Why did the WTC collapse?

[westerby]

Are there indications of explosives? I am not sure. What do you think of the following analysis? (This material is free from copyright; the author does not claim any credits)

The evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished is compelling. Photographs of explosives detonating during the collapse of both the north and south towers are presented below. They are taken from two (publicly available) videos of the collapses. Each frame has been numbered by its position in the video. Both videos were filmed at 30 frames per second, so an eight frame interval covers about one quarter of a second.

The most remarkable aspect of the World Trade Center towers demolition, is that such obvious evidence of the use of explosives, has been completely ignored by the media. This refusal to report the obvious, clearly illustrates that the "free press" is free, only in name, and anything but free in reality.

That such obvious evidence of explosives has remained "hidden in full view" approaches the unbelievable.

The South Tower.
The video evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished is indeed compelling. Consider the following frames which show two distinct lines of explosives detonating across the east face of the south tower.


Frame 147 shows a row of explosives detonating right across the east face at the 79th floor.
Frame 203 shows a row of explosives detonating right across the east face at the 75th floor.

The middle photos show the dust cloud from the explosions outlined in red.

The end photos show the relative positions of the two lines of dust and debris.

t has been claimed that the explosions of dust that span the east face of the tower, were caused by air being forced from the windows as the floors above collapsed. This explanation is obviously incorrect. If it was correct, such lines of dust would have been expelled from the windows of each floor in succession. That is, we would have seen such lines of dust expelled from floors 79, 78, 77, 76 and 75 in succession, but what we observe is an explosion of dust at floor 79, no new clouds of dust for a few floors, then another (larger) explosion of dust at floor 75.

The second line of explosives is much more powerful than the first, but the dust cloud from the first line of explosives, and the dust and debris from the upper floor collapse, initially obscure this.

The dust due to the visible explosions is a whitish grey. The dust from the demolition of the upper section (which is disintegrating as it falls) is dark grey. One wonders what caused this difference.


In the video, it is clear that the top 30 or so floors have snapped off and are toppling eastward. In the above frames, we follow the north-east corner of the tower as this 30 floor section descends. Using the north-east corner as a reference, I have outlined in red, the progress of this 30 floor section as it descends.

The first thing to note, is that the top section itself must be disintegrating, otherwise (as the above frames show) the top section would have extended far into parts of the building that are clearly, as yet, unaffected by the collapse.

But what could possibly cause the top section to disintegrate? And in fact, what could possibly cause the top section to almost entirely disintegrate, before the lower section begins to collapse?

You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for some 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest). Unless, of course, this section had been laced with explosives and was undergoing a controlled demolition of its own, just a few moments before the lower part of the building was demolished.



The North Tower.



In the following set of frames showing the North Tower collapse, pay close attention to the horizontal explosions of dust and debris that occur just above the red line marked on the above photograph.



Once again, note that the second layer of explosions is much more powerful than the first and that the dust cloud from the first initially obscures that of the second. Also, note the large orange areas of hot gas from the explosions. Recall, that this was about two hours after the aircraft struck the building, so there would be essentially no flammable material left on the floors from which the flash emanates (as the fire would have already consumed it all).

Note that the horizontal explosions of dust on the leftmost side of the tower are already visible and expanding in the first frame. These continue their expansion through frame nine and subsequent frames. Similarly, explosions of dust become apparent across the entire width of both (visible) faces of the tower, however, between frames 001 and 009 the television mast on top of the tower makes no downward movement at all. This shows that the horizontal explosions of dust and debris precede the collapse and thus cannot be the cause of it (in fact, it is these explosions that initiate the collapse).



That the horizontal explosions of dust precede the collapse is vividly expressed by the above animated graphic which alternates the first and ninth frames. This clearly shows that the explosions of dust were not caused by air being forced from the windows as the floors above collapsed (this was a ridiculous assertion anyway).

Since the visible evidence points to only two layers of explosives per tower, one has to conclude that the aircraft were directed to hit particular floors (possibly by homing beacons in the towers). This would also explain the total lack of solid evidence for the "Arab hijackers" hypothesis (there was however, a quantity of laughable, obviously manufactured evidence, indicating that this was an attempt to frame the Arabs).

Of course the visible explosions (or at least their dust clouds) are only part of the story, as the main weight supporting columns in the central core also had to be weakened before the towers would collapse in the way they did. But what is visible, is more than enough evidence, to conclude that the towers were deliberately demolished.



The above animated graphic alternates the first and 67th frames. It shows a classic controlled demolition of a 12 story building (the top 12 stories of the North Tower). Strange how the roofline collapses so evenly, I guess, that all the central core columns and all the perimeter wall columns collapsed simultaneously. Some coincidence eh?

The first line of explosives detonated across the 98th floor (where the collapse began). The second line of detonations occurred across the 92nd floor (just above the lower red line) with large flashes of hot gas from the explosions, clearly visible. Initially, the second line's detonation is obscured by the dust cloud of the first. However, being much more powerful detonations, the second line's dust cloud quickly bursts into view.

A close look at the video/photos shows that the collapse begins at the 98th floor, then the 99th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 100th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 101th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 102th floor collapses onto the 98th, etc until the second line of detonations initiates the final collapse. So once again, we have the disintegration of the tower above the impact floors, before the collapse of the tower below the impact floors.

Interestingly, this observation disproves the so called pancake theory, where one floor collapses onto the next lower floor, causing that floor to also collapse (not that the pancake theory made any sense anyway). Here, what we see is 5 or 6 floors in a row, all falling onto the 98th floor,
which does not collapse (until the second line of explosives are detonated, taking out its support). The pancake theory would have the 98th floor collapsing onto the 97th, causing that to collapse onto the 96th, causing that to collapse onto the 95th, etc.

These very strange circumstances, mentioned above, have a very simple explanation: The twin towers were deliberately demolished. Occam's razor, suggests that the simplest explanation, a deliberate demolition, is probably also the correct explanation.

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/north-tower-collapse.avi>The original north tower collapse video can be found here (0.8 MB).
http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/south-tower-collapse.avi>The original south tower collapse video can be found here (1.7 MB).
>An animated-gif from the video of the north tower collapse can be found here (0.9 MB).
>An animated-gif from the video of the south tower collapse can be found here (2.2 MB).

To play the videos you need to download 3ivx. 3ivx is a plug-in for Windows Media Player and QuickTime. It enables the playing of DivX 3.x, 4.x, 5.x, OpenDivX, XviD, FFMpeg, AngelPotion, SMR, Philips MPEG-4, Apple MPEG-4, MS-MPEG-4v3, 3ivx D3, D3.5 and 4, RealMagic MPEG-4, Sorenson MPEG-4, Blizzard MPEG-4 and other MPEG-4 variants and the encoding of high quality MPEG-4 video. So, it is a must for your system. It can be downloaded from http://www.3ivx.com/download

http://members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://guardian.150m.com
http://guardian.250free.com
http://cooperativeresearch.net/phorum5/list.php?3

[Bolo Boffin]

1. For actual scientific analysis:

please check out http://wtc.nist.gov

NIST just released an incredible interim report. No wacky controlled demolition hoohaw, just the facts.

[westerby]

2. Thank you for the link...

I planned to read the report.

[TryAndSee]

78. You planned to read the report?

You planned to read the report?

Do you have a link?

[westerby]

101. See boloboffin's post above and his post in the 9/11 forum. nt

[DoyBoy]

7. NIST another govt agency....

towing the official story line.

The fact remains that there is NO WAY these 3 buildings (WTC 1,2 & 7) could have collapsed at a freefall rate (and straight down on top of themselves) without the help of controlled demolition to eliminate resistance from (especially) the core structure. Had a natural collapse ocurred they would have taken much longer to completely collapse (poss 30-40 seconds) and some of the core structure (possibly up to 20 stories) would have been left standing. Also, the natural collapse would not have pulverized to dust almost every bit of concrete in the buildings not to mention create the molten structural steel hot spots in the basements. The fires in all 3 buildings were NOT hot enough nor did they burn long enough to cause complete structural failure.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. DoyBoy, you're wrong.

None of the buildings fell at a freefall rate, nor completely straight down.

You're not even close to comprehending the forces involved when the buildings started collapsing.

Check out the reports.

[DoyBoy]

50. The south tower....

collapsed within 10 seconds. The north tower fell a bit faster. For a 1,300 foot building to collapse within these times would nearly be freefall. You can't tell me that with the pancake theory the floors below the crash area didn't cause at least a small bit of resistance thus lengthening the time of the fall.

I realize they didn't fall EXACTLY straight down. The top of the south tower did tilt as it started to fall but it righted itself as it came down (interestingly) They also blew out fragments of steel 150 to 200 feet horizontally as they fell. Building 7 fell exactly like a controlled demo no ifs ands or buts.

They had some help.

[TryAndSee]

79. boloboffin: YOU ARE WRONG.

boloboffin: YOU ARE WRONG.

All the buildings fell at close to freefall rates.

[TryAndSee]

77. THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY:

No wacky controlled demolition hoohaw, just the facts.

A big CONSPIRACY THEORY though.

THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY:

THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORY OF THEM ALL.

It is blatently anti-semitic and totally stretches the bounds of believability (note that Arabs are Semites).

It goes something like this:

There is a massive Arab/Semite conspiracy to destabilize the West.

There is a gigantic network of Arab/Semite spies and agents throughout the world, at the beck and call of a BIG Semite called bin Laden.

Controlling this gigantic network of Semite spies and agents from a cave in Afghanistan (while all the time under observation by the CIA and friends (who have produced tapes of this master plotter conversing with his mother)) bin Laden manages to destroy the two largest commercial buildings in the USA and put a significant dent in the Pentagon.

Not only this, but he is cunningly able to stand-down the United States Air Force, thus permitting this immense destruction to occur without airforce interference, which would have otherwise quickly laid waste to his plans. Such an achiever.

And not only this, but in order to sow confusion among his enemies, he publicly, and repeatedly, denies any involvement whatsoever in this amazing achievement. Such a man.

Boggles the mind, doesn't it.

Only the maddest -- probably insane -- conspiracy theorists believe this dribble.

Seriously guys, some people actually believe this crap.

IN PARTICULAR, MANY FELLOW AMERICANS BELIEVE THIS INSANE CRAP.

http://members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://cooperativeresearch.net/phorum5/list.php?3
http://guardian.150m.com
http://guardian.250free.com

[FredScuttle]

3. Because two jets hit them....very hard.

EOM

[westerby]

4. Not that simple...

The actual damage done by the jets alone was certainly not responsible for the crahs. That was already stated in the old FEMA report.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Well, the jets and the resulting fire

Two huge Molotov cocktails were thrown into those buildings. You owe it to yourself to read NIST's report.

