000 miles in a 141-seat (mixed class) seating configuration.

Early in the 1960s, the Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofan engines were fitted to provide lower fuel consumption, reduce noise and further increase range to about 6,000 miles."

- http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/index.html

I'm not saying they had full fuel tanks, just pointing out that the 707 was capable of carry twice the amount of fuel the 757 could, so I think they had the fuel part covered in the towers design.

Quote from wsinda :

I don't have to prove anything.

The default explanation is simply this: a plane flew into the tower - there was an explosion and a fire - a bit later, the tower collapsed. No complicated math, no report from no commission, just a basic chain of causes & effects. It's the simplest explanation.

You seriously think it's that easy? Ha... ok.

Quote :

Anyone who claims that there is another cause underlying the events, such as controlled demolition, is going against Occam's razor. And because of that, the burden of proof is on him. He will have to come up with a decent underpinning of his hypothesis. Not only must he show that [1] the default cause is not sufficient, he must also prove that [2] the alternative cause was present (there were explosives), and [3] it was sufficient to cause the effects (lots of explosives, well-placed). The conspirationalists have only concentrated on [1] afaik.

Ok, for [2] there wasn't enough energy produced at the beginning of the collapse to make parts fly off and dust/debrit clouds to start coming from the building. See the falling building video I linked to. What could cause that?
EDIT: Well obviously there was enough energy produced because that's what happened but it wasn't caused by floors falling on each other I can assure you.

And [3] If you look at the towers and honestly believe that all that debrit and sections of the building were propelled by a gravity colapse then I think we should stop right now. I'm trying to look at this with an open mind, if it doesn't look right and I do research to back up what I believe then that's all I need. If you choose to follow the official story you now need to back it up. You need to prove it, you are coming up with the original theory not me.

So Occam's razor is what your going by? The theory with the least amount of assumptions is being selected yes? Well I feel the official story has alot more assumptions and also leaves out a hell of alot more of the facts than the conspiracy theory does. Why did the Commission leave out so many witness reports?

Quote :

And they have the same burden when it comes to human actions and motives. The default explanation (a known enemy of the USA) is so much simpler than the alternative (a government suddenly killing thousands of its own citizens). That makes 2 mountains to climb.

I can't understand this, just because a theory is simpler it automatically gets the vote of everyone? That's crazy. So bin Laden is an enemy of the US? Do you think he is responsible for 9/11? The organising and funding of the operation?

Quote :

BTW, it's odd that they embraced the "controlled demolition" story. They could have made it easier on themselves by accepting that it was the planes that brought the WTC down, and only claiming that Bush allowed Bin Laden to do his dirty work.

But why, because that's not true? The whole idea behind this is to find the truth, not to come up wit the simplist theory so it fits into Occar's razor. When people who work in the field of controlled demolition look at a vid of WTC7 and say that's controlled demo, what is any intelligent being supposed to think, he's a lier? Listen to this man - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:26.

Quote from mookie427 :

If WTC 7 didn't collapse due to the fires and damage sustained by it it almost certainly was a controlled demolition. It collapsed several hours after the towers fell, plenty of time to wrap explosives around the base and bring it down. The site was going to be bulldozed anyway so they were simply saving themselves a job later

So all they had to do was strap bombs to the columns at the bottom and it would be fine? It would fall into a neat pile? No chance! Watch the building kink in the centre and then collapse, that means getting timing right to within a fraction of a second. It means planning. Also, there would have to be devices planted throughout the building to get it to fold up, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa6z41EOt4o this is what happens when only the lower explosives go off. And there would be alot of energy there so how it didn't fall to pieces has me amazed.

Quote :

as far as I was aware the fuel station video hadn't been released, but if it has I stand corrected. I am one of the people of the opinion that it wasn't what was reprted as hitting it, no way did a 757 do that little damage to the Pentagon

Here's the fuel station vid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z32xH3skes This is what we get, more blurred censored video of the Pentagon. It's hard to believe that this is what they gave us, wrong dates, blurred images. It's insane. Why not just prove it to us and show the other footage they have?

Here's the Doubletree hotel vid - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wUXXgfN2fM This one is clear enough but miles away and not facing the part we need to see.

I've been glancing through Mr. F. Greenings paper and found somthing interesting in relation to what you lads have been saying about how the top section did what it did. Go to page 4 and read - http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf - it says there were 2 stages of collapse, the top section crushed the bottom section, then when that hit the ground it collapse on itself. Interesting... because how could this top section stay intact all the way down? Where is his calculations for that? Have you got any? I doubt it since you say it got damaged as it crushed the floors below. And people say I believe in a crazy theory? This contradicts what you lads have been saying, come back with something good, please.

Quote from mookie427 :

WTC 7 has to be a conspiracy favourite. The so called 'conspiracy' theories behind why it was demolished are laughable. The building was sat at the base of the twin towers when they collapsed. The building suffered massive structural damage after having 2 towers collapse basically on top of it, and was then gutted in parts by fire. It had to be demolished in a controlled way later on, no question. Yes, it held lots of papers and stuff about criminals but how that makes it a conspiracy I do not know

The Pentagon, yes, now that is interesting. If the US government wanted to put all these conspiracy theories to bed, all they need to do is release the tapes which the FBI confiscated from the fuel station down the road from the Pentagon which would have filmed the 'plane' hitting it

Well ok, show me some images of the damage to WTC7, the fires in there, anything that you have said there, do back it up. Are you also stating that it was a controlled demolition? Do you know how long it takes to set one up? Listen to this fella, well read the translations, and see what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA

The video from the fuel station has been released, along with video footage from the Doubletree hotel under the freedom of information act I believe. But none of them are clear. A video from either the hotel facing the Pentagon, can't remember it's name, or a video from the highway cameras will show, without doubt, what hit the Pentagon.

