The History of High Rise Collapses

Originally posted by snapperski

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by OnTheFelt

 

Now, to get back on topic, the history of high rises still has nothing to do with the circumstances of 9/11, since no airliner has ever hit a steel tube-in-tube design high-rise before.

yes,3 massive steel framed structures encased in concrete fell at free fall speed,from fire damage....for the first time in history...and both tower one and two,fell exactly the same way,AND then wt7 drops straight down in quite possibly the most blatant demolitions job in history....Hmmmm 3 massive miracles in one day..


can we say the odds of that happening is astronomical.

and i'm still waiting on your opinion why they wont allow a independent international inquiry ??
you always avoid that question,so does weedwacker,and alfie

I honestly don't know anything about even who "they" is when you are referring to an international inquiry. I'm sure it may have something to do with how thoroughly it's already been investigated, however.

As per you other points. They have nothing to do with what happened.Tower 1 and 2 fell the same way because they were both hit by the same kind of plane doing the same thing. The difference is that the plane hit a different area on each, which is why the times varied so much, and why rescue efforts could proceed farther in one tower than in the other. As for WTC 7, if it was a pre-planned demolition, then how did so many people know it was failing structurally for most of the day? Was that just a trick?

Odds do not actually matter when it comes to things happening. The odds of a man winning the lottery are astronomical. How is it possible he won? There was cause and effect on 9/11. Plane = cause. Collapse = effect. With WTC 7, it is Collapse = cause. Collapse = effect.

I have yet to see a controlled demolition that looks like WTC 7. The only way to make it even "seem" similar is to cut out half the collapse video, ignore the lack of squibs and the integrity of the building before-hand, ignore testimony about the damage, and focus only on the building falling. What merit in science is there to looking at only one aspect of an event to determine a cause? You should be looking at everything that happened.

reply to post by okbmd


i ment incased concrete core
..
and as you can see a steel encased concrete core.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2fe41539198.gif[/atsimg]

you can find more info HERE

Might I suggest that these “inconsistencies” the truthers speak of exist only in cyberspace.
Not in the real world data.
Has there been anyone of the commission signers or their investigators come out and say “I’ve changed my mind.”?
Since none of us here have touched the actual evidence we are not in any position to state they are wrong.

reply to post by Varemia

I honestly don't know anything about even who "they" is when you are referring to an international inquiry. I'm sure it may have something to do with how thoroughly it's already been investigated, however.

even the people who wrote the commision report say it's flawed..?? and say they were held back at every turn...so how you come to the conclusion that it was thoroughly investigated is beyond me

As for WTC 7, if it was a pre-planned demolition, then how did so many people know it was failing structurally for most of the day? Was that just a trick?

Varemia you seem a reasonably intelligent person,i don't belive for one minute,that you belive WT7 fell from fire damage.its as plan as day a demolition...and we all seen the vids,and and links already enough times.

Odds do not actually matter when it comes to things happening. The odds of a man winning the lottery are astronomical. How is it possible he won? There was cause and effect on 9/11. Plane = cause. Collapse = effect. With WTC 7, it is Collapse = cause. Collapse = effect.

oh please...the whole universe is made up on the basis of odds...and as you say,the chances of a man winning the lottery is astronomical,my point exactly..thank you,now times that by 3..and the sum is even more astronomical

Varemia why are you so persistent in your attempt to credit the offical story...are you scared about the truth coming out,or subconsciously in denial ,and the reason your here is not to convince us,but to convince yourself.?

Originally posted by snapperski
Varemia you seem a reasonably intelligent person,i don't belive for one minute,that you belive WT7 fell from fire damage.its as plan as day a demolition...and we all seen the vids,and and links already enough times.

I don't think it fell from fire. You're right. I think it fell from fire plus structural damage.

oh please...the whole universe is made up on the basis of odds...and as you say,the chances of a man winning the lottery is astronomical,my point exactly..thank you,now times that by 3..and the sum is even more astronomical

Varemia why are you so persistent in your attempt to credit the offical story...are you scared about the truth coming out,or subconsciously in denial ,and the reason your here is not to convince us,but to convince yourself.?

