"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Michael Hess yelling from building 7, he was trapped with Barry Jennings on 8th floor



in 2008 shortly before NIST report Michael Hess said the explosion was because of the towers collapsing.
Barry Jennings mysteriously died in 2008.

funny, because on 911 Michael Hess agreeed with Barry Jennings

Michael Hess: We walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion, and we were trapped by an explosion for about an hour an a half.



Barry Jennings


Here is WTC 7 collapsing

One question I haven't yet seen in any threads is this.

"How did they plan on getting the planes out of the 2 towers if the towers hadn't collapsed???"

That would be a rather difficult operation would it not??

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


it looked like a demolition to me

reply to post by conar


Hello. I apolgize for joining the thread so far into debate, but I have question about this stuff myself.

Thw WTC towers did collapse and since then every detail about their history has beeen pulled apart to try and find out the truth, the truth that may be what is offered as the official explanation or the truth that is being hidden from the general society for motives not 100% clear.

My question about the collapse of the building is this;

Since watching the collapse of the towers over and over through the decade the image has become an image burned into myself and others alike. Hearing the many arguments over the way the WTC towers fell into their own footprint has me curious.

Some contend that it couldn't happen for whatever reason and the towers would tip in one direction or another, but not straight down - and if 1 does fall straight down, what are the odds of not only 1 more, but 2 more buildings collapsing into their foundation?

Some have pointed out that the fuel would be spent in a matter of minutes up impact and initial explosion. If the fuel did burn longer it is unlikely it was able to travel down multiple floors and weaken the structure several floors beneath.

It has also been shown that the towers were designed to withstand a collision with a large airliner. There was a comparison showing that the 707 (I believe that is the one they used as a basis for engineering collision safety) and the 747 or 767 would impact the building in a similar manner, because - although one is larger than the other - one of them has higher speed, making up for the loss of weight compared to the other relative airliner.

So, the center column, as well as the building as a whole had aircraft safety measures built into their design.

Now, if a large airliner hits a building like this, if it manages to burn hot enough for long enough, and if the impact damage is severe enough to cause a collapse - how could it manage to fall into it's own footprint? Not 1 time, but essentially 3 times.

If the circumstances were right for the building to buckle because of the impacts and the resulting damage, when the upper levels began collapsing wouldn't this relieve massive amounts of load that the lower level structure had to support? The weight from the falling building was not intact as it was falling and if the debris were to hit a support structure below, wouldn't the losse building debri move pushed out of the way by the incredibly strong support structure of the lower levels, causing the building to fall more to one side or another, but not straight down.

Surely the structural damage 20 floors below the impact sight were not compromised by the initial impact or resulting inferno. With the massive amount of upper level building structure relieved from the lower level floors, wouldn't they be a lot stronger? If the lower levels were strong enough to support the incedible weight of the upper levels, would they be plenty strong enough to with stand a fraction of the weight hitting them?

I believe that the collapsing building would definitely cause damage to the floors below, collapsing many of them. At some point the tower structure at the lower levels would become so rigid from no longer supporting the bulk of the the upper structure. Since they are now so rigid the falling debri should have been nudged in one direction or another, causing the collapsing tower to fall in any direct, except straight down into itself.

How could 3 buildings collapse without experiencing any 'push-off' from the intact lower level floors? The leverage to cause the complete collapse onto itself would be incredibly unlikely in 1 building, but to occur in 3 buildings at the same loaction and in a very close time frame to one another seems absolutely unlikely.

Go outside and grab a 4 ft ;ong dried branch from a tree. Break the branch in half. Now take a piece of it and break that in half. Take yet another piece and break it in half a third time, then a 4th, 5th, etc.

The first couple breaks might be easy, because of the leverage. The shorter it becomes, the harder it is to break, until you reach a point that you can not break it at all without some outside force.

When the towers reached a certain point, wouldn't they too become so rigid that comepletely collapsing the lower levels of the building would become unthinkably difficult?

This is why I believe the towers could not have fallen in the way they did, from the known factors in play that morning, without some unknown variable at play, giving assistance to the lower level collapse.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Oh oh another thread that wants to mislead you to argue about silly conspiracy that shift blame away from the true executors of the 911 mission.

Google Israel 911. Start there.

edit on 26-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Yet another antisemitic answer that wants to encourage you to hate Jews.

If it's so simple, describe it to me. Why could the towers not have fallen that way? Briefly. If it's so obvious it should just take a couple of sentences.

