Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I don't know. However, there are other factors to consider. First, I can definitely see a decent portion of the central core underneath being pulverized not only by some of what was left of the core, but by 20 floors worth of also solid concrete floors. there would also have been significant lateral stresses imparted on the core further down as the outer skin peeled away - before the bolts failed. Also consider that there is the possibility that the impact did damage the core much farther down. The building was reported to have swayed something like 10 feet if I recall. There are people who recall windows being shattered from the stress, and seeing cracks in the drywall. It is likely the core was not at 100% strength for at least part of the way down.

This is a 400m tall skyscraper. I - as someone who knows very little about skyscrapers - would think a sway of ten feet is probably nothing to a structure like that. Aren't they designed to sway more than that anyway, to cope with wind and stuff?

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Well, first off, if you look at the video, it is fairly evident that the portion of the tower that did collapse is still a VERY heavy piece of building, and it's very unlikely that anything that big and heavy is going to be pushed very far off course. Also, you have to consider that the only significant resistance to this falling motion would have been the VERTICAL core, as the floors surrounding it would not offer much resistance. If anything - the core would have likely punched a hole through the falling portion, rather than shove it in another direction. The majority of the building was turned to jelly when the top part initially broke free, so it offered much less resistance than it would have offered, were the support structure not completely destroyed. I cannot back this argument up with fact, but, in MY OPINION, it really just doesn't look like there was much of anything that would have caused the building to fall at an angle.

But hang on; you talk about how heavy the free-falling lump is, and how it would take a lot of force to push it off-course. It's falling onto a much bigger, heavier lump of identical building and it's crushing it during a 300m (or more) freefall - that is surely considerable resistance? Regardless of what the majority of the materials were, there's still 300m of (cracked or otherwise) reinforced concrete to consider.

It's just surprising - incredulously so - to me that anything falling through that sort of chaotic mess of structural materials would not encounter anything that would push it off-course throughout several hundred metres of travel.

Quote from Mazz4200 :

Just found some awesome pictures on the net, http://www.scribd.com/doc/2824 ... photos-of-the-Twin-Towers

Obviously they add nothing to the ongoing argument, but pics 4 and 5 really put into perspective what this is all about

--

One question about the fall of the towers. If it was a controlled demolition, then it could only have been a top down job. Every other one i've seen has been from the bottom up. If it was a top down job, then synchronising every level to blow at exactly the right time must have called for one hell of an experienced demolitions expert. And as far as i'm aware, no demolitions experts have stated it could have been done this way with so much precision, and without preparing the building before hand. Every other controlled demolition there's ever been has required the building to be completely gutted before being brought down.

How about the theory that it was bottom up, there were numerous reports of explosions etc just before it fell. They've found traces of thermite on the miniscule amounts of steel that wasn't removed ( without permitting any testing ! ). The seismic evidence points to major demolition charges going off just milliseconds before they collapsed and film footage shows the central pillor going first.

From what I have learned the main supports in the basement were taken out with SADDAMs ( google it ! ), then every second level from the top down were taken out with thermite cutting charges. If you study footage of the collapse you can see these going off.
The other interesting thing is if you do the research there was even opportunity to place the charges 6 months prior to 911.
Also, the company charged with the cleanup are called Controlled Demolition.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

This is a 400m tall skyscraper. I - as someone who knows very little about skyscrapers - would think a sway of ten feet is probably nothing to a structure like that. Aren't they designed to sway more than that anyway, to cope with wind and stuff?

Correct, and that's my mistake. I meant to say 10 SECONDS. The point is that it absorbed an enormous amount of energy and had to dissipate it primarily through a bit of sideways motion. Whatever it was, I think we can be fairly certain it moved a bit more than it usually does on a blustery day.

Quote :

But hang on; you talk about how heavy the free-falling lump is, and how it would take a lot of force to push it off-course. It's falling onto a much bigger, heavier lump of identical building and it's crushing it during a 300m (or more) freefall - that is surely considerable resistance? Regardless of what the majority of the materials were, there's still 300m of (cracked or otherwise) reinforced concrete to consider.

It's just surprising - incredulously so - to me that anything falling through that sort of chaotic mess of structural materials would not encounter anything that would push it off-course throughout several hundred metres of travel.

Well, you have to consider a few things. First off, the bottom structure was nothing if not about to collapse on it's own, when the top part broke away. Remember that the building was suspended. So the bottom was ready to give way at the slightest bit of pressure, where as the top was still 'theoretically' intact. But I don't have an absolute explanation for this.

