Quote from Dennisjr13 :

They did not fail. They survived the impact. They stayed up for an hour before the steel became weak enough to start a chain reaction.

Yes this is true, and as you look at the towers fall, initially it seems that it happens in a way that I fully understand and expect - again given my experience.

But, there was something that I noticed years ago - which I thought strange at the time, but also at that time - I thought that what had happened - happened because the design and construction of the building made it happen that way.

I never once thought about any "conspiracy theory", to me to think that mankind can inflict this upon himself would be just so terrible to contemplate but you know, those chinese whispers....

So what am I talking about, - I'm talking about those 47 main support towers that ran through the centre of the construction from top to six storeys underground.

Now to me this is what I find strange about the collapse, as the floors fell, one on top of the other, in virtual freefall I might add - which cannot be right to my mind.

At the very least as the floors fell each floor contact would have had some damping effect on the fall rate of the collapse - at least initially but then you have the issue of the supporting towers themselves, -

I mentioned in a previous post about the cotton bobbin effect of the centre support columns, guiding the floors down one on top of the others, into a nice neat pile ready for collection and disposal at the bottom?.

What is strange to me is exactly why the central supports came down too?,

There was no lateral forces acting on them,... at the very least they should have stayed there for most of the collapse sequence to fall at a later stage, but no those central colums that were the best design and formation to stand there, whilst everything else collapses around them, what happens?..

They go down at the same rate and at the same instant that the buildings fall, and my training and subconscious just sees a big red light.
If it is true as we see that those supports came down at the same speed as the floors, then there was no real strength in them at the time they came down, which surely can only mean that they have been cut,
Then you look at the video footage of the collapse and you see windows popping 25 floors below the debri line in and airtight building with reinforced glass, along with photogrphic evidence I have seen of clean diagonal cuts at 45degrees in this steelwork.

Then there is the issue of the siezmic shocks that were registered the instant the towers each began to fall, the pools of molten steel, and so on.

I dunno, add that to me having a better grasp of how nice and cuddly GB is with his merry band of followers.
To be honest he actually comes across to me as an incompetent idiot all religious an all, but the whole settup has a really bad smell and I hope I live long enough for the truth to come out whatever it is.

I'm going to look up a few more of those links on a nice dry warm (in the UK) sunny afternoon.

Hey Fred pass me that.......

Quote :

there is the issue of the siezmic shocks that were registered the instant the towers each began to fall

I thought this made sense of that..

http://www.popularmechanics.co ... y_law/1227842.html?page=5

Molten pools I couldn't help you with. Sorry.

If people read the thread, they wouldn't still be repeating the same questions!!

There were lateral forces on the vertical columns because they were braced horizontally, causing buckling. There's no mystery there.

The "freefall" is caused by inertial forces. As each floor collapsed, it exerted forces in multiples of their own weight. As the collapse accelerated, the forces exerted were exponentially multiplied again. Unfamiliar to you or not, it is very simply explained. And it has been, many times in this thread

The molten metal is explained as well. Iron burns, and at significantly lower temperatures in the presence of sulphur. Sulphur was given off by everything that burned in the building, from carpets to desks, to office partition walls to plasterboard partition walls.

I'm so damn sick of this thread because the answers to all these questions are not just on the internet, they're in this bloody thread already. Go bloody read.

Sounds like someone needs a chocolate milk. And to scoot off to bed. Ahh, that would be me. Night all.

So when is the court case for these guy's, particually as most buildings are now using similar construction methods. Especially as they all managed to freefall collapse.............


Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3 A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4


Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.


Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

Quote from Polyracer :

Now to me this is what I find strange about the collapse, as the floors fell, one on top of the other, in virtual freefall I might add - which cannot be right to my mind.

At the very least as the floors fell each floor contact would have had some damping effect on the fall rate of the collapse - at least initially

Drop a bowling ball through 100 boards of styrofoam and I'm fairly certain that it won't take much longer than a bowling ball falling through the air. A hair longer maybe, but not much.

Quote :

then you have the issue of the supporting towers themselves, -

I mentioned in a previous post about the cotton bobbin effect of the centre support columns, guiding the floors down one on top of the others, into a nice neat pile ready for collection and disposal at the bottom?.

What is strange to me is exactly why the central supports came down too?,

There was no lateral forces acting on them,... at the very least they should have stayed there for most of the collapse sequence to fall at a later stage, but no those central colums that were the best design and formation to stand there, whilst everything else collapses around them, what happens?..