Good job calling people jew haters. First believing an elite group of Israel soldiers called the Mossad helped plant explosives in the wtc complex doesn't make someone antisematic. I don't think Israel would have helped destroy the wtc because they're jewish?

Also about the original post, the path of least resistance. "The path of least resistance describes the physical or metaphorical pathway that provides the least resistance to forward motion by a given object or entity, among a set of alternative paths. The concept is often used to describe why an object or entity takes a given path." Source .

The forward motion in the instance of the towers collapsing is towards Earth. If you've seen the towers collapse before you have noticed that the top section of the tower, where the plane hit and above, begins to tilt at an angle sideways as if it's going to fall off into the street, then suddenly the floors beneath it completely give way in a massive burst of dust and debris causing the top of the tower to follow the new path of least resistance.



Then, after the top section starts falling straight down, it travels at NEAR free fall speed. That means that almost all of the strength of the floors beneath was already gone when the top fell.

reply to post by brinbin


There was probably not much of the planes left, so they would have probably used a Kirby Vacuum cleaner to get them out

When you have a chance, please take the time to watch at least the first 30 minutes of this video.

It's a 5 hour documentary.... much of it is not about 9-11. But in the first 30 minutes they explain many of the details that happened that day. It exposes the many, many inconsistencies with the OS.

Even just the first 10 minutes will perhaps open your eyes to some details that you may not have been aware of before.

reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac


Upon the top of the tower entering free fall, how could the strength of the undamaged floors below lose all of their strength?

Wouldn't they in fact become stronger, since they are no longer supporting the weight of the free falling floors above?

It seems that having their full load bearing strength available, since they aren't supporting many of the upper levels, would allow them to cause the falling floors to topple in a direction other than staight down onto them?

Maybe it wouldn't be strong enough to cause the towers to fall over like standing a baseball bat on end and tipping it over, but surely the unleveraged lower floors would have enough strength to divert the falling upper floors into a path ending outside of the footprint where eventually came to rest.

Originally posted by ka119

I must have missed your facts. Care to post them again?

Scroll back, or is that too complicated for you? You claim to know so much about "simple physics" and mathematics, which you have never proven, yet you don't know how to scroll back in a thread?...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


it is even actually easier than scrolling back to look for your posts. There is an option, found below your avatar, that allows us to see only the posts you made in this thread.

These building fell on their own and that is fact. To say that the collapse from above would eventually slow or stop completely is ridiculous. It has been said that the lower portions of both buildings, 60 stories of building 1 and 40 stories of building 2, remained standing for about 25 seconds after the initial collapse, before they also collapsed.The more concrete, furniture walls, among thousands of other things that hits each floor below, the heavier it becomes for each floor to handle. Once everything settled, the lower portion which was much stronger ,could no longer hold up the weight. I did some reading and listened to recordings of the firemen on that day. They were ordered to pull firemen from building seven because it was leaning. You could also hear fireman telling their captain that there was a 20 story hole all the way to the center of building 7, they saw 30 stories filled with flames and it appeared it was going to collapse. Everyone on site quickly scattered and stood a safe distance from the building. The conspiracy is in your minds. Sorry to be so frank, but your views and belief's are twisted.

Originally posted by brinbin
One question I haven't yet seen in any threads is this.

"How did they plan on getting the planes out of the 2 towers if the towers hadn't collapsed???"

That would be a rather difficult operation would it not??

Nice to see that someone is using their head.

It would be rather difficult, in fact, it would be impossible; which is why they didn't crash any planes into any buildings and instead blew the buildings up to insure their destruction.

Not hard to prove either . . .

They want you to believe an aluminum alloy plane penetrated steel columns with apparently ZERO resistance/compression.

This is physically impossible.

Even if the plane were made out of steel (which it wasn't) you still would have seen the plane compress a little.

Either the building was fake or the plane was.

Not too hard to figure out which wasn't real.

They might have flew planes/UMVs really close to the buildings before detonating the explosives, but they certainly didn't impact the buildings.

The planes in the videos are CGI.

Unlike at the pentagon, I personally don't believe they even used planes in NYC. The respondent conditioning and retroactive interference as a result of the massive amounts of brainwashing that day was more than enough to convince people they saw/would see planes crashing into the buildings.

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by Dystopiaphiliac

 

Upon the top of the tower entering free fall, how could the strength of the undamaged floors below lose all of their strength?

Wouldn't they in fact become stronger, since they are no longer supporting the weight of the free falling floors above?

It seems that having their full load bearing strength available, since they aren't supporting many of the upper levels, would allow them to cause the falling floors to topple in a direction other than staight down onto them?