As for the veering off course, I think the thing to consider here is that the building was comprised mainly of either horizontal or vertical components. There were no angles or anything to force things to collapse at odd angles. Also, the building was constructed so that each floor was a solid piece, that means that the floors collapsed in a sort of pancake fashion as the top fell. I am speculating here, but it's not that far out to guess that they were at least somewhat guided by the central core they surrounded as they fell.

Like I said, I don't have a true explanation of this, so this is mostly just my looking at it and saying, 'This is what I think would happen, based on my knowledge of how stuff works.'

Quote from Hankstar :

Also FTR, I'm still not satisfied that two jetliner impacts and fast-burning methanol fires managed to turn a billion tons of concrete and steel - engineering to withstand exactly such things - to dust in mere seconds.

Well, the thing to remember here is that the building was not REALLY engineered to withstand the fire. The FIREPROOFING was designed to withstand it, but that failed as a result of both a cost saving measure when it was applied and the fact that most of it was knocked loose by the impact.

Also, the fire didn't have to turn a billion tons of steel to dust. It just had to cause enough trusses on a few floors to collapse to 'invalidate' the skeleton and cause it to buckle in/outward.

And, I realize now that you weren't the original person I was replying to. Sorry 'bout that!

Quote from Racer X NZ :

How about the theory that it was bottom up, there were numerous reports of explosions etc just before it fell. They've found traces of thermite on the miniscule amounts of steel that wasn't removed ( without permitting any testing ! ). The seismic evidence points to major demolition charges going off just milliseconds before it collapsed and film footage shows the central pillor going first.

From what I have learned the main supports in the basement were taken out with SADDAMs ( google it ! ), then every second level from the top down were taken out with thermite cutting charges. If you study footage of the collapse you can see these going off.
The other interesting thing is if you do the research there was even opportunity to place the charges 6 months prior to 911.
Also, the company charged with the cleanup are called Controlled Demolition.

About a year ago i was really into all this 9/11 conspiracy stuff, and spent many months researching it all. At first i soaked up all the "Truthers" side of things, and believed a lot of them. But then thought it would be wise to research all the "Debunkers" claims too.

Whilst there are still many many unanswered and unexplained events both before, during and after the events of 9/11, i simply don't buy the vast majority of 9/11 conspiracy claims. Unfortunately i forget the vast majority of the facts and figures supporting the debunkers so i can't wax lyrical on the various reasons against the controlled demolitions theory for example.

There's plenty of info out there, so please don't simply take sides because it fits with your own personal opinion of "The American Way" Do your own research, get both sides of the argument and then hopefully make the right choice. Collate and then evaluate, don't just postulate and then propagate. (yeah ok that little rhyme doesn't actually say anything, but at the time of writing i thought it sounded cool :tilt

Do your own research and don't just take everyones word as gospel truth, least of all in here.

Cool, Stang.

The fire's still a problem for me though. Faulty fireproofing aside, we're talking about metres-thick solid steel being sufficiently weakened by a mere methanol fire. Steel's melting point under ideal conditions (say, in a foundry) is +1500 Celsisus. You'd have to get close to that to cause the steel to soften even a little. Methanol, a highly volatile hydrocarbon, boils at 60 C and burns very quickly at only a few hundred degrees. I find it highly implausible that kind of volatile, rapidly-burning fire caused so much catastrophic damage to so many thousands of tons of steel and hastened a simultaneous failure of an entire building. Yes there would have been hundreds of litres of methanol, but it would still have produced nowhere near enough energy to compromise the steel. Throwing burning liquid on metal, even in a confined space like a building core, would be as unlikely a way to melt or soften it as I can imagine.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

As for the veering off course, I think the thing to consider here is that the building was comprised mainly of either horizontal or vertical components. There were no angles or anything to force things to collapse at odd angles. Also, the building was constructed so that each floor was a solid piece, that means that the floors collapsed in a sort of pancake fashion as the top fell. I am speculating here, but it's not that far out to guess that they were at least somewhat guided by the central core they surrounded as they fell.

I understand where you're coming from, but still to me it seems so unlikely as to be incredible. There may have been nothing but right-angles used in the construction, but I would expect many strange angles to be created as bits buckle and pile up on the way down. The concrete column in particular is what bothers me - I can't imagine how reinforced concrete would just disintegrate from top to bottom, just turn to dust and create no resistance at all. I would expect it to break up, but not in such a uniform (and conveniently particulate) way.

I'd concede that the outer structures, supported only by the suspension, might be guided down straight by the central column. But if as you say the top section which fell and crushed everything was still integral during the drop, and it only really encountered resistance from the central core, to me this would make it even more likely that it would tip in one direction or another and land next to the building, rather than crushing it all the way to the ground.

