Were WTC1, 2 & 7 designed to fall into their own footprints?

A little help please guys. If this has already been explained please point me to the right place! Also, sources please!

1. One of my friends claims that:

"The WTC buildings fell straight down into their footprint because that's the way they were designed."

I know the WTC buildings were designed not to fall over onto other buildings, but should we really expect them to fall perfectly down into their footprints if the damage isn't symmetrical? I don't know - that's why I'm asking. I'd love some real science to back it up.

2. Another claim is that:

"


It's the facade of the southern side of WTC tower 7. I call you're attention to the roughly 10-story tall gash in it. That gash went in about a quarter of the way. This gash destroyed many structural columns that were keeping the building up. Every column was responsible for about 2,000 square ft. of office space. Now, consider that the gash began pretty close to the ground floor. What would this lead to? Taking into account the fact that each column was responsible for many tons of wieght, and that the fires burned at a hot enough temperature to cause the steel to lose close to 50% of its weight, catastrophic failures occured vertically. When it reached the top, this caused a chain reaction that any simple cretin would mistake for a controlled demolition.

The eastern facade was the first to show signs of collapsing. The northern facade came about 8 seconds later.

So, to answer you're question, yes, the video does look like controlled demolition. Is that what it was? No."

It doesn't make sense to me that the entire building would fail and fall perfectly flat at the exact moment when the crack reached the top of the building, like this person claimed. But, how could I back this up?

Thanks millions!!!

I believe you need to do some real research before your thread becomes a mud slinging fest. Your friend is wrong, buildings are “not” design to fall down, they are design to stand up and stay standing through fires, wind, floods, earthquakes ect…

I knew that what he was saying was wrong, but I couldn't find the right explanation for it. Thanks. I'll keep looking.

But if you can give me any links to start I would really appreciate it!!!

Simple answer: No skyscraper, in the history of the world, has fallen before or after 9/11/2001.

There is no reason to design how they fall, as IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

Also, throw in the fact that the impact of the planes *SHOULD* have caused at least the uppermost floors to angle off and free fall on their own, at a different angle than the rest, if it cause the collapse(which it didnt)

reply to post by MeanDirtyKiller

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. 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.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4]
“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.”[5]

Tell your friend that the WTC designers built the WTC to handle multiple airplanes slamming into the towers and they would still be standing.

2001
“Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, ‘I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,’ though does not elaborate further.”[6]
[Leslie Robertson:] “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.”[7]
[Frank A. Demartini:] “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.[8]

www.jonesreport.com...
This is just some proof where leading experts have made statements concerning the WTC constructions, including the WTC designers themselves.

Guys, MANY thanks! I could still use a little help on this "gash" business though. I always thought the official story was fire?

I call you're attention to the roughly 10-story tall gash in it. That gash went in about a quarter of the way. This gash destroyed many structural columns that were keeping the building up. Every column was responsible for about 2,000 square ft. of office space. Now, consider that the gash began pretty close to the ground floor. What would this lead to? Taking into account the fact that each column was responsible for many tons of wieght, and that the fires burned at a hot enough temperature to cause the steel to lose close to 50% of its weight, catastrophic failures occured vertically. When it reached the top, this caused a chain reaction that any simple cretin would mistake for a controlled demolition.

look up the meaning of implosion

The design looks pancake ready.
And easy to take apart floor by floor as well.

The attachment of the floors on the core beams are critical
and seemingly need the outside wall attachments as well.

Very interesting, chop up the core beams and perhaps the
same thing will happen.
So did the fuel weaken all the floor attachments at the core beams.
But what chopped up the core beams.

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Many of the core columns sustained damage from the initial impact -
heavy parts of the aircraft (keel beam, engines, wing spars, landing
gear) smash into the beams. Also found that the fuel, over 9,000 gal,
moving at 500 mph would damage the columns from the momentum
kind of like a jet fuel tsunami

I have a couple questions that came to me in a dream last night...

So Towers 1,2 and 7 were brought down in a controlled demolition...

Towers 1 and 2 are thought to be destroyed by a plane hitting each of them.

Tower 7 is thought to fall down after fire started from the first 2 planes crashing into 1 and 2.

Lets think this through on the "Controlled Demolition" argument.

The people complicit in this conspiracy plant explosives perfectly throughout buildings 1,2 and 7. They then organise for planes to fly into buildings 1 and 2. They use the obvious in your face explosions and damage as a cover to bring down the towers. Controlled demolition using the plane impacts as a cover story.

But what about building 7? How did the leaders of the conspiracy know that that building would catch on fire? How did they know it would be damaged at all?

This raises for me three questions.

1. Were they just lucky? Did they plant thermite charges in that building just in case, and it paid off?

2. Did they hedge their bets? Did they *start* the fires? Were explosives used to make building 7 appear damaged by towers 1 and 2?

3. Did they plant bombs in all the surrounding buildings with the thought that they would bring any of them down that took damage? In other words... were all of the World Trade Centre buildings pre-rigged with explosive charges to be brought down when a convenient cover story popped up?

reply to post by BeneathTheRadar

1. Were they just lucky? Did they plant thermite charges in that building just in case, and it paid off?

2. Did they hedge their bets? Did they *start* the fires? Were explosives used to make building 7 appear damaged by towers 1 and 2?

3. Did they plant bombs in all the surrounding buildings with the thought that they would bring any of them down that took damage? In other words... were all of the World Trade Centre buildings pre-rigged with explosive charges to be brought down when a convenient cover story popped up?

Lets think this through on the "Controlled Demolition" argument.

I agree, let’s think this through…

9/11 Security
Courtesy of Marvin Bush
Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. The company, Burns noted, was backed by KuwAm, a Kuwaiti-American investment firm on whose board Marvin Burns also served. [Utne]
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."
The company lists as government clients "the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S Air force, and the Department of Justice," in projects that "often require state-of-the-art security solutions for classified or high-risk government sites."


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 [September 11]. 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 [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]

whatreallyhappened.com...






[edit on 2-6-2009 by impressme]

I don't think you understood my question