The odds weren't technically that astronomical. If you think about it, the fact that both towers did collapse because of the airliners is more proof that it was highly likely under those circumstances for that to happen. I recall that none of the reports I've read have said it was a low odds result, just that it was a very unusual and basically new circumstance. In other words, it was a situation that had never happened before in the history of high-rise catastrophe. The third building collapsed entirely differently than the towers, and it did have low odds of collapse, but they still weren't astronomical. The whole building didn't fail at once from fire and damage. Just one point failed. That is readily visible on the outside watching any complete video of the collapse.
You can clearly see one tiny puff of smoke push out when the floor fails at the column. After that, it was a big cave in throughout that portion of the building, pulling down the penthouse. After a few seconds of internal collapse, the rest of the roof caves in toward the now open space of the collapsed interior, and as it falls, the outside supports have nothing to keep them afloat. They buckle where the damage was severe on the lower portion of the building and give the appearance of controlled demolition free-fall, when, in fact, the collapse sequence was nothing like any controlled demolition in history.

I mean, this is stuff I could readily observe by watching the videos. I don't even have to know the math of it. All I hear from truthers is a blanket-term usage of controlled demolitions to explain it away.

Now, I'm not here to credit the OS. I'm honestly here to get the truth to be understood. I have my own questions about 9/11. I often see truthers refer to the truth as their preconceived notions of things. Your truth can't come out if it is not true.

reply to post by snapperski


WRONG !!!!

WTC towers did not have a concrete reinforced core. It was made of 47 steel box beams enclosing stairway,
elevator shafts and utility conduits

Only concrete in the buildings was in the floors, light weight concrete 4 in thick (5 on mechanical floor) over
steel decking

The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate. The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors. The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs. From the 7th floor to the ground level, and down to the foundation, the columns were spaced 10 feet (3 m) apart. All columns were placed on bedrock, which, unlike that in Midtown Manhattan, where the bedrock is shallow, is at 65–85 feet (20–26 m) below the surface.

The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop. The modular pieces were typically 52 inches (1.3 m) deep, and extended for two full floors and half of two more floors. Adjacent modules were bolted together, with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically, so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.

The building's core housed the elevator and utility shafts, restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core of each tower was a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m), and contained 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The columns tapered after the 66th floor, and consisted of welded box-sections at lower floors and rolled wide-flange sections at upper floors. The structural core in 1 WTC was oriented with the long axis east to west, while that of 2 WTC was oriented north to south. All elevators were located in the core. Each building had three stairwells, also in the core, except on the mechanical floors where they were located outside the core.

john skilling was a civil engineer and architect, best known for being the chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center.

well here's what he was saying about the world trade center way back in 1993.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there." Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.
John Skilling
Saturday, February 27, 1993
The Seattle Times

Source

reply to post by thedman

Oxford University in 1992 published this on the WTC concrete cores.

..
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc355ecd999e.jpg[/atsimg]

and as for WT7 not falling in its own footprint...well the picture we can see below is from the WT7 aerial view.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c143c58e5157.jpg[/atsimg]


heres the aerial view of the whole area....
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/da8a1ca4b4cd.jpg[/atsimg]

pictures dont lie...and it sure as hell looks like they fell into there footprints to me...and WT7 is a no brainer...honestly.

I'm not even gonna touch the argument on whether it was a conspiracy or not, I will just say this. As a former Building Inspector for over 10 years, half of that with one of the largest Government Contractors in the world, I can say from demo experience and high rise building experience, the towers were NOT brought down as an " inside job".
The impact alone was so devastating to the structural Kai sons, that when four corners of a building are designed to withstand a structural load, and you remove one corner, the remaining corners are now over loaded. The end result...destruction! Ever play the home game jenga? Same philosophy.
I will say this though, I do have questions on some of the statements within the 9/11 commission report that just don't add up.

reply to post by thedman


Wrong! All buildings must have vertical support. Based on your logic, 4 in thick concrete floors were supported by aluminum ( also known as mechanical duct ways ) throughout the building. Not gonna work scooter~

reply to post by Wrecked


I know

I was responding to the other who claimed that the WTC was built with concrete core. As we know that was
incorrect. I was pointing out that only concrete in building was in the floors which were laid over steel decking
supported by steel trusses fastened to the exterior wall/interior columns by clips bolted to the columns.

Problem was in the steel truss which when heated by the fires began to sag and buckle pulling the floors
down with them. Is old saying in fire service "never trust a truss" based on well known propensity to fail
during a fire.....

reply to post by snapperski


WTC 7 falling in own footprint?

WRONG AGAIN....

WTC 7 slumped to the north - it crossed Barclay St, a 4 lane highway, to smash 30 West Broadway (aka
Fiterman Hall) damaging it so severely the building has to be demolished.



Debris piled against 30 WWest Broadway





Also debris from WTC 7 smashed into Verizon building at 140 West St damaging it severely, only heavy
masonry construction prevented it from also collapsing





WTC 7 did not collapse in its "footprint" - debris from it damaged several other building in area

reply to post by itbenickp

Funny how the 9/11 commision solves the problem of Bldg 7 by not even mentioning it wouldnt want obvious things standing in the way of a good investigation now would we lol.

