The unexpected fall of the towers: Did you see it coming?

percievedreality, *SNIP*__*SNIP*__*SNIP*

your utter lack of even basic physics and engineering is appalling

__________________________________________________________________________

Moderator Edit-

Please review links for civility in this forum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 13-3-2008 by NGC2736]

I was at work, and could only listen to the events unfold on the radio, so I was not able to see the damage. I can't fully explain why, but yes I thought the buildings would collapse.

Probably because I expected that this was the objective of the terrorists. I did not think they would fall straight down though. In fact, the first picture I had in my mind hearing that the first building had collapsed, was the Tower broken and crumpled but still recognizeable, sprawled out lengthwise across lower Manhattan. I never would have expected one, much less both Towers to fall straight down into their own footprint, knowing the high degree of skill and pre-planning that is required to accomplish such a feat.

Physics proves that the collapse occurred at free-fall velocity, without any resistance whatsoever. Even if the structural failure is explainable, it could not have happened so quickly without intentional exploitation of gravity. The 9/11 Comission report states that the first collapse took only ten seconds. This is about how fast it would take for the top portion of the tower to reach the ground, if it met no resistance, even from the air, in a vaccum.

The second problem with the official version, is that the pools of molten steel have never been explained. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. Steel melts at 2750°F. The NIST report tries to explain away the structural failure as being due to "weakened" steel, and pegs the highest temperature reached that day at 1832°F. They claim that other combusitbles in the building actually burned hotter than jet fuel, which had been spent within the first ten minutes of the impact. So NIST does not even claim that the jet fuel caused the "weakening" or resulting structural failure, but that the "other combustibles" that burned afterward did, after ignition by burning jet fuel.

So, now I ask...

1) What was in the Towers that could burn hotter and longer than jet fuel?
2) How did steel liquify at 1832°F instead of 2750°F?







[edit on 3/12/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by thedman
Its called difference between static and dynamic loads - buildings are
designed to resist static loads, that is non moving forces. Can
demonstrate this by placing heavy weight (brick, bowling ball, etc) on
foot. Comfy? Now pick it up and drop from waist height. Feel the
difference in forces? Now image hundreds of thousands of tons of
building above the failure point falling down. On impact with floor below
will overload the supports and cause it to collapse adding its mass to
the falling mass. Will continue until some force sufficient to resist it -
in this the case the ground.

OK so then explain how WTC 2 did what you describe when that block of floors you think bashed it's way through the path of most resistance was tilting with 'angular momentum' and not sitting true. Angular momentum cannot be changed without an external unbalance force acting on it. Even if the edge of the building that was the pivot point gave way the top should have still continued its angular momentum. There was nothing that could have caused the top to start falling straight down other than the lower undamaged structure gave way. So it is impossible for the top to have done any crushing.

Try your foot apology with 20% of your foot falling on your foot and then you'd be closer to the WTC collapses. That top section wasn't heavier than the rest of the building, and there was no extra weight so there is no way it's doing any crushing of itself.

This is the huge problem with the NIST report. They failed to attempt to explain anything beyond the collapse initiation and then makes the claim global collapse was inevitable. Can you not see absurdity in this claim?
By what standard did they decide global collapse was inevitable. Certainly not from history, and certainly not from science. There is simply no precedence for this type of collapse in a steel framed building.
Even NIST, if you had read it, doesn't support the 'pancake collapse' you are now claiming. It's a huge assumption to think that floors fell on floors, there is no proof of this and it's improbable at best.

It would be VERY easy for you to try to prove your hypothesis. Build a small structure out of anything and try to get it to globally collapse any way you would like, except explosives of course...

When you've done that and you see it's impossible we'll talk some more.

All these silly de-bunker excuses for what doesn't make sense started out as hypothesis but now you guys run around with them like they're actually facts. They're not even theories. When you can test your hypothesis in the lab and can repeat it you'll have a theory. Did you know even NIST couldn't do that, well not without making the figures massively over, kinda like your bowling ball on the foot analogy...

Edit; what do expect with more than one sentence?

[edit on 12/3/2008 by ANOK]

According to a former officer at CIA, who used waterboarding on a top figure of al-Qaeda, OBL didn't even expect the towers to collapse. The thread I am posting is a little old, but the OP is still relevant.

"They didn't think the buildings would collapse..."

Originally posted by jedimiller
Still, I was shocked to see the planes hit the towers. And I thought,


Obiviously, to anyone of any intelligence the way the towers came down depended only on explosives and NOT planes hitting them.

Discuss.