[westerby]

11. Yes, but you know

from the FEMA report that much of the fuel burnt outside.

I don't want to argue against the NIST report, but it is certainly not a trivial matter to explain the collapse as the poster above suggested (two jets and period).

[TryAndSee]

80. Why don't you give an accurate link then.

boloboffin: You owe it to yourself to read NIST's report.

Why don't you give an accurate link then.

[Bolo Boffin]

137. Your accurate link

http://wtc.nist.gov

The report's all there, ready to download and read. Enjoy.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

6. What hit wtc 7?

Fire and/ or damage, fire and/or damage.. :eyes:

Plane crashes cause 220 stories of office space to turn to micron sized dust particles and chopped up steel in about 20 seconds?

Ask yourself what the buildings would look like if imploded?

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. For the obviously science challenged, let me offer a response

You said: Plane crashes cause 220 stories of office space to turn to micron sized dust particles and chopped up steel in about 20 seconds?

A statement which shows a very significant lack of understanding of how things work, and the kind of conflation of data that the Craetion Scientists, Freepers, and Rightwingers like to go with (and no, I'm not calling you any of those, just saying you're using the same kind of erroneous and/or sensationalistic writing that they prefer)

it wasn't 220 stories. That's sensationalistic writing.

It was two towers, each of 110 stories. yes they add to 220, but in this case, you can't just add them together and call it 220 stories. It's not scientific to do so.

Then you said the the plane crash caused those stories to turn into micron size dust particles and chopped up steel. Also wrong.

The plane crashes caused incredible weakening of the structure of the towers. As those structures weakened, and because they were hollow tube structures, the mix of GRAVITY and METAL FAILURE are what caused the top of the structurs to begin failing catastrophically. It was the FAILURE of that structure, and the effect of GRAVITY on the MASS as it fell down, and the INCREDIBLE ENERGY released every time one floor slammed into the floor below it, that eventually resulted in the destruction of the structure. Micron sized? Yes, I'm sure a fair amount of it ended up as micron sized. But the majority of it - perhaps 90% - ended up as stuff FAR BIGGER than a micron. And chopped up metal? That's another sensationalist term, bringing up images of something actually chopping - which, psychologically, is a word with great weight. No, the metal wasn't chopped - it was twisted, rent, split, heated up, melted, stretched, crushed, etc., but probably never "chopped".

I am an engineer, and I was there - I worked in the WFC next door - i was standing there when the south tower fell, though one of the WFC buildings blocked most of my view, so I couldn't tell it was falling straight down. But i then moved around and was walking north, and I watched the North tower come down, and I said to myself, "Yep - that's exactly how it should have fallen, given it's construction."

I've read the MIT report on the failure, I've read the government reports, and other reports done by other legitimate scientists/engineers/architects, and every one of them agrees taht, yes indeedy, the towers fell exactly as they should have given the amount of fuel in the planes, the SIZE of the planes, and the INCREDIBLE velocity with which they hit. No demolition necessary at all.

Remember, the towers were also built to withstand hits from planes of the 1960s - much smaller, much less fuel, and with fuel that was much less explosive.

And as solid and structurally sound as those towers were, sadly, they were also somewhat fragile, in that if one set of floor supports were ever to fail, it would bring down the whole building. Not much likelihood of failure, but once it happened, it meant utter and total failure for the entire buiding.

Like a mighty oak tree - it can withstand winds of pretty large magnitude, but because the oak can't bend, once the winds go even slightly beyond tolerance, the oak tree will utterly fail and split and fall over.

meaning no offense, but in all honesty the amount of education in this country in terms of math, science, and engineering, for anyone who didn't specifically study those areas, is very, very lacking. So unless one has actually studied (whether in a school or even independant study), one is at quite a disadvantage to understand it. Much of what might seem "common sense" to a lay person really isn't; physics actually works a fair amount different than what the majority of people think it does.

[Dookus]

23. thank you Rabrr...

much appreciated.

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. No problemo, Sver Dookus!

You be my hero. I'm happy to serve!

[WoodrowFan]

121. thanks!

The mentally ill and ignorant (ie the conspiracy nuts) won't believe a word you wrote but I appreciate some intelligent postings on the WTC here.

:yourock:

[NecessaryOnslaught]

123. Typical

Include the phrase "conspiracy nut", and decline any discussion of the actual event. We've all heard the rehashed argument, fire- steel weakened- building suffers global collapse, duh! Please enlighten the conspiracy nuts on the mechanism which allowed 3 steel framed buildings to collapse into their footprints.

[DoyBoy]

30. Explain then...

the molten pools of structural steel in the basements (7stories down) of the WTC 1 & 2 buildings. Keep in mind the same was also found in the basement of WTC 7 which no plane hit and subsequent small fires were limited to a few upper floors (don't try the fuel tank theory for this one because the tanks were not ruptured). Hydrocarbon fires alone are not hot enough to melt structural steel nor cause the intense hot spots under the rubble for many days after the collapse,

[Dookus]

34. A huge fire

burned intensely hot for days or weeks in the rubble. Little oxygen available caused it to burn especially hot. Have you seen the coal fires in Pennsylvania that have been burning for half a century or more?

How would some dynamite in the building better explain the "molten pools of steel"?

[DoyBoy]

43. Where did the huge fire...

come from?

At the time both buildings (WTC 1 & 2) collapsed the fires were almost out having exhausted almost all of the fuel (keep in mind too that the south tower's hit had most of its fuel burned in the initial fireball outside the building). It is also known now that firemen had reached the area of the impact area in one tower before it collapsed and reported that it was a minimal fire burning at that point and it would be no problem getting it under control. This is also supported by the thick black smoke seen at the point of collapse showing the fires were dying out. WTC 7 on the other hand had small fires to begin with and it doesn't explain the melted steel there.

Dynamite would not have been used but a compund such as thermite could have caused the molten metal.

Coal fires burning for long periods of time under ground are due to the fact that they are in the veins of coal which supplies the constant fuel. There was not the constant source of fuel for the WTC fires as in a coal mine.

[Dookus]

45. umm....

yeah ok. 110 stories of material didn't have anything to burn.

You're really out of your league here. There was plenty of fuel. I don't see how some thermite would fundamentally change the equations.

[DoyBoy]

51. Try reading...

some of the info on these sites.

http://physics911.org
http://911research.wtc7.net

or even the book "The New Pearl Harbor" might give some insight.

I don't think I'm as out of my league as you might think.

[TomNickell]

64. Obviously you -ar-e out of your league. /nt

[TryAndSee]

81. YOU FORGOT THESE GREAT LINKS:

YOU FORGOT THESE GREAT LINKS:

http://members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://cooperativeresearch.net/phorum5/list.php?3
http://guardian.150m.com
http://guardian.250free.com

[yella_dawg]

98. "Little oxygen available caused it to burn especially hot."

Okay, you just betrayed any claims you have to scientific understanding. Oxygen starvation reduces combustion temperature. Profoundly. You don't communicate even fundamental understanding of the processes involved. The observed phenomena in the WTC collapse do not support the official storyline. Goofy claims do not change this.

[Dookus]

110. You're right

I said it all wrong, and that'll teach me to post so late at night.

I meant that it was a hot fire in a small, contained space. Of course there was sufficient oxygen to burn. I used the coal fires of examples of fires that can burn very very hot for a very very long time in relatively confined spaces. I apologize for saying it so badly.

[Endangered Specie]

142. ...

1- show me evidence you cant make a fire out of jet fuel hot enough to melt steel.

2- You ever considered the incredible amount of energy involved in a falling mass, especially the mass of those buildings.

3- This in no way proves your belief that explosives were used (you want to melt steel with explosives you are gonna need so much you wouldnt have to show video frame by frame to see it.

[Liberal Classic]

32. Thank you

For bringing some sense into this thread.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

35. Your argument lacks a mechanism

What theory are you promoting here?

Are you saying that the trusses failed and the floors pancaked?

Please tell me how you know what condition the steel was in? Have you seen it? Sorry but 99% of the steel was scrapped without any thorough inspection.

Also I'm not claiming that concrete, gypsum, desks , computers, phones and people were turned into ONE micron sized particles, but in the micron range.

[Liberal Classic]

38. An object at rest tends to stay at rest

And an object in motion tends to stay in motion.

Failure of any one floor would cause the cascade failure we saw on the television.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

40. Really?

Your saying that none of the floors failed when the planes hit? Why did this not cause global collapse? Are you saying that floors have never collapsed in a building due to fire? None of these steel framed buildings suffered global collapse (Meridian plaza fire- Burned a hell of a lot hotter than the WTC for 18 HOURS, floor collapses, strutural members warped plenty, but no parital or global collapse).

And what of the neat, vertical collapse of WTC 7?

[Bolo Boffin]

42. What neat, vertical collapse of WTC 7?

WTC 7 had several floors that raged with fire all day long.

Half the building finally collapsed inside itself, pulling the rest of the building on top of it.

Go to the NIST site, and read the reports. The facts are the facts.

[Liberal Classic]

44. Firstly, the collapses were not neatly vertical

Watch the footage of the tower with the antenna on top. (I forget if this is the N or S tower, I'm not from NY) It begins to twist as it falls, and the great ariel goes in at an angle as well.

Read Trekologer posts. The towers were hollow tubes with floors attached along the circumferences. They were design such that if some of the supports were lost the floors would remain. Certianly the impact of the airplane damaged some of the supports, but not all.

It wasn't until after the fire had burned long enough to weaken more supports that the cascade failure began.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

47. I was referring to

Building 7. Perfect vertical collapse, not kind of like, not sort of like, not like in a roundabout way, but exactly like a controlled demolition. And just like the towers, the steel was carted off without a second look, leaving hypothetical investigations, at best.

[Liberal Classic]

49. WTC7 was the one that fell hours later, right?

It wasn't neat at all. As another fellow said, it was pulled down by partial collapse in one area.

[TryAndSee]

84. because it was a controlled demolition.....

exactly like a controlled demolition.....

because it was a controlled demolition.....

[TryAndSee]

86. Incorrect: the centeral core was the strongest

The towers were hollow tubes with floors attached along the circumferences.

Incorrect: the centeral core was the strongest part of the building, however the walls also carried significant weight.

[Trajan]

143. Not only the shock of impact ...

But the heat of aviation fuel burning within a few floors; concentrating the heat on a small number of floor spars, to the point where the remaining floor supports plasticised, sagged, and separated from their mounts on the wall ....

There is no doubt that the aircraft crash, and the resulting fire, could account for the failure of one floor of each building, and the resulting pancake-cascade of the rest of the floors below ...

[TryAndSee]

82. And an object that is stationary tends to remain stationary.

And an object in motion tends to stay in motion.