Quote from Juls :

Of course NIST and others wrote about energy. The energy calculation show that the towers were doomed as soon as one floor collapsed. This is broadly admitted, and usually they focus their report on the most interesting part: why did one floor collapse?
Many people just do not want to read or listen. Their way of thinking is closer from faith than anything else.

Just 5 seconds with Google, and there is an article issued a few days after 9/11 about this: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Reading the first few paragraphs it is already sounding like some propoganda paper. It says the buildings were designed to take a plane hit, but they fell? When they designed the towers did they fail to take into account how long the fuel would burn and how much of it there would be?

Quote :

And how the energy was dispersed? excepted sound and ground vibration which allow energy to travel, all the energy was dispersed locally...and ended as heat. Heat is the ultimate state of energy...energy used mechanically to crush floors ends as heat too.

Is metal a good heat conductor? All that steel connected to each other didn't disperse the heat? It all stayed local? Ok, at what point was all this energy at its greatest?

I can't see this happening. I can't see enough heat to melt/weaken anything at the beginning of the collapse. The structure below would also be so strong it wouldn't be crushed by the top ~20% of the building(14 floors for the second tower to fall and 28 for the first). I got them figures from that article you gave me.

Quote :

Another good article talking about WTC collapse energy. In this article they precisely consider fall time and tower mass. And they find energy released by fall at least 10 times bigger than my quick-and-dirty estimation.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Reading some of it, it does actual sound credible but as I've no clue the workings of these equations and calculations I can't actually fully agree or disagree with them. I've read up abit about Mr. Greening since reading this and because I have no clue about these equations I obviously missed this - http://www.freerepublic.com/fo ... /1678935/posts?page=25#25 (post #25)

Quote :

I have emailed F.R. Greening because of a silly mistake in his paper about the energy of the collapse. He divides the total mass of the building by 110, the above ground floors, and proceeds with his calculations as though that is the correct mass for each floor. But the building had six sub-basements and it had to be bottom heavy so his calculation would shift mass upwards implying greater potential energy than there was.
A pretty dumb mistake for a PhD criticizing stupid conspiracy theorists.
More details are here:
http://booksliterature.com/sho ... hp?p=2382&postcount=5
psikeyhackr
PS - He hasn’t responded to the email in 2 weeks.

Well I'm still not sure even about what this person says but it's not looking good for his equations if his calculation of total mass is wrong.

Quote from Juls :

You are trying to tell us that all gravity collapses should look the same?? There are as many different ways of gravity collapsing as there are different types of structures. Think about cards towers, matches structures....etc.

And you compare again a concrete building with the WTC. It's like comparing the fall of a cooked egg with the fall of a raw egg. Different structures...one is full of concrete walls, the other is almost empty excepted a strong shell.

No, I never said ALL gravity collapses should look the same, that would be a rediculous statement. What I did say is "I believe the top sections of both towers, but more so the first to collapse, should have acted exactly the way this did if what you are saying is true." The first tower to collapse, at first, acted the way this building did, but then it lost all resistance front below and came straight down, how/why? 4inch thick floors don't just get turned into dust from floors falling on top of each other. Right from the get go, the towers were spitting out dust, debrit and large chunks of the building, where did all that energy come from? Watch that building fall over, the only time you see clouds of dust is after it falls apart when it hits the ground, not as it's falling over/down. And I'm sure they found large sections of concrete still fully intact.

Yes, so the tower would be stronger, no? Concrete can break up easier than steel. The tower should have stood and the top floors burnt out, because the fires never burned long enough to heat the metal up to high enough temps where it would fail.

Quote from Boris :

Yes i also can't believe they continue with that while no one can give me a clear answer to WTC 7 and Pentagon...

I will talk about it all but none of the official story tellers want to say anything about it. They never seem to respond to your questions. I wonder why?

Last edited by U4IK ST8, Mon, 15 Sep 2008 21:09.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

...

@U4IK, gravity pulls downwards. If the building stays mainly upright it'll collapse downwards. If it's at an angle, like in your video, it'll fall sideways. Common sense of physics, really.

So if it stays uprgiht, where all it's strength is, it'll collapse downwards just by gravity?

So how could the top of the first tower to fall not fall off instead on down? It began to tip but then went straight down.

Quote from SamH :

Or else what? You're going to continue to believe stupid things? Go ahead, punk, make my dinner.

Sheesh, what an intelligent convo this is....

Quote :

I'm not your physics teacher for crying out loud. Why don't you just go ahead and demonstrate exactly the mentality that makes the whole 9/11 truth completely irretrievable. History will thank you, I'm sure.

I would rather demonstrate how I think the towers should have reacted to planes flying in and only gravity to do the rest. See my video linked to in my response to Tristan. No planes involved but compare the damaged foundation to where the tower was damaged.

Quote :

Put the spliff out and step away from the bong. You don't have any proof whatsoever for the things you state as facts.

Facts like?

Quote :

And Elvis is alive and living in my basement, and until you come up with some proof that he isn't, that's just an unquestionable fact you're going to have to live with. What a twisted logic you have going on there. Got any messages for Elvis?

Twisted logic? What the hell...

Quote from S14 Drift :

Sorry for quick posts, but this video seems good, watching it now ;o

Well, it does a good job of showing the damage caused by the planes flying into the towers, but once again as soon as the collapse begins, what happens? It is worth the look but don't say it's evidence to prove the collapse of the towers when it doesn't even speak about it nor show simulations of it. Free fall is hard to simulate with all the material in the way.