Did I expect it? No. But to say, "Obiviously, to anyone of any intelligence," well that really insults me. I do consider myself fairly intelligent...but intelligent enough to know that I DON'T KNOW enough about skyscraper technology and physics to completely understand what went on that day. I have read considerably much, probably as much as some people on here, and considerably more than most people to know that it could have happened as was said by both sides of this issue.

The towers are not the problem I have with 9/11. My problems deal with the falling of building 7, the pentagon (missile?), and whether or not Flight 93 crashed or landed.

Personally, I say enough with the towers. There is no firm evidence, one way or the other, that will pursade me to believe one way or the other. I am open to anything, but to put it in such a manner quite frankly offends me as a thinking person.

It is NOT obvious to any person what actually happened. If it was, it is my feeling that a more serious roll would be taken by people and certain govermental agencies to find out what happened. Because everything that happened to the towers was possible to make the lie, (if it is one), all too easily believed.

I know you didn't intentionally mean to offend and that you are just really mad like all of us at what happened. So I ask the same of you in regards to me. I just think that we should be more careful in how we state our beliefs.

I have watched films that show small explosives being used in the towers(as in demolition) and then I have seen films that explain it as the pressure of the pancake effect blowing out debris. Which is true? I don't know.

I just wish it was more obvious to a person with normal intelligence what happened...then maybe they either would not have gotten away with it or that it was obvious that it was just two planes hitting the tower etc...

Originally posted by jackinthebox


So, now I ask...

1) What was in the Towers that could burn hotter and longer than jet fuel?
2) How did steel liquify at 1832°F instead of 2750°F?

It was my understanding that it didn't melt. Although it takes a temperture of 2750F to melt steel it takes considerably less to make it bend and be structurally unsound. I thought this was the main reason for the towers collapse.

Can anyone expand on this?

[edit on 13-3-2008 by Alienmojo]

reply to post by Alienmojo

Can anyone expand on this?

Pools of molten steel were still burning at Ground Zero weeks after the collapse. Watch the video I posted above. The lead NIST engineer flat out lies about what is plainly obvious.

Originally posted by Alienmojo
It was my understanding that it didn't melt. Although it takes a temperture of 2750F to melt steel it takes considerably less to make it bend and be structurally unsound. I thought this was the main reason for the towers collapse. Can anyone expand on this?

The problem with that hypothesis is that when metal heats up it will eventually start to sag, bend, it becomes elastic. But what we see is a sudden and instant collapse. It's OK saying, oh well once they got heated up enough the floors gave way. But that would require all the floors to be heated evenly all the way around. Other wise we would have seen local collapses first.

Also it would take far more heat energy than an hours worth of office fires to cause massive steel box columns to globally fail to their basements. You've got fires on maybe 10 floors out of 110 floors, and the heat from that caused the steel to get hot enough all the way down? There's a few reasons that wouldn't happen. The steel would act as a heat sink spreading the heat along it's length thus not allowing the section being heated to get as hot. It takes a very high concentrated temperature to heat up steal enough to be mailable. Temps in the WTC fires would not have been any where near hot enough. Don't believe me go research metal foundries and see what it takes to work metal, especially construction steel.

But then after all that you have the problem of resistance from undamaged building, or lack of it in the collapses. Basic physics shows that just doesn't happen in the real world without help. You also should realise the NIST report failed to explain the actual collapse, they stopped after the initiation and try to convince us global collapse was inevitable. If you believe that then you have a lot of studying to do.

Then there's WTC 2 and the tilting top section that defied physics by stopping its angular momentum, and supposedly decided to go the path of MOST resistance instead. Simply impossible without help from an external force.
Something caused the building under the top section to drop and it wasn't the top section, physics proves it couldn't have been. No one has yet explained either the lack of resistance or the tilt. De-bunkers are convinced it doesn't matter because they've been told once initiated global collapse was inevitable, so they ignore the problems I have pointed out. But anybody who has just a little education can surely see that's just rediculas?

[edit on 13/3/2008 by ANOK]

Also it would take far more heat energy than an hours worth of office fires to cause massive steel box columns to globally fail to their basements. You've got fires on maybe 10 floors out of 110 floors, and the heat from that caused the steel to get hot enough all the way down? There's a few reasons that wouldn't happen. The steel would act as a heat sink spreading the heat along it's length thus not allowing the section being heated to get as hot. It takes a very high concentrated temperature to heat up steal enough to be mailable. Temps in the WTC fires would not have been any where near hot enough. Don't believe me go research metal foundries and see what it takes to work metal, especially construction steel.