And an object that is stationary tends to remain stationary.

[jmowreader]

37. How was the fuel any less explosive back then?

In the 1960s, the commercial airlines ran their fleets on a product called Jet A, which is very clean kerosene.

In 2001, the commercial airlines ran their fleets on the same Jet A. And in 2004, if you call for a fuel truck to pump some jet fuel into your plane, you're gonna get Jet A. People who own expensive engines really hate surprises.

I can agree with the "amount of fuel" comment and the "size of the planes" comment, but it's the same fuel they've always used.

[oblivious]

58. An engineering degree is fine, but you need to stick to the facts.

Rabrrrrr wrote: "Remember, the towers were also built to withstand hits from planes of the 1960s - much smaller"

They were built to withstand a hit from a Boeing 707: 263,000 pounds
The plane that hit it was a Boeing 767: 274,000 pounds
Maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707: 336,000 pounds
Maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767: 395,000 pounds

[Rabrrrrrr]

133. And designed for those smaller planes to be travelling WAY slower

The planes that attacked, as you admit, had more mass than what the buildings were designed for.

Also, the buildings were designed for planes going much slower then the 400 miles or so that the attackers planes were travelling.

Energy is a function of velocity SQUARED.

So, let's say it's designed to withstand a 1 pound plane going 1 mph, and they were hit by a 1.2 pound (the ratio of 395,000 pounds to 336,000 pounds) plane going 2 mph (assuming the planes were going twice as fast as the building was designed for: I can't remember off the top of my head how fast they were going, and what the tolerance was for, but 2 should be pretty close)

Energy on impact = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2

Plane 1 = 0.5 units of energy

Plane 2 = 2.9 units of energy

That's a big difference in energy entering into the system.

If the planes were going 4 times as fast as tolerance (which I think is too high a number, but offer it anyway), Plane 2 would have had 11.5 units of energy.

At a speed of 3, the amount is 6.5 units of energy

[fujiyama]

59. Thanks

for the summary.

BTW, wasn't the spot which the planes actually hit the towers somewhat crucial? I mean, if the planes hit higher, would the amount of weight that fell, have been enough to actually cause the entire building to collapse as it did?

Also I was curious what you think of the WTC 7 collapse. This is the one people often claim was a controlled demolition.

[oblivious]

60. Sorry, I haven't read all the data yet, so I can't give an opinion.

I appreciate the discussions about it here though.

[TryAndSee]

106. So do I.

So do I.

[Sirveri]

63. I was talking to another person about this.

One thing that is being left out of everything is the fire control pumps, the things that pump huge volumns of water up giant 1-2' diameter pipes to the sprinkler heads on every floor. Those things had to be spewing out water for at least a hour. Water is HEAVY. But I've never seen anyone bring this up or discuss it at all so I figured I'd ask your take on it.

[paulk]

144. The fire control systems were designed for localized fires

One or two stories at the most, not the 15-20 stories involved in the WTC. Each floor of the WTC was designed to support 1300 tons above it's own weight - that's an awful lot of water...

[Rabrrrrrr]

149. I've heard some reports that the water sprinklers weren't working

but heard from others that they were. Probably safe to assume that in some areas they were, and in others they weren't.

We do know that at least one plane, perhaps both, severed part of the water supply (that's in the NIST report, but they aren't specific if it happened in both buildings).

But I don't think one could pump enough water in an hour to exceed the capacity of a floor, even given that a floor is heavily damaged by an exploding airplane. Plus, with all the damage exposing the floor to the outside, excess water would have an easy escape route. I would think, anyway.

[MadHound]

65. Just a couple of points friend

The WTC was built to withstand the hit of a Boeing 707, a plane that is actually very similar to the ones that actually hit the WTC on 911. Also, the WTC was not built to pancake in the manner that it did, at least not according to an interview I saw with the chief architect(I believe on the Discovery channel).

One other thing to take into consideration. Jet fuel ignites at 410 degrees F, and given that there was a very good, very redundant sprinkler system that was working, along with fire retardent materials, etc. Let us say that the fire reached temps upwards of 800-900 degrees F. That is being generous, but even so, is well short of the 1100 degrees F where structural steel starts losing strength, and far far short of the 2800 degrees F where steel melts.

Then there is the fact that these were, according to firefighters and eyewitnesses on the scene, very controlable fires that were being somewhat smothered, especially the South Tower, since half the plane's fuel dissipated outside in that large fireball we all saw.

Sorry, but there are many, many inconsistencies in the "official" story of how the WTC collapsed. Just because you are an engineer doesn't make you immune to the Big Lie. Tell me something, from an engineering perspective. How does a building that tall, damaged that high up on ONE side, weakened on ONE side, supposedly having steel losing strength on ONE side fall relatively straight down instead of tilting over?

Sorry friend, but you're buying into the Big Lie.

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

66. ok, what about this?

The Loaizaux family who run the largest controled explosion/debris removal company in world and is considered the best in its field "coincidentaly" were the first contractors to "arrive" at the WTC site to begin debris removal. Were they 1st there so they could be sure to remove evidence that would show explosives were involved before anyone else started removal of debris? The fact that it was the top company in the country in controled implosions is enough to raise serious questions about the official story of how/why the WTC ccollapsed.

[jukes]

68. Rabrrr

my demolition/explosives knowledge is quite limited, but wdnt these conditions; vaporised fuel allowed to mix w/sufficient ambient atmosphere,then detonated as an atomized cloud, produce the equivalent of military "fuel/air" ordinance?

if so, the concussion and plasma-like heat wd be only slightly weaker than a tactical nuke; more than enough to demolish these buildings over time by themselves, & certainly aided by gravity & the impact of multiple floors falling onto a shaken, perhaps shattered,foundation.


the administration is hiding much from us, & may have been actively involved in some fashion in the operative aspects of the tragedy, but i seriously doubt there's much chance that navy seals scuba'd the island, trekked to the towers, and strung detcord to blocks of c-4 @ strategic points...


that scenario makes my tinhat chafe.

our spec ops have never been that good. remember the iranian hostage rescue vs entebbe.

[ProfessorGAC]

74. It's Called A BLEVE

Pronounced BlEH -VEE. It stands for; Boiling Liquid, Evaporating Vapor Explosion.

They are the most dangerous type of condition in a chemical or refinery fire. Under the proper circumstances, the detonation can be nearly Mach 1. (Not quite, but about 1050 feet per second with many highly flammable liquids.) There are ordinances and organic chemicals that use this technique, yes, like the FAE. Those are filled with ethylene oxide, which has an explosive range of 0.8 - 100%.

That particular organic will detonate at supersonic speeds in a BLEVE (almost 800 meters/second).

The atomization effect of ruptured fuel line or tank of a vehicle moving over 100mph would create quite a highly dispersed cloud of flammable mist, without using more than about 5% of the total fuel. The rest would then be ignited by the initial detonation to create a heck of a conflgration of a fairly slow burning liquid.

I've seen controlled demolition close up, and this didn't look like one to me.
The Professor

[MadHound]

96. However this event didn't occur at the Twin Towers.

It is an event that would have occured almost as soon as the planes slammed into the Towers, and it would have blown the top of the Towers right off. This obviously didn't occur.

Also, jet fuel is a hard fuel to atomize into a sufficiently fine mist in order for a BLEVE to occur. Is is denser that gasoline, and doesn't vaporize easily. The odds of atomization of fuel from a ruptured fuel line or tank are quite high

The only ignition that occured was that of the large fireball we all saw outside the South Tower, which burned up aprox. half of that plane's fuel. There were fires inside both Towers, yet they did not ignite a BLEVE.

And if this wasn't a controlled demolition, then explain why the Towers defied the laws of physics and gravity and came pretty much straight down into their own footprint. Most engineers, firement, and demolition that I've spoken to or read about this matter are quietly stunned at the neatness of the collapse, saying that is damn near impossible for one building that size to collapse in such a manner, much less two with minutes of each other.

[ProfessorGAC]

104. Did Happen!

Watch the tapes. There is a clear indication of a high speed shock wave about 1 second after impact. There is a BLEVE. You saying there wasn't one, doesn't make it so.

The total energy release from 4 or 5% of the kerosene available, would not have been sufficient to drop the building instantly, either. You do the equations. I did them long ago and don't want to belabor the point.

Most engineers, physicists, and structural design experts i know have said the opposite of your friends. So, go figure.

And, like i said, i've seen controlled demolition close up, more than once, and this doesn't look like one to me.

I'm not going to argue with you. I know what i saw.
The Professor

[MadHound]

107. Well friend, answer me this

If this BLEVE occurred, where was the explosion, fireball, and subsequent destruction? Are you saying that this was simply a shock wave that shook things up? If so, a shock wave occurs any time there is an impact. Just because there is a shock wave doesn't mean there is a BLEVE. There is no visual evidence of a BLEVE on the tapes either.

I'm not talking about dropping the buildings instantly, I'm simply saying that there would have been explosive damage done to the top of the building. There was none.

And yes, I too have participated in controlled demolitions. The WTC's destruction looked like a pretty good controlled demo, especially the South Tower going down, no tilting, no wavering, just straight down. Give me the odds on that happening on one side- damaged building, then the odds on two, within minutes of each other. I worked as a firefighter for a number of years friend, and most people that are in the business are quietly amazed. Yes, there have been articles making tortured explanations of how such a thing could occur not once, but twice, but the rank and file investigators are pretty much all crying foul.

I don't understand why you continue to believe in the Big Lie, but that is what it is, a big big lie. Sad to say that the majority of people in this country are in the same boat you are, caught on the horns of a dilemma, whether to abandon the comfort of the concept of a relatively benign government that wouldn't kill it's own citizens, or believe the evidence plain before them. Most people prefer comfort and security, but more and more are starting to wake up. The alarm is ringing Professor, are you going to continue to hit the snooze button?

[ProfessorGAC]

109. Yawn!

Which part of "I'm not going to argue with you" did you misinterpret?

The Professor

[MadHound]

111. Well friend, that is your call

Whether or no to concede the point. I would think that one who is so sure of themselves would be a little more forceful, and also have some documentation or real world experience to back themselves up with. But hey, who am I to argue with a person wishing to concede, eh?

[ProfessorGAC]

114. Second Yawn

You're quite full of yourself, aren't you?
The Professor

[MadHound]

115. Just asking questions friend,

And still looking for the answers.

[bpilgrim]

94. WTC7 collapse ------------------------------------- FLASH

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

glad to see this outstanding issue is still a hot topic at least on DU.

CLEAN vs DIRTY collapses.

peace

[westerby]

112. It worries some people, though

that threads like this could let DU look like a bunch of conspiracy idiots...