I'm fine with disagreeing about this, but do you understand why I think it would do that?

Quote from Hankstar :

Cool, Stang.

The fire's still a problem for me though. Faulty fireproofing aside, we're talking about metres-thick solid steel being sufficiently weakened by a mere methanol fire. Steel's melting point under ideal conditions (say, in a foundry) is +1500 Celsisus. You'd have to get close to that to cause the steel to soften even a little. Methanol, a highly volatile hydrocarbon, boils at 60 C and burns very quickly at only a few hundred degrees. I find it highly implausible that kind of volatile, rapidly-burning fire caused so much catastrophic damage to so many thousands of tons of steel and hastened a simultaneous failure of an entire building. Yes there would have been hundreds of litres of methanol, but it would still have produced nowhere near enough energy to compromise the steel. Throwing burning liquid on metal, even in a confined space like a building core, would be as unlikely a way to melt or soften it as I can imagine.

Allow me to quote from another website:

Quote :

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

And to respond to thisnameistaken:

I do see where you are coming from, and tbh, I really can't say one way or the other why the core disintegrated as it did, as I have no background on the properties of concrete. I think I'll do a bit of research on this and see what I can come up with.

I can only guess that the reason it may not have had a significant impact on the top part, was that it was able to easily punch through the floors falling onto it - as the floors were not really connected to anything at this point. But I also cannot really offer a solution to that either. I understand your point of view - I'm just arguing mainly because it's fun! I'll try and gather some evidence to support either side if I can.

I can, however, quote this, also from the above article:

Quote :

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Perhaps those who feel that the buildings 'just fell down' may like to explain the following reports of explosions ?


Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous
observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and
others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in
lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck
the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox
News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom…
something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.” (De Grand
Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)
Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:
[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in
succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually
gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. (Dwyer, 2005; emphasis
added.)
And Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:
When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2
came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista,
never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes
in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't
know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things
exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a
building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't
know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to
me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me.
He said no, I saw them, too... I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and
pushing things around, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been
whatever." (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File
No. 91 10008; emphasis added.)
It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such explosions especially on
lower floors, and long after the planes hit the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for
NIST stated: "The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005)
"Electrical explosions" would clearly be insufficient to bring a steel-frame skyscraper down, in
any building built to code. On the other hand, pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and
simple explanation for the observed detonations followed by complete building collapses. Thus,
it cannot be said that “no evidence” can be found for the use of explosives. This serious matter
needs to be treated as a plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated. "118
Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers" by Graeme
MacQueen in http://www.journalof911studies.com/ provides significant details regarding
eyewitness accounts. Another (shorter) summary is given here: http://911proof.com/11.html .

You guys seem to be concentrating on the twin towers. Did WTC 7 have the same design as the twin towers? It's no where near as massive yet it still fell the same way.

Quote from Mazz4200 :

Just found some awesome pictures on the net, http://www.scribd.com/doc/2824 ... photos-of-the-Twin-Towers

Obviously they add nothing to the ongoing argument, but pics 4 and 5 really put into perspective what this is all about

Thanks, I have some high res pictures from the ground stashed away in a sealed envelope somewhere. TBH, it's scary looking at that crap.

Quote from Technique :

You guys seem to be concentrating on the twin towers. Did WTC 7 have the same design as the twin towers? It's no where near as massive yet it still fell the same way.

See my earlier post where the building owner, Larry Silverstein stated that Building 7 was pulled, ie demolished, ie controlled demolition.

Perhaps people will believe the owner as they seem to have difficulty believing what I say !

Quote from Racer X NZ :

See my earlier post where the building owner, Larry Silverstein stated that Building 7 was pulled, ie demolished, ie controlled demolition.

Perhaps people will believe the owner as they seem to have difficulty believing what I say !

'Pulled', as in allowed to burn. Sorta like what happened to the bowling alley in town that burned last year. They let it go since it was way past saving. The only difference is that after while, the steel roof softened and collapsed. Wait, there is no difference. I guess the government was in on that one as well.


Conspiracies- making reality more like TV since the 1930's

Quote from Racer X NZ :

It has also been mentioned in this thread before, but I'll say it again, Building 7 was NOT hit by any debris, the best reason for it falling was given by the building owner, Larry Silverstien when he said it had to be pulled !!

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

http://www.archive.org/details/larrysilversteinpullbuilding7

Um, no not 'left to burn'
Pull it as in " And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

And that's the building owners words, check the link and you can hear him say this.

How much clearer does it need to be ?????

THE BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHED.

