9/11 - What has officially been debunked?

Originally posted by Skibum
A skyscraper is not a tree, it does not fall like one. I am inclined to think it would be rather difficult to get one to fall like a tree.

TIMBER ?



It may not be a 'skyscrapper', but it is falling like a tree.Regardless of how it came to fall, it is still doing it in a mannor in which you say it can not.Even if it were a 'skyscrapper' being much talller, imagine then......

Also another image to look at.
We were talking about this massive 20 story hole that nobody saw before.It is being said that it was a factor in making WTC 7 collapse.Well then, if it did, how did IT ( WTC 7 ) fall straight down and this one fall to the side?
** NOTE HOLE IN BOTTOM **



[edit on 22-4-2006 by SMR]

It wouldn't be hard to get a skyscraper to fall like a tree. You blow out the majority of columns on one side of a building, and the building will tilt in that direction because of a lack of resistance to gravity's pull. This is common sense stuff guys.

Btw, with the above in mind, imagine what kind of damage would have to be present to get a building (ie WTC1) to fall straight down right from the start. All the trusses would've had to have failed at the exact same time to achieve that symmetry.

The core (practically a separate structure within the building from the trusses outwards) would've also had to have somehow failed at that exact same instant, or the antennae wouldn't have fallen downward when they did. The truss theory NIST puts forward forgets to even mention this, as expert and world-class as the NIST staff are.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by bsbray11]

I might 'buy' one building falling str8 down due to some strange events, but all them?!

www.physics911.net...

"The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…"

I agree for the most part, with what you all have said. Even if the building was a raging inferno, it still should not have collapsed, especially not in that matter. Demolition teams plan for controlled demolitions MONTHS in advance. They have to rig everything perfectly in order for the building to implode into itself, to make sure the public is safe and the surrounding buildings are not damaged. How this exact effect can be duplicated in less than 8 hours by something like a fire/debris damage is beyond me. They might as well impliment these new methods to future demolitions. It would save them a hell of a lot of time. All they'd have to do is set the thing on fire and wait a few days. Hell, I'd start my own demolition company, and make millions.

"What equipment did you use sir?"

"Oh nothing. Just gasoline and a pack of matches."



[edit on 25-4-2006 by Barcs]

Originally posted by Skibum

All I see are OPINIONS as to how you think the buildings should have fell over like trees. IMO that is garbage. A skyscraper is not a tree, it does not fall like one. I am inclined to think it would be rather difficult to get one to fall like a tree.

Buildings that fall over from earthquakes fall to the side like trees. IMO, WTC7 wouldn't fall like a tree though. I would expect partial collapse, not global demolition style collapse. Partial collapse as in what happened to WTC6. WTC6 had more than half the building gutted (huge open hole) but still stood (at least part of the structure). Buildings are designed to re-distribute loads from failing columns to other columns. Even if there was a hole in the building 20 stories high, I would think that at the most, the top portion above this hole would collapse and re-distribute the now non-existant loads and the rest of the building would stand. Look at other buildings that have been bombed. Like the Murrah Federal building. Almost half of that building was downed by a bomb. Did the rest of the building fall flat into it's footprint? No, it re-distributed the forces until the building was strong enough to stop the fall of the remaining intact building. That is what I would expect to happen with WTC7.

Originally posted by Griff
Buildings that fall over from earthquakes fall to the side like trees.

Buildings built in earthquake zones are built to different standards then buildings built in NYC.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Buildings built in earthquake zones are built to different standards then buildings built in NYC.

Yeah. They're built to higher standards than that in NYC. So, what are you trying to say here? That because they are built to the higher standards, that they are more prone to topple than a lower standard building? Just trying to clarify.

Good observation Griff
We saw many other buidlings that got thrashed from the towers fall and yet there they stood.
Im so sick of hearing, well WTC 7 was different.
Have a look here.Tell me this looks right to you...

Notice all the buidlings NEXT to towers 1 and 2 were PARTIALLY COLLAPSED while WTC 7 fell.Look how far away it is.Does that makes sense to you?
Does WTC 7 look out of place here to anyone? We see the other buidlings with MAJOR DAMAGE yet still stood.Most of THOSE compared to WTC 7 should have fallen, but nope, only WTC 7 with minimal compared to the others.

And........ Buildings built in earthquake zones are built to different standards then buildings built in NYC.
You know this how Howard.That is the most ridiculous statement I have heard yet.

[edit on 25-4-2006 by SMR]

I think one of the first 9/11 conspiracies "The Jews were Warned" and they didnt go to work on 9/11 has been thoroughly debunked.

That one was pretty big after 9/11 Perhaps not in the West but many media sources in other parts of the world ran with it.

Shadow. This is a real question. Has it been debunked that no Israelites were in the WTC buildings when they collapsed? I know the "no jews" has been debunked but specifically people from Israel. Thanks.

Originally posted by Griff
So, what are you trying to say here? That because they are built to the higher standards, that they are more prone to topple than a lower standard building? Just trying to clarify.

They are less prone to progressive collapse. They topple because of foundation issues related to the earthquake.