[NecessaryOnslaught]

120. Dinner Kick

:kick:

[rman]

95. re WTC7: FEMA also 'science challenged'

Since their conclusion is they do not know what caused the collapse of WTC7.

FEMA
World Trade Center Building Performance Study
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm

chapter 5 (wtc7)
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf

page 31
5.7 Observations and Findings

"...Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

[yodermon]

108. I'm really surprised

.. that no one has mentioned Larry Silverstein, the controller of the WTC complex. He admitted, out loud, on camera, and in his own voice, that he decided to "Pull" WTC Building 7.

Here is a link to said video:

http://www.vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.mpeg

Here is an article talking about it.
http://vestigialconscience.com/Pullit.html


In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of
9/11, Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC
complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY
decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC7,
late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in
Sept. of 2002 entitled "Rebuilding America, A Year at Ground
Zero". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society
of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly
investigation into the curious collapse of WTC7. The study
specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a
result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris
falling from the crumbling North Tower.

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;


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



WHY oh WHY does no one question this??

[JimT]

116. Amen.

Thanks for the post based on actual science and not "perception".

[Canuckistanian]

127. Thank you. A very reasoned explanation.

I saw a show about it and I've read books about how skyscrapers work. Solid framework on the outside to support the weight, elevator shafts to support the center.
But anything that breaks that outer shell will cause catastrophic failure. Add to that horrific temperatures from ignited and burning jet fuel and there's not enough strength to hold up a bungalow. After that, gravity takes over.
And those "explosions"? Those are the steel beams and joists popping off of their support girders, probably only held on by bolts or welded on. There's one video which show the beams weakening, then buckling, then finally collapsing.
All quite explainable without having to resort to imaginative bomb explosions.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

129. Wrong

The central core was the main support in the WTC. It was not the trusses that failed, but the core. No pancaking, no explanation for the entire building turning to dust.

[paulk]

152. do you have a cite for that?

every explanation I have seen arrives at the conclusion that the angle clips that held the trusses to both the core and the outer columns were what failed first, causing the trusses to then fail.

[Pithlet]

128. Yes

A breath of fresh air. I don't have the grasp of physics that you have. For me, it comes down to what is the most likely cause? Two airliners filled with fuel crashing into them, or a plot that would be incredibly hard to pull off, and has absolutely no evidence to back it up?

Let's just say that there really was a plot to plant explosives. Why wouldn't they have timed them to go off shortly after the planes hit, so it would look like the planes actually did it? And why even have the planes hit in the first place? It seems like a very inefficient way to execute a plot, involving more people, and thus increasing the likelihood that your plot will be discovered.
How on earth would they get enough explosives to take down the towers past security and the thousands of other employees that work there? How did they get enough people in on the secret? "Hey, we're going to blow up the towers and kill thousands, could you do us a favor and look the other way? Don't tell anyone! Ignore all the drilling..." The whole controlled demolition theory is one of the most inexplicable and far fetched ones out there

[Endangered Specie]

141. Thank you for a touch of science and reasoning

very nicely said.

[lapfog_1]

8. Actually - No

Even large airliners impacting the towers were insufficient to
cause them to collapse. However, both airliners were fully loaded
with jet fuel (cross continental flights) which created an intense
heat from the resulting fire. Enough heat to cause the flame
retardant foam insulation on the floor support cross beams to
eventually fail... which resulted in the floor supports failing.
The WTC towers were constructed as structural hollow tubes, all of
the vertical support was in the exterior beams, when the cross
members holding the tubes rigid failed, collapse of the structure
was inevitable.

This does not address any conspiracy theory as to whether the
collapse was aided by shaped (and timed) charges of dynamite.

But the airplanes did not, by themselves, cause the towers to collapse.

However, the escape staircases designed to mostly surround the
central elevator core did lead to the intense loss of life as the
planes sliced through the core and destroyed all (but 1 I think)
of the fire escape staircases.

[Trekologer]

9. I am no structural engineer...

...but I am a student of physics in college.

Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were built using a construction technique called "hollow tube" and are/were the largest buildings constructed this way. Unlike conventional construction which has a grid of steel beams throughout the building, these two buildings had only the outter steel load-bearing cage-like walls. There were no load supporting beams or collumns inside. This accomplished two things: it allowed the floor space to be maximized for use by the inhabitants and it allowed the building to sway slightly due to large wind gusts. The floors held the outter walls in place and prevented them from bowing out or twisting due to the weight placed on top of them. The airplane impacts coupled with the resulting fire caused enough of the floors to fail, causing the bowing out that they needed to prevent. Because the floors above the one that fails are generally intact, the bowing out is limited to only the floor or floors whose floors have failed enough that they are no longer strong enough to hold the walls in place, which would look like the walls exploded outward. One floor is probablly not enough to bring down the whole building. However, several adjacent floors is. The floors above the failed area, still mostly intact weigh so much that as soon as they fall an inch, they have obtained so much momentium that there is no way to stop them from falling onto the floors below and pushing them down and down and down.

It is very easy to create a demonstration of this using a tall paper cup with a lid from a fast food resturant. Mark off about 1/3 and 2/3 the height of the cup and, using an x-acto knife (be VERY careful... kids don't try this at home), cut slits down the length of the cup, about 1/4" apart. Put tape completely around the cup at the 1/3 and 2/3 marks (inside or outside doesn't matter). Now, put the lid on the cup. You should be able to put weight onto the top of the lid and the cup will stay standing. Now, remove the tape from the cup. Put the weight back onto the lid. The cup will now twist around the middle. If you put enough weight on it, the cup will collapse completely.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

13. How about a Phd.....

in physics with vast hands on explosive experience.


"Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C."

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup//experts/

[Trekologer]

22. But he took that back...

A couple days later, Romero aparently said that he was wrong in saying that an explosive must have caused the collapse (according to one of the links someone else posted).

[alittlelark]

31. you should be taken back.....

to that other site........quickly But i won't rat ya!

Incidentally, I'm from NM and Know a Shitload more than you ever will - Daddy's a Nuclear Physicist.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

46. What does

daddy say about the WTC collapses?

[TryAndSee]

91. Why do you think Van Romero retracted his story?

Why do you think Van Romero retracted his story?

Do you think he was threatened?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

119. One reason could be

He was appointed a cushy job in the Bush administration, or perhaps this was his reward for redactation.

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

[westerby]

15. "It is very easy to create a demonstration of this" ???

It might be easy to test the general structure, but not the actual damage done by the planes.

[TryAndSee]

89. Nope: its called "tubular framing"

Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were built using a construction technique called "hollow tube"

Nope: its called "tubular framing" or tube within a tube construction.

The inner tube (central core) being the strongest.

[misanthrope]

10. gravity?...

just a hunch.

[westerby]

12. The gravity remains constant over time...

so it's hard to explain why gravity should change a stable state.

[Dookus]

14. What stable state was there?

The fire was burning, the steel was softening...

The top floors pancaked down on the floors below, and the whole thing came collapsing down.

[westerby]

16. But then the cause is not alone gravity

and a smoldering office fire (much of the fuel burnt outside) softens steel...maby.

Did you read the FEMA or NIST reports? They are more cautious in their judgements than you.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Yes it does remain constant

and no, there was no "stable state", though I'm not entirely sure what you even mean by "stable state". No legitimate scientist or engineer would call the towers, post attack (or any building that's on fire) as "stable state". Being on fire is inherently ipso facto to have ENTIRELY LEFT the realm of "stable state".

[westerby]

24. I will it explain to you:

The reason you give is fire. Not gravity.

And: Being on fire is inherently ipso facto to have ENTIRELY LEFT the realm of "stable state". No. The WTC was designed to withstand fires. So, seen from a macro-level, it is not obvious that a fire has to change the stable state.

[Rabrrrrrr]

25. Yes, it IS to go beyond stable state

Because the fire is adding energy into the system, energy beyond the stable state.

Now, there's always the possibility that the energy from a fire (or from wind) is still within tolerance, but that doesn't mean that it's still within the stable state. Staqble state means the towers standing without any outside energy working in - no fires, no earthquakes, no shaking from the subways underneath, no people walking around, and no wind blowing on the towers. To be within tolerance involves the stable state plus or minus whatever the safety factor, which, of course, included a number of feet of sway to handle the wind, the mass of 100,000 people in the towers, the subways underneath, etc.

But the kind of structural damage done by the airplanes, and from the subsequent jet fuel fires, would, as far as I am concerned, but it well outside the 'stable state' zone.

And you cannot say that the WTC was designed to withstand fires. Nothing can be built to withstand ALL fires. The WTC was designed to withstand only a certain amount of fire. This might seem a minor point, but it isn't - it is a HUGELY sighificant point, especially given the lack of scientific knowledge of the majority of the Ameican people, who will hear "fire proof" and assume that means that no fire, whatsoever, no matter how big, can possibly hurt something. No, it's fireproof to a certain level, and that's it. Nothing is fireproof. Not even a fireproof safe.

[westerby]

29. OK, my use of "stable state" was sloppy

Stable state referred to the state of the WTC where the building remains standing, intact in most of its parts.

Naturally I did not want to say the WTC should withstand all kinds of fires.

As far as I remember from the FEMA report, the damage from the planes was not very severe, this damage alone was not responsible for the collapse. Somewhere you mentioned how explosive the fuel was. Does this remark support your hypothesis? After all, that might be the reason that much of the fuel exploded outside the building -- and thus could not contribute to the fires inside.

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. Obviously, the fuel DID contribute to inside fires

Only because there's no other way that the fires could have started.

But, that said, the truth is that the steel beams, after collapse, were missing their fireproofing. And we know that, according to reports that came out after inspecting the debris, tha tht efireproofing that was sprayed on the beams was not sufficent; and that for the beams that ended up on top of the pile of debris, the fireproofing was entirely gone.

And yeah, a lot of fuel exploded outside the buidings - that's pretty obvious - but the fact is, the buildings were very large width-wise - so consider this: the plane, almost full of fuel, enters one side of the building. Approximately 75 yards later, remnants of the plane exit the building, including a huge-ass fireball. However, there was also a fireball at the ENTRANCE of the planes, so obviously fuel was leaking and spewing on the entire traverse of the planes through the buildings.

Now, I can't tell you how much fuel might have been dropped on the floors - but, I was there, and I know there was flame all OVER, the pictures show shitloads of flames. Eespecially on the north tower (the first one hit) I know there was flame because that the was one I could watch out my office window and I KNOW there was fire constantly coming out on both sides of the building I could see (north side and west side). And not little flames, but quite significant ones.

And based on later evidence, we can say those flames were enough to burn off the fireproofing on the steel beams.

When the south tower came down I was standing nearby, and I *know* the north tower STILL had red flames pouring out of it. Red flames mean oxygen is still pouring in and the flames are burning hella hot.