Quote from Technique :

You guys seem to be concentrating on the twin towers. Did WTC 7 have the same design as the twin towers? It's no where near as massive yet it still fell the same way.

Heh. I wish I could make a point as concisely as you can.

He could have meant "we made the decision to pull firefighters off of the building" or "we made the decision to pull out"

Its really not clear at all.
Its clear to you because you know what you want to believe.

How long after towers 1 and 2 fell before tower 7? ]How they were able to put charges in while it was on fire? Also how would the fire chief have known about these alleged charges?

FYI "pull it" is an industry term for a controlled demo. The guy says "pull it", not pull out or up or anything else iirc...

see my post^

Thanks Hankstar, I wonder sometimes just what it takes to get people to think for themselves.

And even when you give them a direct quote they still pretend it was never said !
Do learn to think people, it's really not that hard.

It was a great interview with Silverstein though, the guy admits demolishing his own building, nobody bothers to ask when exactly the building was wired for demolition, or even, given that no one was in it why it should be demolished and he still gets the insurance payout.

You've got to love America, where any crim can get rich if he knows the right people .......

Mind you, given this information it makes it much clearer why the 911 Commission specificly avoided looking at Building 7, and banned anyone from discussing it.

This may have being said/asked already in this topic but i don't have time to read all 4 pages so i'm going to ask and my question is has anyone watched the movie Fareniet (sp?) 911? I have and i agree with it because the movie talks about the conspiracy about the pentagon that i really agree with.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Thanks Hankstar, I wonder sometimes just what it takes to get people to think for themselves.

And given that some of them still don't believe it ! Do learn to think people, it's really not that hard.

It was a great interview with Silverstein though, the guy admits demolishing his own building, nobody bothers to ask when exactly the building was wired for demolition, or even, given that no one was in it why it should be demolished and he still gets the insurance payout.

You've got to love America, where any crim can get rich if he knows the right people .......

I just don't see how this matters at all. Something is wrong with the context of the quotes or something because if the building was on fire and going to fall anyway, why would they even bother to blow it up? It doesn't seem to be important to the grand scheme of things. Perhaps Silverstein just wanted insurance money, which happens everywhere in the world, not just the US. Look at Mexico Russia and china if you want to see some really twisted shit. But no, you hate America and Americans too much to look at that stuff....

The US never bans anyone from discussing anything. We're discussing this right now. Who wasn't allowed to discuss it?

You gotta love New Zealand that, well nobody lives there or cares about it. I'm sure we have a lot of crime compared to you because we have 162 times more people..

Quote :

But no, you hate America and Americans too much to look at that stuff....

Yes of course, disagreement with stated opinions and official governmental theory = white-hot paranoid hatred. Sure. Everyone knows that.

:zombie:

Everything I've ever seen him write is anti-american whether it be the policy or the people.

I just get sick of all the anti-American stuff on this forum. Sorry if i have a little patriotism.

Quote from flymike91 :

I just don't see how this matters at all. Something is wrong with the context of the quotes or something because if the building was on fire and going to fall anyway, why would they even bother to blow it up? It doesn't seem to be important to the grand scheme of things. Perhaps Silverstein just wanted insurance money, which happens everywhere in the world, not just the US. Look at Mexico Russia and china if you want to see some really twisted shit. But no, you hate America and Americans too much to look at that stuff....

The US never bans anyone from discussing anything. We're discussing this right now. Who wasn't allowed to discuss it?

You gotta love New Zealand that, well nobody lives there or cares about it. I'm sure we have a lot of crime compared to you because we have 162 times more people..

So please explain how the owner claiming in an interview that he pulled building 7 doesn't matter ??

The interview is right there, I've put in the link for you and you can hear him say that.

Where I come from this is called evidence.

As for the rest, feel free to think what you like

Quote from flymike91 :

Everything I've ever seen him write is anti-american whether it be the policy or the people.

I just get sick of all the anti-American stuff on this forum. Sorry if i have a little patriotism.

There's a difference between loyalty to a government (nationalism) and loyalty to a country (patriotism). I love my country and would defend it if I needed to but my government, made of people, is fallible. As such its decisions and policies need to viewed skeptically. It just seems to a lot of the rest of the world that many - not all, perhaps not even most - Americans aren't nearly as skeptical & critical of their government as they clearly need to be, especially given how the Bush team has conducted itself domestically and internationally.

Well nobody died in building 7. I don't see how the "demolition" of building 7 has affected anyone. I don't see how it has shaped the lives of everyone worldwide. Its just a building that was going to fall no matter what happened to it. I refuse to believe that my government wants to kill 5,000 americans so perhaps I am a little nationalist.