Buildings in earthquake zones are smaller, shorter, they are built stiffer, with stronger connections. Buildings in NYC do not share these features because they don’t need to.

Originally posted by Griff
Shadow. This is a real question. Has it been debunked that no Israelites were in the WTC buildings when they collapsed? I know the "no jews" has been debunked but specifically people from Israel. Thanks.

Don't forget about the belgians.

How many of them died? HMMM?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Buildings in earthquake zones are smaller, shorter, they are built stiffer, with stronger connections.

Maybe you should come down to San Diego right now and then tell me that.With the new ball park in, they are buidling like crazy downtown and I beg to differ on the 'smaller-shorter' issue
If you like, I head down there every Monday and will take some pictures of downtown San Diego for you.I feel you might retract that statement.And yes, San Diego IS an earthquake zone.

But are they similer strucutres to the WTC towers?

I don't think so.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
They are less prone to progressive collapse. They topple because of foundation issues related to the earthquake.

Do you mean foundation issues like the bottom 20 stories of WTC7? I would believe toppling in this case over global collapse. If the damage and fires were sufficient enough to bring down the building, then the building would have toppled. Wouldn't the spanning trusses on floor # act as a stabalizer to the other columns making the building a bit stiffer and stronger? Hence making it similar?

Buildings in earthquake zones are smaller, shorter, they are built stiffer, with stronger connections. Buildings in NYC do not share these features because they don’t need to.

I agree with you here. That's why my theory is that WTC7 should have only partially collapsed not really toppled. But that's my opinion.

What the hell.............. ? Every building in this entire world is built diffrently from one another.Thats a ridiculous statement to make.
You said they are built smaller and shorter in earthquake areas and I told you that is false.Now you try and backpedal .... come on man.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Don't forget about the belgians.

How many of them died? HMMM?

Thanks, I needed a laugh. How could we have Belgian waffles then?

As far as officially debunked. I would say the whole holigram hitting the towers. Has this been brought up yet?

Buildings are designed to re-distribute loads from failing columns to other columns.

But what you are failing to realize is the architecture and structural designs of the building. You also fail to realize building was damaged during the collapses to the towers.

WT7 had an enormous load transfer system in order to accommodate the CON ED substation.

What this means is that this tranfer system is supporting a great deal of the buildings weight without intermittent supporting columns to assist with the distribution or weight. Without these intermittent culumns to assist redistributing weight if the system fails there is no way to redistribute the weight, because there is nothing to redistribute the weight to.


It is not unreasonable to believe that this transfer system was damaged from the collapse of wtc1 in a way that severely weakened it but allowed it to stand.

Look at the reported damage following the collapse of wtc1.

SW Corner Damage – floors 8 to 18
􀂉 South face damage between two exterior columns - roof level
down 5 to 10 floors, extent not known
􀂉 South Face Damage –
• middle 1/4 -1/3 width south face, 10th floor to ground
• large debris hole near center around 14th floor
• 1/4 width south face, above 5th floor, atrium glass intact
• 8th / 9th floor from inside, visible south wall gone with more
damage to west, 2 elevator cars dislodged into elevator lobby

Much of the damage listed above could have had a great deal of effect on the transfer system.

It may or may not of even needed fire to complete the collapse.

Sometimes all it takes is time.

If the structure of the building is damaged things settle while the buildings weight shifts.

Sometimes all it takes is time for an overloaded beam to bend enough to fail, not all failures happen instantaniously.



IIRC there are reports of the exterior walls buckling well before the collapse, indicatiing that there was plenty of structural movement well before the collapse.

It boils down to a damaged load transfer system between the 5th and seventh floors that holds up a large portion of the building failing, once that happens there isn't anything else holding up that section of the building which is what we see when the penthouse drops. This is significant because as that section falls it is connected to all the other beams, as it falls it creates alot of lateral forces which would damage signifcant portions of the remaining building, damaging connection points which would be critical in supporting the remaining building. Failing to find or keep the equilibrium required to remain standing, the rest of the building falls.

From NIST's photo of the spanning trusses, they are only spanning 2 column rows out of 4. This would only attribute to half of the building falling if they were even damaged in the first place. This is only my opinion. If someone can show me where the trusses spanned the whole building alowing for global collapse then I'll buy that story.

If someone can show me where the trusses spanned the whole building alowing for global collapse then I'll buy that story.

Its not the whole building that is supported by this truss system. It doesn't need to be though.

Think about it.

2 separate collapses happened.

First was a partial collapse where the penthouse collapses into the building, this imo happens when the tranfer system fails 40 floors below leaving those 40 floors unsupported in that area. As that unsupported section of the building collapases it creates lateral forces (think a tight string with a weight in the middle, it pulls at the connection points) causing what hasn't collapsed due to the transfer system failure to be weakened (broken bolts and welds due to being subjected to those lateral forces the connections weren't designed to withstand.
Its not unheard of for severely damaged building to stand for a long period of time before they fail. As newly overstressed support members bend and fail they tranfer weight to other section which may have been damaged by forces from the partial collapse.

Its all interconnected, you can't pull on one section of the building and not have it effect areas not involved in the partial collapse. Especially when it deals with large sections of 40 floors dropping suddenly.