Like I said before, when the towers fell, I wasn't surprised at all. And I'm one who thinks the Bush family is utterly evil, and that Shrubya is a total piece of shit, and I have no fiath or trust or even respect fot the repukes. I believe they are capable of incredbily heinous evil, and that they HAVE DONE, on many occasions, heinous evil. i also believe very much that ToiletBrain could have stopped the 9-11 attacks but sicne he's a republican, and they only know how to rule (because they believe leadership is about "ruling", not "leading"), but he chose not to stop it, because he and his cabal know, as Reagan showed us, that the quickest way to get the American people to fork over their right s as human beings is to cloack it in bullshit patriotic "gotta protect the homeland" bullshit.

I totally believe that the war criminal Dumbassya "ToiletBrain" Shrubya was complicit in the *effects* of the attacks, but I would bet good money that, while he let it happen, neither he nor Cheney or anyone else inthe cabal had any idea of just how incredibly successful the attacks would be.

And I am VERY CERTAIN that this administration, caught unawares, has been enacting all this bullshit irrelevant "help" in order to protect themselves while simultaneously distancing themselves from their faith communities.

[Trekologer]

28. Designed to withstand fires

Yes, it was. There was sprayed-on fireproofing material on the steel structures in the building. However, much of the UNBURNED remains of the structural steel no longer had the fireproofing material on it, leading investigators to believe that the airplane impact could have blown the fireproofing off.

[HornBuckler]

17. Some GREAT Links

http://www.911uncovered.com/twintowers.html

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

http://www.letsroll911.org/articles/controlleddemolition.html

Check Those Out, And Then See What You Think.

[GarySeven]

19. it IS odd ...

That someone would know EXACTLY what to hit the towers with and exactly WHERE to do so.

It would take someone with extensive experience as a structural engineer.

Osama Bin Laden is, of course, is a structural engineer.


Idiots.

[drdtroit]

21. Why was the NTSB

never allowed to investigate the crash scene? 911 involved aircraft that crashed and that is definitely the domain of the NTSB.

[Rabrrrrrr]

27. Okay, now I'll put on the tinfoil hat

and say that, while I am very very much convinced that the towers fell completely because of the attacks, and not because of demolition explosions, and not because of the "CIA heat ray" that I remember reading about on a number of websites soon after the attacks, I will say this: whatever the hell went on there, there was something that Shrub and his asshole evil clown assmunching pieces of evil filth didn't want exposed. There is an awful lot of suspicious bullshit that went on around ground zero - missing materials, stuff taken immediately to recycling, etc. - but I don't think any of it has anything to do with a conspiracy that involved the government using exposives to bring down the towers.

[GarySeven]

33. If you were a Bruce Willis fan ...

You might remember that a huge gold bullion depository was located underneath located underneath one of the towers. Unlike the movie, though, it was not owned by the federal government but by a group of commercial banks. The 1993 bomb detonated close to the vault, but it withstood the explosion, as did the towers. One source estimates the 1993 value of the gold at one billion dollars, believed to be owned by Kuwaiti interests. Recall also that there were LOOTERS all over the place down there. The gold was feared lost until it was recovered by excavators in late 2001.

Of course, for my money there was no gold at all -- just the Roswell UFO.

[westerby]

41. about tinfoil hats

I would like to stress that I'm not convinced that explosives brought the towers down. I simply don't know, and I still did not read the NIST report.

But what I don't understand is why you so absolutely and vigorously exclude the possibility of government complicity. Don't you think some American groups would plan a plot which involved the killings of other Americans? Or do you think big conspiracies can not work because someone would talk? Or what is your basic assumption, according to which MIHOP is excluded?

[Dookus]

48. this discussion isn't about those things -

it's about whether or not the plane impacts and resulting fires are sufficient to explain the collapse of the towers. We think it is.

[westerby]

52. Yes it is.

When someone definitely explains that he excludes government complicity, the question why he does that is legitimate and part of the discussion.

[GarySeven]

55. Look, no government in history

Could ever perpetrate the vast conspiracies that some people allege. In fact, it can well be logically demonstrated that such conspiracies are impossible. Their own complexity, viz the real-world interconnections of groups and operatives, mean they cannot work.

One government conspiracy that definitely existed was the extermination of Europeans during 1940-1945. It was a vast, government-run program, but although it was kept secret from the majority of people it definitely was not a secret to those who monitor how governments do things. To make their program work, the Nazis had to contract with industrial and banking interests: the same ones that had helped finance and underwrite the militarization of German industry; the same ones who, as a course of their competitive business, had made themselves indispensible to ALL governments, including the U.S. The shifting of financial resources and the letting of contracts to international consortia to enable the Nazi plan was definitely being monitored by several Western governments. Their unwillingness to intervene was due to numerous factors, none the least were a considerable Conservative opposition to interference in foreign affairs.

Granted things are much more sophisticated now, and the moving around of funds to hire people expert in demolition, etc., can be more easily concealed, but that's only to those not in the loop of such things.

Consider the business you are in as the one argument against vast conspiracy theories. In your industry, whatever it is, you know who are the leaders, who are the key players, where the financing comes from, etc. If you made it your business to know, none of these players could perpetrate a large conspiracy -- such as cornering the market in some commodity - without it being quickly detected by you. Whether you would intervene is another issue; it may be that you would choose NOT to, because you could profit by it in some way. In such a case you might be seen as "joining" the conspiracy, and, to outsiders such a thing may look sinister in and of itself.

[Rabrrrrrr]

130. It's really too bad that you don't read things other people say

I exclude the government from a conspiracy of using demolition to bring down the Towers because I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF IT, and because one can come up with a perfefctly plausible, sensible reason for the towers collapsing without having to resort to the inclusion of secretly placed explosives.

If you bothered to read anything, you'd know that, because that's what I've been saying.

[HornBuckler]

53. I Don't Think The Planes Could Do It Alone

The Links In The Original Message And The Links I Provided In Post 17 Should Be Enough To Make You Reconsider. Not Necessarily Change Your Mind (I Know How People Can Be) But At least Reconsider. In My Opinion, It's Damning (Especially The WTC7 And The Seismographic Hits, And Reports Of Explosions From Civilians And Firemen) All Of That And More Are In Links.

[DoyBoy]

54. Those are...

great links. If you haven't already, visit the ones I posed above (#51) they are fantastic!

Cheers!

[HornBuckler]

56. Busy Reading Them Now

I Agree With You Man, The Whole Thing Stinks!

[NecessaryOnslaught]

57. An eyewitness account

"The following is the text from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. He is Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, which is located in New York City. Neil also serves as The Planetary Society's Vice President."

"Upsetting enough, but then...

4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion. A dense, thick dust cloud rises up in its place, which rapidly pours through the warren of streets that cross lower Manhattan."

Upsetting enough, but then...

6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first.

http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advisors/sept11account.html

[westerby]

61. Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/wtc/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,7280472,print.story

By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."

...

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

[TomNickell]

62. ROFLMAO!! Once again.... TWO PLANES AND A FIRE!

What a crock of steaming fresh bullshit.

Actually, it's getting pretty stale and dry.

The physics have been covered much better above than I possibly can. But, consider this question:

What -conceivable- reason would any agency have to carefully plant explosives -and- fly planes into those buildings? In what alternate universe does that make sense?


Jeez.

[westerby]

67. Hello Jeez

Could you, with one example, explain in detail where the above is bullshit? It would help to understand your position.

First I want to stress: I am not convinced of the explosives-theory, but I don't dismiss it outrightly.

It could make sense to plant explosives, if one assumes a MIHOP scenario. I will briefly explain why:

1) As the cautious explanations of both the FEMA and the NIST reports show, the collapse is not trivial to explain, it is not obvious, because neither the planes nor the fires alone are responsible for the collapse. Most of the fuel burnt outside. It could therefore not be taken for granted that the buildings would collapse.

2) However, the collapse of the two towers had an enormous symbolic impact all over the world, it was shown on TV for days in endless loops.

3) So, if one wanted to let the towers collapse for sure, then the explosives would be a guarantee.

[TomNickell]

70. Why's it Bullshit? OK.

First. if you had explosives in the buildings, why bother hitting it with planes? Just detonate the explosives and fly the planes into the Empire State and Statue of Liberty.

Second. Yes, the authors of this plot could not have been certain that the buildings would collapse. But, they could be certain of serious damage and loss of life. Had the planes hit 30 minutes later many more people would have been in the buildings. Installing explosives for a controlled demolition would require specialized expertise, substantial labor and enormous risk. Why take that risk for a modest increment in horror?

Third, The collapse of the towers may not be trivial to explain, but it -has- been explained. Very well. In this thread, even. The legitimate experts are confident that they understand the sequence of events. The contrary 'evidence' seem to depend on the unfounded assertion that the towers -could not- collapse from the planes and fires alone and on photographic evidence that obviously can have many interpretations.

SO, we're asserting a complex and unlikely scenario to explain 'facts' that don't -need- explaining.

BTW, explosives would not -prove- what the Conspiracy Hobbyists believe it would. Well-funded terrorists would have about as much access to the inside of those buildings as CIA agents would. Speaking purely hypothetically.

[westerby]

99. Re.

1) Explained in detail as answer to your post below. Planes contribute much more effective to a powerful visual, staged, TV-optimized attack. And two kinds of attacks (explosives and planes) would have been more complicated to explain. A separate legend would have been necessary how the Arabs could plant the explosives.

2) Like in 1), visual effect.

3) Perhaps it is explained. But my point was: As it is not trivial to explain, it was not sure beforehand to take the collapse for granted.

BTW: You are right that even if there were explosives that would not necessarily include MIHOP. But it would make it much more plausible.

[Make7]

69. The evidence

Quote: The evidence that the World Trade Center towers were demolished is compelling.

Yes, I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that the WTC towers were demolished. They are gone. They were destroyed. The question is: how were they demolished?

Here is the description, from the original post, of the North Tower collapse:

Quote: The first line of explosives detonated across the 98th floor (where the collapse began). The second line of detonations occurred across the 92nd floor (just above the lower red line) with large flashes of hot gas from the explosions, clearly visible. Initially, the second line's detonation is obscured by the dust cloud of the first. However, being much more powerful detonations, the second line's dust cloud quickly bursts into view.

A close look at the video/photos shows that the collapse begins at the 98th floor, then the 99th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 100th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 101th floor collapses onto the 98th, then the 102th floor collapses onto the 98th, etc until the second line of detonations initiates the final collapse. So once again, we have the disintegration of the tower above the impact floors, before the collapse of the tower below the impact floors.