Maybe it wouldn't be strong enough to cause the towers to fall over like standing a baseball bat on end and tipping it over, but surely the unleveraged lower floors would have enough strength to divert the falling upper floors into a path ending outside of the footprint where eventually came to rest.

*There is a difference between falling over and falling down. If the building is falling down, it is following the laws of physics. It goes straight down. If the outside walls stay in tact, it will fall over. It is simple.

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

it is even actually easier than scrolling back to look for your posts. There is an option, found below your avatar, that allows us to see only the posts you made in this thread.

BOOM headshot

Originally posted by malachi777
It has been said that the lower portions of both buildings, 60 stories of building 1 and 40 stories of building 2, remained standing for about 25 seconds after the initial collapse, before they also collapsed.

Would you mind providing, lets say, a video in wich we can see what you claim here?

Originally posted by malachi777

*There is a difference between falling over and falling down. If the building is falling down, it is following the laws of physics. It goes straight down. If the outside walls stay in tact, it will fall over. It is simple.

Since you dont seem to understand how the towers were built, or any high rise building for that matter, why dont you go educate yourself a bit before making such a retarded statement? Do you know why this buildings "going straight down" through 40+, 2+ inches thick steel core columns, not just makes no sense, but goes against physics?
As said, try to educate yourself before you come here to talk with grownups.

reply to post by JPhish


CGI??? What? Oh my God! I cannot stop laughing. You have thousands upon thousands of witnesses who witnessed planes hitting these buildings, multiple news media video taping and photographers photographing the events. Where are all the passengers? You are nuts! Trust me, a plane going nearly 600 mph can penetrate any glass window. In fact, at 500 miles per hour, can also penetrate concrete. Have you ever seen what a 200mph wind can do to structures? That is wind for God sake! Wind has no physical structure and it knocks down buildings. I am really enjoying this thread because I never dreamed people can be so ignorant. You are just kidding, right? Tell me you are just trying to stir the pot, please? Yeah, you are kidding! You have to be!

Here is a presentation by David Chandler, the man who made NIST admit freefall.

quote David Chandler:
it was a sudden onset, and keep in mind the WTC 7 had the width of a football field, thats a HUGE footprint for a building, and to get the roof line down horizontally as we saw means that ALL of the support across the entire width of the building had to be eliminated within a fraction of a second simultaneously across 8 floors of vertical extend, and I cant find any plausible mechanism beside explosives that can do that

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by JPhish

 

CGI??? What? Oh my God! I cannot stop laughing. You have thousands upon thousands of witnesses who witnessed planes hitting these buildings, multiple news media video taping and photographers photographing the events. Where are all the passengers? You are nuts! Trust me, a plane going nearly 600 mph can penetrate any glass window. In fact, at 500 miles per hour, can also penetrate concrete. Have you ever seen what a 200mph wind can do to structures? That is wind for God sake! Wind has no physical structure and it knocks down buildings. I am really enjoying this thread because I never dreamed people can be so ignorant. You are just kidding, right? Tell me you are just trying to stir the pot, please? Yeah, you are kidding! You have to be!

Please, present your witnesses.

While we wait on your witnesses, i'll present some more facts.

Increasing the speed of an object does not make it invincible.

Here's another physics lesson for you.

If you propel a single brick at a one layer thick brick wall; no matter how fast you propel that brick, the brick will sustain THE SAME amount of damage as the bricks in the wall.

To be more analogous with the trade centers; if the bricks in the wall are staggered and have gaps where some bricks should be, the same rule applies.

The force that the plane hit the building with is EQUAL to the force the building "hit" the plane with.

Your analogy is false, the planes would not have gone through just glass, they would have had to have gone through the steel mesh of the building.

Welcome to reality.

reply to post by Saltarello


*Obviously, you have not read my earlier posts, telling you how this happened. You call me retarded but you lack the intelligence to hit the back button to read my post. I know exactly how these buildings were constructed! In fact, this was one of my projects back in school. It is called egg crate construction where 95% of the buildings were air. Do your homework, after you learn how to read. I will not use the derogatory statement in a way you used it to me......but I will called you special.

Ok, Special one? I need not explain any further, just push that button on the right of the keyboard, it's a button with the word "Backspace", or click on the numbers at the top or bottom of the thread. Use your mouse and I mean the one on your desk, not the one crawling around in your pants.

reply to post by JPhish


You are incorrect again, the greater the velocity, the more damage occurs. Our own military uses kinetic energy weapons that penetrate armor without using an explosive tip. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dummy...... If the plane was as large as the building, it would not penetrate the building as deep as these planes did.