Ok, I was just telling Impressme about what the 9/11 Commission was about, and how truthers cant even get THAT fact straight, and now, neither can you:

FACT:

The 9/11 Commission Report was done to investigate the events leading up to 9/11/2001. It was to investigate the ommisions, intel failures, interagency fighting and animosity, bungling of intel, witholding intel due to miles and miles of beurocratic red tape hindering any speedy response times, and who was responsible for dropping the ball and screwing up BIG time. It was not, let me repeat this for the 1 BILLIONTH TRILLIONTH time, to investigate how and why the WTC buildings collapsed. That was tasked to FEMA and then NIST. Goodness gracious, at least get ONE fact right. maybe then the truthers will have gained some credibility when they start to get the basic facts right.

Ok, sorry if I sound like a jerk, but who cares? Will a better investigation bring the family I lost in WTC back? No. Will it put an end to the wars that were able to have been started while most people were either panic stricken, or in a blood lust revenge mode? Doubt it. There has been declassified info that proves we went to war and lost many lives due to lies before. There was no real outrage from the general population. If obama and bush were to hold a live press conference tonight stating that the official story of 9/11 was a lie, what do you think would happen? My guess is absolutely nothing of importance will happen. Maybe there will be some pretty decent protests in NY the first few days, but they will be squashed and arrested and made example of as the terrorists they are, and most people would just choose to put their head back in the sand and go about their business.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Maybe there will be some pretty decent protests in NY the first few days, but they will be squashed and arrested and made example of as the terrorists they are, and most people would just choose to put their head back in the sand and go about their business.

edit on 22-10-2010 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

I just got done reading all of the posts since my original. I have seen intelligent reasoning on both sides. I still maintain that i dont agree with the fire/plane hitting the buildings causing the collapse. I find it highly suspect that (i cant remember his fist name, its realy early AM) Bush was a member of the board that did security at the WTC, i find it highly suspect that Bush and Cheney had a closed door, non transcirbed meeting with the 9/11 commision. I find it absurd that even if it WAS terrorists, there was gross incompetence leading up to, during and after by many brances of government that to this day NO ONE has been fired, suspended, or brought up on charges for criminal negligence. But this comment right here sir is the most outrageous thing i have heard so far. "Squashed and arrested and made examples of as the terrorists they are?" WOW. American citizens, exercising thier right to assemble, are terrorists?. W...T....F!?!?!?!? Really???? For protesting? You do realize how much of a tool that just made you sound right? Sorry for the jab but....WOW.

Edit to Add- It was Marvin P Bush that was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. link

reply to post by itbenickp


Funny how, after so many years, truthers are completely ignorant about the charter of the 9/11 Commission. It was not charged with engineering studies.

reply to post by itbenickp


Edit to add...Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company that installed security systems. That company, in no way, shape or form was responsible for the physical security of the WTC.

Additional edit...Marvin Bush left that board in June of 2000. Long before 9/11.

reply to post by thedman

WRONG AGAIN.... WTC 7 slumped to the north - it crossed Barclay St, a 4 lane highway, to smash 30 West Broadway (aka Fiterman Hall) damaging it so severely the building has to be demolished.

so what your saying is the building fell to the side,really ? so the vids we all seen are wrong yeah..do one.

and Barclay St,what sort of argument is that,the building sits on Barclay St,saying it crossed barclay st,well of course it did,that building was massive,what you saying,because it went on to the road,which the building sits on,that it never fell on its own foot print...your doing yourself no favors amigo.

and as for GenRadek comment below.

The 9/11 Commission Report was done to investigate the events leading up to 9/11/2001. It was to investigate the ommisions, intel failures, interagency fighting and animosity, bungling of intel, witholding intel due to miles and miles of beurocratic red tape hindering any speedy response times, and who was responsible for dropping the ball and screwing up BIG time. It was not, let me repeat this for the 1 BILLIONTH TRILLIONTH time, to investigate how and why the WTC buildings collapsed. That was tasked to FEMA and then NIST. Goodness gracious, at least get ONE fact right. maybe then the truthers will have gained some credibility when they start to get the basic facts right.

if this is the case,then why wont they have a full international public inquiry concerning the full events of 9/11

reply to post by snapperski

if this is the case,then why wont they have a full international public inquiry concerning the full events of 9/11

Why? What requires us to have a "full international public inquiry" concerning the events of that day?