Interestingly, this observation disproves the so called pancake theory, where one floor collapses onto the next lower floor, causing that floor to also collapse (not that the pancake theory made any sense anyway). Here, what we see is 5 or 6 floors in a row, all falling onto the 98th floor, which does not collapse (until the second line of explosives are detonated, taking out its support). The pancake theory would have the 98th floor collapsing onto the 97th, causing that to collapse onto the 96th, causing that to collapse onto the 95th, etc.

Now if I understand this, correct me if I'm wrong, it is saying that the "first line of explosives" at the 98th floor caused the upper portion of the tower to collapse from the bottom towards the top of that section. Then the "second line of explosives" precipitates the final collapse of the building.

Okay, so if the "explosives" cause the upper part of the building to collapse by removing its support from below that section, how does the the rest of the building collapse when "explosives" are detonated near the top of the lower section of the building? Keep in mind that the pancake theory has been disproven. (see bold in preceding quote)

How do they do controlled demolitions of buildings? The ones I've seen always have most of the explosives placed at the bottom of the building to take out the structural supports and let gravity do the work. If you watch the video of the WTC collapse, the collapse does not start from the bottom. In fact, oddly enough, it looks like it starts at the impact area. Weird.

Quote: Since the visible evidence points to only two layers of explosives per tower, one has to conclude that the aircraft were directed to hit particular floors (possibly by homing beacons in the towers).

Possibly? Convincing.

-Make7

[TryAndSee]

71. Make7

Make7 The ones I've seen always have most of the explosives placed at the bottom of the building

The article never said that there were not explosives elsewhere.

[Make7]

85. "...the visible evidence points to only two layers of explosives..."

Quote: The article never said that there were not explosives elsewhere. - TryAndSee



From the article:

Quote: Since the visible evidence points to only two layers of explosives per tower, one has to conclude that the aircraft were directed to hit particular floors (possibly by homing beacons in the towers).

Quote: The first line of explosives detonated across the 98th floor (where the collapse began). The second line of detonations occurred across the 92nd floor...


They didn't explicitly state that there were no other explosives anywhere. But when they went through their explanation of the collapse they did not mention any other areas they thought there were explosives. And since they didn't say that there were explosives anywhere else, I guess I just assumed that they didn't think there were explosives anywhere else. They didn't even say that possibly there were more explosives in other parts of the building. (But obviously nowhere near the homing beacons.)

What I still don't understand is in the original article they try to explain the collapse with explosives only near the top of the building, but say that the pancake theory is not valid. How did everything below the 91st floor collapse?

-Make7

[Rabrrrrrr]

134. Yeah, really weird how they think they've disproved the pancake theory,

but yet, their explosive theory requires that the floors pancake into each other.

But, you know, change the terminology, and I guess you win the argument.

"We aren't saying the pancaked when they came down; we're saying that when they came down they exhibited pancaking-like activities"

[Make7]

167. "...they exhibited pancaking-like activities"

:) :) :) I like that.

How can you win an argument like this? Refute the logic of their case and they just rationalize it with an even bigger conspiracy. (Or just avoid the question altogether.) I guess people will see whatever they want to see. 'The only winning move is not to play.'

-Make7

[Mr.Green93]

72. computer controlled counter-weights

near the top of the buildings were several hundred tons of weights used to control to building's swaying in the wind.......

[TryAndSee]

105. Some buildings have this feature, but not the WTC towers

Some buildings have this feature, but not the WTC towers

[Mr.Green93]

113. Viscoelastic dampers

You are correct. I thought there was a weight system shown in a WTC documentary.

[TryAndSee]

73. SOME MORE GREAT LINKS

LIST OF ARTICLES from members.fortunecity.com/911/

Click here if you have a dialup connection (smaller images, faster downloads).

September the Eleventh 2001.

The World Trade Center.

Evidence of Explosives in the World Trade Center Towers collapse (0.7 MB).
Why did the World Trade Center Towers Fall? A Review of Thomas Eagar's (of MIT) Article (0.7 MB).
Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. A Review of Charles Clifton's Article (0.7 MB).
The Jet Fuel; How hot did it heat the World Trade Center?
Proof the Twin Towers were Deliberately Demolished.
The FEMA Report into the World Trade Center 7 Collapse is a Total Joke.
Multi-Storey Buildings in Steel: The World Trade Center (0.4 MB).
Some Articles from Engineering News Record (0.8 MB).
Comments on the World Trade Center Demolition (0.4 MB).
Microsoft Software used to simulate the crash of a Boeing 747 into the World Trade Center.
University of California, Berkeley Professor, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl Testifies.
The World Trade Center 7 Explosion Myth.
The World Trade Center Towers collapse as an Enormous Insurance Scam.
What went wrong with the investigation? By Eric Hufschmid (with comment).
Sixty State Street and the World Trade Center towers: A Comparison (0.7 MB).
Was Thermite used to Melt Sections of the World Trade Center Core Columns?
Calculations Say at Least 14 Tons of High Explosive Needed to Bring Down Each Tower.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Reports on the World Trade Center disaster.

Table Of Contents for the FEMA World Trade Center Report.
Chapter 1 of the FEMA WTC Report: Introduction (with comment) (0.9 MB).
Chapter 2 of the FEMA WTC Report: The Twin Towers (with comment) (2.2 MB).
Chapter 3 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 3 (0.4 MB).
Chapter 4 of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC 4, 5, and 6 (1.2 MB).
Chapter 5 of the FEMA WTC Report: World Trade Center Seven (with comment) (1.3 MB).
Chapter 6 of the FEMA WTC Report: Bankers Trust Building (0.6 MB).
Chapter 7 of the FEMA WTC Report: Peripheral Buildings (0.8 MB).
Appendix A of the FEMA WTC Report: Overview of Fire Protection in Buildings (0.5 MB).
Appendix B of the FEMA WTC Report: Structural Steel and Steel Connections (0.6 MB).
Appendix D of the FEMA WTC Report: WTC Steel Data Collection (0.8 MB).
The FEMA World Trade Center Collection in PDF-document format.
The FEMA World Trade Center Collection. Alternate location (smaller images, faster downloads).

The Fires.

Research Results from the Cardington Test Fires (text only).
A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction (0.8 MB).
The Behaviour of Multi-storey Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires (1.0 MB).
The Cardington Tests and the Broadgate Fire.
Tapes Tell of Firefighters Courage at WTC.
The Cardington Reports in PDF-document format.

The Pentagon.

A Detailed Analysis of whether or not a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon (1.5 MB).
Photos of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon are a Complete and Utter Fabrication (0.5 MB).
The Pentagon Problem in a Nutshell.
The Bijlmer Crash - Joe Vialls - Caught in a Lie (0.5 MB).
Carol A. Valentine Article Completely Wrong.
The Strange Case of the Sports Utility Vehicle at the Pentagon.
How the Size of the Plane in the "Explosion" Photo was Calculated.
The Essence of the Problem.
Article on the Pentagon Retrofit.

The Response, Or Rather, Lack Of It.

District of Columbia Air National Guard Mission And Vision Statement.
New Jersey Air National Guard Mission Statement.
An example of Air National Guard efficency.
Where was NORAD on September Eleven?

Other.

Urgent message to Ellen Mariani: Get a new lawyer. Fire Philip Berg.
The Most Outrageous Conspiracy Theory Of Them All.
Many 9-11 "Hijackers" are Still Alive and Well.
Evidence that the Arabs are Not to blame for the WTC attack.
Stranger Than Fiction (from www.whatreallyhappened.com).
Collection of Eric Hufschmid's early articles.
Israelis arrested on suspicion of 9-11 involvement.
Sept 11th - Unanswered Questions By MalcontentX (0.3 MB).
Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at the WTC (0.3 MB).
Seismic Observations During the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack (0.5 MB).
Investigation shows Cellphone Calls from 9-11 "Hijacked" Planes are next to Impossible
Benjamin Freedman Predicted the Present Push for WWW III in 1961, prescient eh?

Palestine (Now Known As Israel).

Some Facts About Palestine.
Listing and Map of Land Ownership in Palestine in 1947.
Listing and Map of Towns and Villages Ethnically Cleansed/Destroyed by the Jews.
More on the Towns and Villages Ethnically Cleansed/Destroyed by the Jews (0.5 MB).
Time line of the Israeli aggression against the Palestinians in the 1948 war.
Jewish/Israeli massacres of Palestinians and Jewish Terrorism in general.
Brief articles on the 1948, 1956 and 1967 wars started by Israel.
Brief article on the Israeli attempt to ignite a civil war in Lebanon.
Arafat calls for democratic elections in the United States.
The Amazing Cost of Israel to the United States
America should fight minorities and aliens the way Israel does!
The Day Israel Deliberately Killed 34 American Sailors.
Brief article on Israeli apartheid.
Israel wins Huge Victory.
Is Israel a Democracy?
Some Israeli War Criminals.
Some articles on the War Criminal Sharon.
The War Criminal Sharon. The Long Version.
The Chinese claim California as a Confucian Homeland.
Time to Bomb Israel for its Development and Deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
God gave the Jews New York.
The Genocidal God of the Jews.
Some Zionist Fairy Tales.
Israel mugs the Palestinians.
Muslims base their claim to Palestine on History.
Jewish Terrorism.
Jewish Terrorism targeting the British.
Online Books about Palestine and the Jews.
What you can do if you care.
Jews Attack Christianity.


If you feel like commenting on one of the above articles:

Click here http://vancouver.indymedia.org/comment_latest.php for a list of established threads.
Click here http://vancouver.indymedia.org/publish.php to start your own thread.
No login or registration is necessary.

Alternately, you can venture to one of the following sites, register and join in the discussion.

http://cooperativeresearch.org/phorum5/index.php
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/

Some mirrors of this and the old nerdcities.com/guardian site.

Here are some websites that mirror some or all of the January 2003 edition of the nerdcities.com/guardian site.

http://911review.org/Wget/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/
http://misternet.org/nerdcities/index_guardian.html
http://www.wtc7.net/911research/mirrors/guardian/

Here are some websites that mirror some or all of the September 2003 edition of the nerdcities.com/guardian site.

http://members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/
http://cooperativeresearch.net/phorum5/list.php?3
http://guardian.150m.com
http://guardian.250free.com

[TryAndSee]

90. Great LINKS eh? You guys seen them before?

Great LINKS eh? You guys seen them before?

[geek tragedy]

103. Where did you read about this, the Protocols?

Crawl back under your rock.

[EV1Ltimm]

75. 2 more commercial airliners just plowed into the sides of our credibility.

:eyes:

[westerby]

100. What do you mean?

You would like to censor this kind of discussion?

You could contribute with some arguments.