Seem to think that steel in entire building has to be heated to fail -
only takes a few key sections to be heated enough to fail and cause
collapse. Steel (iron) is actually fairly poor conductor compared to
copper/aluminium. Heating a section of steel does not mean the entire
piece will heat up evenly. Steel heated to 1000 F loses about 25% of
original strength, over 1200F (melting point aluminium) - 50%. Material
will undergo plastic deformation long before reaches melting point. As
the steel sags and bends stress will be transferred to adjacent pieces.
Floor trusses supporting floors were most vulnerable as truss composed
of small light gauge pieces which heat faster that larger solid pieces.
As truss sagged pulled exterior columns out of alignment until failed at
that point. Once top section of building began to move would crush
structure under it.

""The unexpected fall- of the towers: Did I see it coming ?""


Of course I did. and for 35 years I told people.............

but i am ostrachicized. rejected. grouped with the absurd....


back in 1969, the whole scene -- with the pancaking WTC was told
to a group of 20-somethings, several of whom would become
Intel career people (from New Haven, Conneticut)
choosing either FBI or CIA as their career choice.


but of course, I never really got the exact date of the airplane attacks
, until 1991. When a spontaneous 'epiphany ' hit me
( probably along with a hundred other people)
that the 'New Pearl Harbor' attack would be on 9/11 date...in the future.


Sure---- myself, and an unknown number of others...
were 'clued into' what was to transpire...
in fact i wrote Art Bell in year 2000, at his Pahrump address, laying out the
Arabs, plastic knives, 3 targets using commercial jets as missiles...
and the unexpected collapse of the Rockefeller WTC as the new 'Pearl Harbor' atrocity.


believe-it-or-not

Originally posted by greymeade
percievedreality, *SNIP*__*SNIP*__*SNIP*
your utter lack of even basic physics and engineering is appalling

I return your volley. Same could be said from my point of view of your understanding of physics and engineering. FYI, I was a honor student when it came to physics! Find the reports I speak of, unless you are too lazy. If the latter is true then just zip it! The top 20% of a 1,300 foot tall building failing, is not going to bring the other 80% down with no resistance. Think about it, just for a second, use your brain. It is not possible, we have been lied to and you ate it up. Man, why am I having such a rough go when it is so obvious how easy it is to brainwash people of the impossible. Oh yeah, I have a concience! *SNIP* as you say.

Originally posted by thedman
Seem to think that steel in entire building has to be heated to fail -
only takes a few key sections to be heated enough to fail and cause
collapse.

How do you figure that out, I mean what is it that brings you to that conclusion? What you are saying makes no sense at all. How do know it would only take a few key sections to fail to cause global collapse? What precedence have you got to back up this claim? What do you mean by ‘key sections’? What was a ‘key section’ in the WTC towers?

Steel (iron) is actually fairly poor conductor compared to
copper/aluminium. Heating a section of steel does not mean the entire
piece will heat up evenly. Blah blah blah…

Yeah I know this story well, it’s the one we call the ‘official story’

You, just like NIST, are under the impression that once your collapse initiated global collapse was inevitable? This is just another wild assumption which has no precedence and is highly improbable. It just saved NIST from explaining something they couldn’t, the lack of resistance and the total global collapse from gravity. Impossible! Prove me wrong.
But where it really falls flat is this, AN OFFICE FIRE WILL NOT HEAT STEEL UP ENOUGH TO CAUSE IT FAIL IN AN HOUR. Sry but people keep ignoring this FACT, and without that little lie your ‘official story’ falls flat on its face.

You can test this for yourself you know. Go get some steel and see how much heat you need to make it malleable. You might learn something.

reply to post by thedman

As truss sagged pulled exterior columns out of alignment until failed at that point.

There would have to be uniform and simultaneous failure on all four sides of the building to create the perfectly vertical velocity. If anything was "pulled out of alignment" you would have seen a topple instead of an implosion.

Unexpected? Not to everybody.

Interesting little quote about the World Trade Towers

"if a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down."

Herbert Levine, inventor of spray on wet asbestos fireproofing (of which only one tower had asbestos fireproofing, and then only about half of it was covered).

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Interesting little quote about the World Trade Towers

I'll need a link to a source to get some context around the quote you have posted. Thanks.

Don't forget three buildings fell...

reply to post by jackinthebox


Its a direct quote, in reference to the lack of asbestos fireproofing in over 2/3rds of the Towers. Do a google search, its not hard to find.

reply to post by rizla


Oh, I have not forgotten that three buildings (well actually more like 4 and a half) fell that day. But in the end, you have three buildings, lacking asbestos fireproofing, that suffered massive structural damage and widespread fires before collapsing.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

But in the end, you have three buildings, lacking asbestos fireproofing, that suffered massive structural damage and widespread fires before collapsing.

Were these the only buildings that ever suffered fire damage without being protected by asbestos fireproofing?

No, but the towers are still the only two to have fully fueled airliners crash into them and WTC 7 is still the only high rise to have another high rise crash into it.