They go down at the same rate and at the same instant that the buildings fall, and my training and subconscious just sees a big red light.
If it is true as we see that those supports came down at the same speed as the floors, then there was no real strength in them at the time they came down, which surely can only mean that they have been cut,

The central core had surely been damaged as a result of the impact. Not nearly all the way down, but likely at least 10 floors. By the time the collapsingbuilding reached the part of the central support that was still intact, there was now 1/4 to 1/3 of the building falling down. This would surely hav crushed a decent portion of the central colums. Additionally, as the floors collapsed, the trusses (which were anchored to teh central tower) were twisted and pulled out (cough, lateral force, cough) and likely weakened the center even farther. and lastly, neither collapsing part of the building fell in a perfectly vertically fashion, so as it came down, it came straignt down at a slight angle.

\
|
|
|
|
|
|

The top therefore exerted significant lateral force as if fell down - which could possibly explain how it pulverized the central tower. It pushed it to the side as it fell - so the center simply crumbled.

That's my theory anyway.

Quote :

Then you look at the video footage of the collapse and you see windows popping 25 floors below the debri line in and airtight building with reinforced glass

The building was not air-tight, and the building did have reinforced glass, but the pressure generated by the falling structure was more than strong enough to blow out all the windows way ahead of the debris line. Look at the movie Titanic. As the rear end of the ship sinks vertically, all the tiny portholes (reinforced against the raging ocean) are blown open. You underestimate the amount of pressure than can be built up in this sort of a situation.

Quote :

along with photogrphic evidence I have seen of clean diagonal cuts at 45degrees in this steelwork.

Odds are that when a 110 story building collapses, at least one of the 4892273523 steel beams will be split in a funny way. I'll bet if you looked hard enough, you could have found a bunch of steel beams piled in a way so as to look like the charred remains of an alien spacecraft. Does that mean the building was taken down by a cloaked alien ship with a faulty navigational unit?

Quote :

Then there is the issue of the siezmic shocks that were registered the instant the towers each began to fall

What part of '110 story high skyscraper' translates to 'very light structure?'

Quote :

To be honest he actually comes across to me as an incompetent idiot all religious an all

No argument there

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Drop a bowling ball through 100 boards of styrofoam and I'm fairly certain that it won't take much longer than a bowling ball falling through the air.

It depends upon the velocity of the bowling ball prior to impact with the Styrofoam. If I drop the bowling ball from 1cm above the Styrofoam, it will probably stop the bowling ball. But, if the bowling ball is traveling at it's terminal velocity then the result would be much different.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

It depends upon the velocity of the bowling ball prior to impact with the Styrofoam. If I drop the bowling ball from 1cm above the Styrofoam, it will probably stop the bowling ball. But, if the bowling ball is traveling at it's terminal velocity then the result would be much different.

Yep - I agree thats why I said "initially" in my last post

My :twocents::
- List of conspiracy theories
- Study of conspiracism
- Clark's Law: Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

It depends upon the velocity of the bowling ball prior to impact with the Styrofoam. If I drop the bowling ball from 1cm above the Styrofoam, it will probably stop the bowling ball. But, if the bowling ball is traveling at it's terminal velocity then the result would be much different.

What you fail to realize is that even at a VERY low speed, the inertia and momentum of the object is GREATLY increased. A styrofoam board that can support the weight of a bowling ball at rest will have a great deal of difficulty stopping one moving even at a low speed. Also, much in the way styrofoam would either hold it up or snap with very little resistance, the same applies for the building structure. Either the floor can support the falling mass, or the bolts and steel simply snap with little resistance.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

A styrofoam board that can support the weight of a bowling ball at rest will have a great deal of difficulty stopping one moving even at a low speed.

What's your point?

Quote from wheel4hummer :

What's your point?

*sigh*

Nevermind. You people amaze me.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

*sigh*

Nevermind. You people amaze me.

You amaze me. You are so ignorant, you think "I'm right, everyone else is inferior and stupid." Meanwhile, you are the one comparing a bowling ball smashing through styrofoam to a building smashing through itself. Last time I checked, bowling balls are not made of styrofoam. How can you even use that as an analogy?

EDIT: I hold NO opinion on 9/11 what-so-ever. I am just commenting on the stupidity of Stang70Fastback's comparison of a bowling ball smashing through styrofoam to any building collapsing.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

You amaze me. You are so ignorant, you think "I'm right, everyone else is inferior and stupid." Meanwhile, you are the one comparing a bowling ball smashing through styrofoam to a building smashing through itself. Last time I checked, bowling balls are not made of styrofoam. How can you even use that as an analogy?

EDIT: I hold NO opinion on 9/11 what-so-ever. I am just commenting on the stupidity of Stang70Fastback's comparison of a bowling ball smashing through styrofoam to any building collapsing.