[EV1Ltimm]

117. i'll stick to smart ass and/or ad hominem contributions.

my disagreement does not entail desire for censorship.

but what arguments can i throw into the mix that hasn't been already done so? heat and gravity?

we sit back and laugh at the freepers occasionally mentioning of black helicopters, outlawing private property, one world government and taking away their guns. What a bunch of loons, right? i think, maybe, they wanted to believe such claims because they despised clinton oh so much.

[leesa]

76. Marvin Bush?

[TomNickell]

83. If you'd planted the explosives, why hit them with planes?

Just detonate the explosives and watch 'em fall.

You could fly the planes into something else.

C'mon guys.


Jeez.

[Make7]

87. The spectacle.

Every news camera in NY was on those towers when they collapsed.

-Make7

[TryAndSee]

88. To frame a bunch of Arabs -- thats why.

If you'd planted the explosives, why hit them with planes?

To frame a bunch of Arabs -- thats why.

[rman]

93. would be kinda suspicious wouldn't it?

the planes provide plausible cause.

[westerby]

97. Because of extreme spectacular visual effects...

The symbolic nature of this crime is obvious.

Technically planes would not have been necessary. Perhaps it would have been even easier and safer to just use explosives. But the visual and symbolic effect (to hit the Americans with their own tools, to make their vulnerability obvious) is much more powerful with the plane kind of attack.

[Zynx]

92. If you know anything about building collapses, you would know that's what

it looks like when a building collapses on top of itself. There is no explosion, but when steel collapses ontop of steel, it creates that effect.

[Neshanic]

102. I am not an engineer, but this always was at the back of my mind

On the many occasions that I went to the WTC, this part amazed me. The buildings were a series of very close steel columns on the perimeter, the windows about 2 feet wide. There was huge uninterupted space between the elevator banks and the windows. When the planes hit, would not the impact area be significantly weaker than the non-impact side at minute one? Then as the heat increases, the inpact point would be hotter than the non impact side.

When the first tower fell, I did think it odd that it "pancaked", and the area above the impact did not fall to one side. Then when the other tower fell, it did the same thing. Then I really thought, how could they both fall so there was not even a tilt on either tower?

I am not a tin-foil guy, but that both fell so there was no tilt whatsoever has always been in the back of my mind. I do not prescibe to any conspiracy, I just have not had it explained to me to completely accept it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

131. Because of the way they were constructed, they couldn't tilt

The outside walls were designed for structural strengh in a vertical vector, not at all for horizontal. So, as we saw with the south tower, when it started to tilot it ended up pancaking because once it starts tilting, and the outer wall begins to be a floor, that wall has to collapse because it has no strength in that direction.

Even if a tower had started to tilt on the tenth floor, it would not have tilted very far before crumbling and falling straight down anyway (though of course it would have fallen somewhat outside the footprint, it owuld not have ended up very far outside).

I hope that makes sense - it's hard to describe the visuals; would be much easier with a black board to explain what I'm talking about.

It sounds counterintuitive, since we tend to think of a building as a solid mass that should, of course, just fall over. But buildings are not solid masses, and especially the Towers, because of the outer frame doing so much of the supporting.

[Endangered Specie]

148. ...

build a sizeable rectangular box out of a couple hundred blocks, then try smacking it 2/3 up, parrallel to the floor, you may strike as hard as you like, but regardless youll notice that the blocks fall down (and they proceed to collaps the rest downward), the only blocks that go outward are the ones you happen to hit.
if you use only say, 20 blocks you might get a tilt or domino effect, but WTC had a good deal more than 20 steel beams. Use 2000 blocks, and youll notice even less tilt and 'offset' from center during collapse.

Buildings to not fall like dominoes like they do in movies...
dominoes are 1 piece, buildings are thousands (millions) of parts.

Even if you arranged it so that one sides beams fail and completly collapses on that side, and the other three are left untouched; indeed the building will begin to tilt at an angle as it falls, but that tilt (inertia) is going to snap the other 3 sides beams like twigs, the beams will be pulled (tension) with the weight of the falling section and the failure of the other 3 sides will be nearly instentanious, then you will have all 4 sides with no support, which results in downward collapse... it will tilt a little, depending, but if you notice, WTC did tilt a little as it collapsed.

[Delano]

118. Because two jumbo jets chock full of fuel crashed into them.

Honestly, don't you guys ever get sick of this stuff?

"They blew them up with explosives!" None of the other 110-story buildings hit by jumbo jets full of fuel EVER collapsed this way in the past!!!!! Oh, wait a minute..."


Look, there may have been a government conspiracy. There is even an infinitesimal chance that explosives were used to ensure the collapse. But I'll guaran-damn-tee you'll never find compelling proof.

If playing "lone gunmen" and making up speculation gets your rocks off, have at it, but there is a conspiracy to destroy this country, and it's going on right out in the open. It's called "Bushnomics" and the "War on Terror" (in English - "Shred the Constitution")

That's where I'd rather focus my energies...

[WoodrowFan]

122. you must be part of the conspiracy!

Oh, wait, I think these people are sick too. I guess I'm part of it as welL! Guess I'll see you at the great government conspiracy ball along with all the thousands of other people it would have taken to make these loony's "theories" a reality.

[Az]

124. Again

Still trying to peddle this tired old story?

Lets go over this again. You fly big jets into big buildings they lose their structural integrity and collapse. The resulting collapse was great enough to cause seismic sensors to register their collapse. This impact plus on going fire damage destabilized the wtc7 and brought about its collapse.

There is no reason to go to the INSANE degree you would have the conspirators go. In fact their aims were met the minute the jets hit the towers. Terror mission accomplished. What is gained by bringing the towers down after this? Its simply not worth the effort and risk involved.

You have 2 jets hitting the towers. Why simply explain why you would need to go beyond this level of destruction?

You are obsessed. This has moved beyond a critical examination of the evidence and has become a serious psychological problem. The amount of work you are putting into this is evidence of an obssesive compulsive disorder. I would seriously consider seeing a professional as this is likely to interfere with your real life. It may even endanger your job and relationships. I say this not out of any malice. It is concern. Go get some help. This is going to hurt you.

[meisje]

125. A little thing called gravity!

get it? good!

[NecessaryOnslaught]

126. Simple explanations

for simple people. As far as I know, every building in the world is designed to withstand one force far more than others, and that force is gravity, get it? 3 steel framed buildings took the path of most resistance on their freefall journey to the ground, get it?

[Rabrrrrrr]

132. Path of most resistance?

What the hell does that mean?

[NecessaryOnslaught]

135. You first

Loved the slinging of the insults in your previous post. Amazing how quickly you evaluate someones knowledge of science and logic. But you never answered the question as to the mechanism which caused the total collapse of both towers in near freefall time while turning 220 acres of office space to dust.

[Rabrrrrrr]

136. That's funny, in a post from last night

I have 16 responses from people who felt I did address it. Some disagreed, many agreed, but they all would, I bet, admit that I answered the question as to the mechanism which caused the total collapse.

And I was very serious when I asked what you mean by "path of most resistance". I truly don't understand what you mean by it. You see, that's why I asked you what you meant. Because I don't understand it. And I want to know.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

139. Very thorough

the mix of GRAVITY and METAL FAILURE are what caused the top of the structurs to begin failing catastrophically. It was the FAILURE of that structure, and the effect of GRAVITY on the MASS as it fell down, and the INCREDIBLE ENERGY released every time one floor slammed into the floor below it, that eventually resulted in the destruction of the structure.

Could you elaborate here? Perimeter columns failed? Truss failure? Core column failure?

Sorry but your explaination is very simplistic for an engineer.

Also, what of wtc 7?

[Rabrrrrrr]

145. Why not answer my question?

I've answered yours.

Of course there was perimiter column failure - planes flew through them and severed them, in some places across numerous floors. And there weas truss failure, and there was core failure. We know planes flew through trusses and the core. But one doesn't need everything to fail - one needs only enough. As the perimiter ones started to fail, the weight had to be redistributed. Eventually, the weight each remaining pieces is asked to carry will exceed the limits, and then boom. Catastrophic failure. Not slow failure, but catastrophic.

WTC7 I have no opinion on, as I've never read much about it, and I don't know a thing about how it was put together. THe NIST report claims that damage to the bottom from the collapsing north tower, and very large open floor spaces in WTC 7, made it very easy for it to collapse. I've also heard about the explosion of fuel in the building, but it seems that theory isn't considered much any more. NIST says that the fuel might have contributed to the collapse, but I have the impression NIST feels the building would have collapsed anyway (based on my reading of their report). Otherwise, I have no idea, since I have very little data, since I've not been interested in that one.

But why not answer my question, which I asked truly because I don't know what you meant, not because I'm trying to be a prick. I seriously don't know what you mean by "path of most resistance". And yet, you refuse to honor a simple request and tell me what you meant.

[mike1963]

138. Oh shit, I am SO TIRED of reading bullshit like this.

(I'm a professonal pilot since 1963 and a graduate Aeronautical engineer since 1964 and know a little about how stuff works)

Why do people clutter up our DU bandwidth with this kind of crap? If someone wanted to blow up (down) the WTC with explosivess, they WOULDN'T NEED THE GODDAMN FUCKING AIRPLANES!!!

What an idiotic goddamn fucking waste of time!
:grr: :grr: :eyes: :grr: :eyes:

[Endangered Specie]

140. This is so easy to debunk...

OK, lets talk a little about how buildings are demolished...
incidentally, buildings are usually designed not to be easily blown up, which is why, if you want to demolish a building with explosives, the process takes a team several weeks to plan, place and wire this stuff.

How do you propose you place and wire explosives in a crowded building, with lots of security, without anyone noticing... surely an office worker or rent-a-cop would notice tons of 'curious' looking stuff attatched to the beams that wasnt there before.

You cant just stick dynamite any old where in a building and hope to collapse it. It has to be placed strategially, which, usually requires tearing away alot of dry-wall concrete and other things in the way to get to the steel beams.

Lastly... does anyone with an IQ > 50 know what happens to explosives of any kind when you expose it to a raging 10 story jet fueled 5+ alarm fire? It probably doesnt sit around waiting to be detonated an hour later, thats for damn sure.

Anyone who believes that WTC was demolished has a considerable lack of critical thinking skills... After having said that anyone who still believes needs a thorough head exam.

[BeFree]

146. Answer this question:

Could explosives have taken the building down?

The answer is: Yes.

In the kind of demolition you suggest, the idea would be for the collapse to not damage any other structures. Well, other structures were damaged, so a quick set-up of explosives obviously were not carefully placed.

In a place like the Towers, crates full of "Furniture" that already had security clearance, could have easily been placed on any floor close to the support posts.

Look at the pics of the explosions noted in the top of this thread and tell me it doesn't look suspicious. I say look at the evidence because it is quite obvious that some of you never have. Your just repeating the same old tired bs.

Ya'll won't even look at the evidence presented, so your opinions are no better than saying go do a cheney. Disgusting.

[Endangered Specie]

150. more debunking...

my responses followed by "---"

Could explosives have taken the building down?
---of course


In the kind of demolition you suggest, the idea would be for the collapse to not damage any other structures. Well, other structures were damaged, so a quick set-up of explosives obviously were not carefully placed.
---You dont know much about demolition, if you dont place explosives right (requiring alot of planning), you very well likely may not bring the structure down.


In a place like the Towers, crates full of "Furniture" that already had security clearance, could have easily been placed on any floor close to the support posts.
--- YOU CANT JUST PUT EXPLOSIVES in couches or any old were, they have to be placed ON (or at least very near)THE BEAMS!!! Even if that did do the trick, the amount of explosives needed would be... a whole helluva lot... Any one going to get suspicious of a couch that weights 1100lbs? And your gonna need a ton of couches too!

Look at the pics of the explosions noted in the top of this thread and tell me it doesn't look suspicious. I say look at the evidence because it is quite obvious that some of you never have. Your just repeating the same old tired bs.
--- That 'belching of fire' if you will, is not suspicious at all... it is easily explainded by the fact, that right as the building falls the amount of open space happens to decrease... expelling the flames outward from the point of collapse, hence, out the gaps where windows used to be. Kinda like a syrange, air (and smoke and flame) act like fluid in that if you compress them one way (falling ceiling), they will expand in the other directions that arent restricted (out the window).

---lastly how do you explain such a large amount of explosives not detonating when being exposed to a full scale fire?

Im curious about your education background. Care to elaborate?

[BeFree]

154. Education?

Obviously better than you....

I didn't say couches, you did. Having worked in a few high-rises, I can tell you that many very heavy pieces of 'Furniture' are moved in and out of offices. Full filing cabinets are one type. Full filing cabinets are very, very heavy.

You wrote: 'expelling flames'.... look again, for the first time. Those are not flames, the exhaust is not even red. It's not black, either. Clouds of dust, I'd say. Dust from an explosion just the same as from many controlled explosions we've all seen.

As too your assertion of a 'full scale fire' not detonating explosives. Maybe that is exactly how they were detonated? The planes hit several floors above, and they knew as soon as the flames reached the expolsives. ...Boom! Could be that the planes missed their marks by several floors and that's why the explosions came so much later?

Try to keep an open mind. Endangered species usually get that way because they can't easily adapt to changes.....

[Endangered Specie]

156. ohhh, nice wisecrak at the end...

you my friend are making me laugh my ass off, bigtime... I aint never laughed at someone this hard since I last listened to a creation evolution debate... thanks for the laughs... I needed it, today was a hard da.

I didn't say couches, you did. Having worked in a few high-rises, I can tell you that many very heavy pieces of 'Furniture' are moved in and out of offices. Full filing cabinets are one type. Full filing cabinets are very, very heavy.
- You dont suppose anyone would open said filing cabinet over the course of a week and notice TNT in there?, yes youcould lock it, but surely someone will want to have it opened to see whats in it, especially if they never saw it before. Ive noticed that locked file cabinets with no key readily available draw attention. Humans are curious creatures. And still, you havent delt with the problem of just throwing explosives any old place.

You wrote: 'expelling flames'.... look again, for the first time. Those are not flames, the exhaust is not even red. It's not black, either. Clouds of dust, I'd say. Dust from an explosion just the same as from many controlled explosions we've all seen.

-clouds of dust, flames, both, same principles apply. Ironic youd say there are no flames expelling outward, youd think a high level explosive detonation would do that?

As too your assertion of a 'full scale fire' not detonating explosives. Maybe that is exactly how they were detonated? The planes hit several floors above, and they knew as soon as the flames reached the expolsives. ...Boom! Could be that the planes missed their marks by several floors and that's why the explosions came so much later?

-my roomate is wondering what Im laughing about. You will go to any length to justify your argument... its what I call the "But!, but!, what about this..." syndrome.
Anyhow... fires tend very much to travel upwards. That is why you put sprinkelers on the ceiling and not the floor ;) and also why you put dorm cafeterias and kitchens on the TOP floor. take two matches, light them at the same time, hold one up and hold one down and see which hand gets burnt first. Should have told the pilots to shoot lower.
Regardless of that, it appears from video, the floors in question were exposed to fire for sometime before collapse (excuse me 'explosion'). And then you need to consider that the explosives would have been exposed to the extreame heat from the fires above.

Try to keep an open mind. Endangered species usually get that way because they can't easily adapt to changes.....
-cute... there is a differece between being open minded and being incredebly niave, or stupid (or both).


FOr your interest I bother to read a few paragraphs from some of your links provided... not swayed so far.

Everytime you have a disaster you always get a bunch of conspiracy nuts who come up with all sorts of mess, its probably a psychological disorder, I suppose you think the gov't killed JFK?

Now, answer me another question? why would anyone bother to put explosives in WTC when you are going to hit it with a plane?

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Endangered Specie]

160. Ad Hominem attacks...

typical creationist tactic. A good sign your opponent is struggling, especially since youve left my questions unanswered.

[Az]

159. Um, you don't just toss a few explosives in and bring the building down

You don't leave them near some pillars. You have to use shaped charges planted directly in the superstructure. A pile of explosives placed near the structure simply will not do it unless it is a tremendous amount of explosives. Far more that would be reasonably left laying around. They most certainly would not have survived the flames or impact of the initial attack.

[ironflange]

147. It wasn't demolished, but it did implode

The towers were designed to go down nice and straight when the time came to remove them. Unfortunately, it came about 100 years early. Sorry, no link, just relying on the memory of a report on the teevee. Makes sense though, and it's better they went that way rather than falling down sideways.

[Endangered Specie]

153. One doesnt usually design a building to fall straight down...

it kinda works that way no matter how you build a building. Gravity does not tilt at an angle.

[Endangered Specie]

151. Ok... has anyone actually thought of this...

Lets assume you have WTC wired properly with enough explosives to bring it down...

I dont know about you... but Ive never seen any demolition explosives that dont go BOOOM!! when exposed to a raging, jet fueled, 6 alarm FIRE storm! that probably raged around 1000-2000 fahr!

According to this gobbledegook... those explosives would have had to stay in said fire for 45-90 minutes!, depending on tower.

Anyone care to debunk that?

[Rabrrrrrr]

161. Not to menting keeping all the det cord from melting

or burning or whatever.

But I could be wrong thing - I thought useful explosives, like C4, won't explode even if burned? believe me, my knowledge of explosives comes from high school hearsay, so I have no real idea, but I thought one of the bitchin' nice things about C4 and some others was that the person carrying it didn't have to worry about an accidental explosion due to dropping, fire, etc.

Do you have any idea?

And I'm assuming that the government wouldn't have loaded the towers with dynamite - seems rather imrpactical, given the low mass/explosive force ration. :shrug: (not that the gov. had any explosives in there at all anyway)

[Endangered Specie]

162. why not just load the planes with explosives?

[Rabrrrrrr]

166. Good point

if the conspracy was so incredibly good that they could get into the WTC days, weeks, maybe years before and load it with a totally undetected 400 tons of explosives, then surely they could just as easily have snuck all those explosives into the airport and loaded them on the plane.

Though as some conspiracy nuts have said, all four hijacked planes actually went to Maine first, where they unloaded their passengers, and put 'em all on Flight 93 with the intent of having the military shoot that plane down over PA. Then the other three planes, being flown via remote control, smashed into the WTC and the Pentagon. Unless you buy into the "no plane at Pentagon, it was a missile shot by an F-16" conspiracy, in which case you have to adjust things a bit.

So, while the planes were in Maine unloading passsengers, surely they could easily have then unloaded all the luggage to free up space for the explosives?

And even if you don't buy into that "they went to maine" conspiracy, if one believes strongly enough that the gov. could have pulled off the entire 9-11 attack scenario AND managed to load up the towers with explosives in the right spots to bring down the towers, then one should be be able easily to believe that they could have loaded the planes with explosives. And given that they would have been able to do that, there's no reason to believe that the Towers had explosives in them.

I guess.

I don't know. Hard to wrap my mind around things that don't make sense. :-)

[stavka]

155. CAN WE MOVE THIS TO THE LOUNGE or some conspiracy list?

makes DU look STUPID.

As somebody who is only twice removed from two victims on the ground and one in the air, this sort of crap is offensive.

The buildings fell because two jet liners hit them, 80% full of fuel, there was no standard fireproofing above the X floor (by constuction standards of the day)

There was no explosive charges laid by the Illuminati...

This event sent the country into an economic tailspin that a war in Afghanistan or Iraq could never make up for.

The basis of the theory is stupid.

[Endangered Specie]

157. probably better in the meeting room.

[TomNickell]

163. Hear! Hear!

Yep, you've got all the points nailed just right.

[TomNickell]

164. ROFLMAO!! Once again.... 163 POSTS AND COUNTING.....

Bullshit never sleeps.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

165. $elling out the investigation

"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

.."Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

..."As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.



http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

[DoyBoy]

168. This is my last post in this thread

I realize those of you who are not skeptics of the official story are not going to be swayed. You can call all of us who are leary of that story as "conspiracy nuts" or "uneducated" or even as being "offensive" for even discussing this matter. The fact remains that the official story DOES NOT account for all of the evidence that is currently available.

We who question do not (as most of you on the other side do) assert that our theories are set in stone truth. We just choose to look for a more ascertainable truth than that being provided. While I agree that many of the "conspiracy theories" are pretty far fetched surrounding this event, some are quite plausable and fit avilable evidence better than the official story. Being that I am an educated person and a skeptic of many things, I shall continue to question until a totally independent investigation proves otherwise.

A few things for you to consider:

A couple people mentioned the seismic data. Here is the chart:



You can see the spikes that occur at the times both towers collapsed. These spikes register 2.1 and 2.3 respectively. These spikes also occur BEFORE any of the debris from the towers hit the ground. They are also many times greater than the readings for the debris actually impacting the ground. Refute the fact that something of major explosive energy (like charges set in the basement where the core columns are coupled to the bedrock) occured at the point of collapse. Explain this away with gravity, jet fuel, a couple planes and a "pancake theory".

Another thing is that some of you have questioned how anyone could have planted said charges in the busy building. Are you aware that a financial analyst that worked in the buildings told People magazine in the weeks before 9-11 there were many unannounced and unusual drills and that in these drills sections of both towers and building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons"? Might have they been planted then?

Call me names all you want. I refuse to buy anything from this administration without full independent explanation (and I do so carefully as there are many loony ideas floating around).

We ask these questions because we care and want justice for those who perished not because we are being disrespectful or are half-baked.