I give up. I really do. I was trying to make the point that it's something HEAVY falling on something LIGHT. I've shown this last page to three of my friends, and they've all laughed at you. So either everyone here at Virginia Tech is an idiot... or it's just you.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I was trying to make the point that it's something HEAVY falling on something LIGHT.

Falling on something light? I thought the debate was how the smaller, lighter top half of the building managed to flatten the lower, bigger, heavier part of the building, including the central column which is all of the same density. Therefore, the analogy of a bowling ball on top of styrofoam is completely irrelevant. Assuming the bowling ball is meant to represent the ~1/3rd of the WTC tower above the impact point, and the styrofoam represents the lower 2/3rds including the central column, it has no relevance. You can't hit an apple with a watermelon and then claim that an apple would do the same thing to an apple.

Quote from STROBE :

Falling on something light? I thought the debate was how the smaller, lighter top half of the building managed to flatten the lower, bigger, heavier part of the building, including the central column which is all of the same density. Therefore, the analogy of a bowling ball on top of styrofoam is completely irrelevant. Assuming the bowling ball is meant to represent the ~1/3rd of the WTC tower above the impact point, and the styrofoam represents the lower 2/3rds including the central column, it has no relevance. You can't hit an apple with a watermelon and then claim that an apple would do the same thing to an apple.

Ok, maybe I'm not being clear. The upper mass did not HIT the lower mass all at once. It hit ONE FLOOR AT A TIME. Does my analogy make sense now?

Everyone seems to be stuck on the basic 1/3 into 2/3s thing, but it's more like 1/3 into 1/50 into 1/50 into 1/50 etc...

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I've shown this last page to three of my friends, and they've all laughed at you. So either everyone here at Virginia Tech is an idiot... or it's just you.

There are 29,000 students at Virginia Tech. Your three friends represent 0.0103% of all the students at Virginia Tech. That's a hundreth of a percent! That hardly represents "everyone" at Virginia Tech.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

I give up. I really do. I was trying to make the point that it's something HEAVY falling on something LIGHT.

What is light, 2/3rd's of the building is lighter then 1/3rd? Why do all the demoliton guys bother to set up hundreds of explosives to demolish the buildings, they could just set a fire on the uper floores, have a beer and wait till it perfectly colapses in itself....

I just found startling new evidence that proves 9/11 was a complete conspiracy. It disproves all of Stang's points in this thread.

See the article here:
http://www.mit.edu/research/911/evidence.htm

This article is very saddening Hopefully the video doesn't get taken down. Do not view it unless you want the truth

I get what you're saying Stang.

But the most important fallacy that's been proposed or suggested in this thread so far has still not been addressed. wheel4hummer IS NOT A BRIT!!!

I really felt it was important to address that. The entire British Isles has phoned me this evening to make sure that I make it damn clear that we have NOTHING to do with him or his existence. VERY important.

[edit] The following was subsequently removed from Stang's post, but I was answering the post that arrived in my email:

Quote :

. So either everyone here at Virginia Tech is an idiot... or the British aren't as smart as their accents (compared to us) make them sound.

Yeah. You'll notice I removed that after I posted it. I'd assumed he'd be British as most of you are, but I realized he wasn't. That's good because I really, TRULY believe that the British are much more intelligent than us Americans

EDIT: Ah - I see you've edited your post too!

Quote from Boris Lozac :

What is light, 2/3rd's of the building is lighter then 1/3rd? Why do all the demoliton guys bother to set up hundreds of explosives to demolish the buildings, they could just set a fire on the uper floores, have a beer and wait till it perfectly colapses in itself....

Did you at ALL read my post right before yours?

It's actually a conspiracy theory worth pursuing, I reckon: Brits and world domination. You'd be shocked how many Brits are at the controlling end of US banks' boardrooms and BP is the biggest oil company in the US. Did you know that Burger King is owned by a British company?

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Did you at ALL read my post right before yours?

You wrote it as i was writing mine, so i've missed it, but that still doesn't convince me... It would be slower, i won't accept that it can fall that fast as you describe it...

Quote from Boris Lozac :

It would be slower, i won't accept that it can fall that fast as you describe it...

But.. you just IMAGINE that it would be slower. There is no basis for stating that it would be slower except that you don't think it happened how it should. That's just down to religion, but you have nothing tangible to base your belief on. You're just believing in something regardless. You're welcome to your faith, but because you believe something doesn't make it materialise..

Quote from Boris Lozac :

You wrote it as i was writing mine, so i've missed it, but that still doesn't convince me... It would be slower, i won't accept that it can fall that fast as you describe it...

Remember also that if you look at the video, the outer support structure peels away from the structure as it collapses. So it's possible that the floors below started falling even before they were hit. At the least, the floors had VERY LITTLE SUPPORT to begin with, since they are supported from the top.