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

More or less it was like jenga. You pull a block from the top, it's not all going to collapse on itself.

Originally posted by xeuph0r1a



More or less it was like jenga. You pull a block from the top, it's not all going to collapse on itself.

What happens when you ram a Jenga block INTO the blocks? I think it falls down.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by WarminIndy
So someone dictates how much time each falling object has to fall in?

Not someone.

Gravity and physics dictate it.

Fail

You like my sarcastic comeback on the "time allotted"...lol.

I just though it was so funny when the guy said "Time allotted".....

reply to post by xeuph0r1a

More or less it was like jenga. You pull a block from the top, it's not all going to collapse on itself.

What if the external Jenga walls used only vertical Jenga blocks with only thin strips of paper running horizonatlly?

How high could you stack them? 110 blocks high? I don’t think so. Not without lateral support between opposing walls.
Lets put strips of paper on edge between opposing walls and the lay down paper as a floor on top of the ‘edge laid’ papers.

Then...

What happens if a few Jenga blocks land on a Jenga floor that cannot support the weight? And if the Junga floor below is only able to support the same weight as the Jenga floor above?
What would happen if all the Jenga floors can support the exact same weight and that weight is exceeded on floor"x" above?

I suggest to you would have a top down Jenga collapse.

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by conar


So you agree NIST was wrong, and the truth is still out there. Cool, then we are on the same page.
We need to look for explosives and explosive theories though, because WTC 7 went into freefall. So we have to look into all possibilities if we want to follow the scienctific method

Again with the freefall exagerations and lies?...

It has been proven several times the towers did not collapse at freefall...

You should stop with the exagerations and lies...

edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

If they didn't collapse at free fall, then they didn't fully collapse. Now I'm not saying they did fall at free fall. But that's not the point. Some people say they did, and some don't. I don't know.

But here's the trick I see being played. The media has got both sides arguing against each other about things we agree on. That the buildings collapsed. They played a Bugs Bunny on us.

The orig media story was that the buildings pancaked, not collapsed. Now what's the difference?

If it pancaked and each floor landed on top of the other floors while the structure was still intact, then the resistance of the breaking structure of each floor, should have made it fall slower than free fall. If we could actually measure the difference between the two speeds or not, I have no idea.

But the point is, nobody seems to remember, that that was the orig argument. Collapse vs pancake. It's just the truthers used the word demolition in place of collapse. And that's where the problem started.

Originally the truthers said that it fell so fast it must have collapsed structurally and could NOT have pancaked. That's what we were originally arguing about 10 years ago. Somehow the conversation got changed.

Now we're arguing about if they collapsed? But wait, aren't we agreeing? Doesn't that seem odd to argue about something we both agree on? That the buildings collapsed? I know they collapsed. I saw it happen!

What really happened is they changed the story! They change it to MATCH our story, while still telling us we were wrong and everyone fell for it. See the trick?

It was the classic Bugs Bunny switch aroo. And they got the truthers arguing against their own story by changing their story to match ours. So that they too said it collapsed and had structural failure. Now you have two sides both saying it collapsed AND STILL ARGUING ABOUT IT!

edit on 28-9-2011 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

What's funny is how people say the towers and building 7 collapsed at free fall speed. Then the people who believe the official story make an argument about free fall speed. They say, "It wasn't free fall speed". As if that makes the point invalid. When we say the towers collapsed, that means they came down. Pancake, controlled demo, whatever. They are no longer standing. What difference does it make? Free fall speed is the same thing. Who knows how fast? Who cares? The point is the buildings all came down in rapid succession with no resistance, meaning not even a collision between the falling floors and the rest of the building that was still intact and not moving. Once the damaged floors started their descent, the floors below and the rest of the building just gave way even though it was still structurally intact. In the first tower hit. The upper most 16 floors were able to cause the lower 91 floors to collapse??? How can 16 floors make the lower 91 collapse or pancake? The building was already holding up those floor and the 16 floors didn't even have that far to fall but they still made the still intact 91 floors to fall in rapid succession,

*Popular Mechanics debunking article said the plane that hit the first tower hit around floors 92-94. The tower was 110 stories high. So that's where the 16 floors came from. Take a look at a photo of the towers and look at how many floors those 16 made collapse. That in itself doesn't make sense. Then they want us to believe that it happened two more times right there at the same complex on the same day. When the damage was different in all the building and the damaged areas were very different in the twin towers. They want us to believe that fire took down a conventional steel framed building which never happened before in the history of fires in skyscrapers and that one building wasn't like the two towers and wasn't hit by a plane.

How much bull_ _ _ _ do they expect us to believe? Then they want us to believe that a plane crashed into the Pentagon even though there was no debris that would show evidence of a plane crash. The evidence they do show doesn't prove a plane crash.

reply to post by WarminIndy


"If you put a stick through a hot dog it causes a bulge that can been visibly on the outside. And think about what happens if you are driving your car and someone in the back puts their feet into your seat, no matter how much padding, you always feel it. "

The Twin Towers were not hot dogs, nor were they car seats.

____________________________


"Actually the airplanes went into the buildings at a 10 floor height. These airplanes were flying and they went into the buildings the force was not absorbed, the fire was immediate and set the inside of the buildings on fire. That weakened the inside of the buildings. The fire that consumed the floors weakened the internal structure of the building. "


What does "went into the building at a 10 floor height" mean? Of course the airplanes were flying. That's what airplanes do. They fly. The planes went into the buildings. If the force was not absorbed, where did it go? What absorbed it? So obviously, the force was absorbed. The fire would not have weakened the structure of the entire building.

_______________________________

"It is not as though the planes merely smacked the buildings and fell down, they went inside the buildings. They were eventually stopped by the steel beams of the buildings but the fireball explosion caused a sonic wave that pushed the air outward from the source and that created a vacuum momentarily and new air rushed in to feed the fire that got hotter. "

That's right. So then, the buildings absorbed the force of the impact. Where do you get the sonic wave / vacuums/ air rushing in and fires got hotter?

____________________________

"Think about this, all buildings that are brought down through controlled detonation via TNT are ALWAYS done at the lowest levels then placed in higher floors. There were no bomb explosions from the bottom nor in any floor above it. In fact, the only explosion that occurred was at that particular spot where the planes hit. "


When people say that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition, that doesn't mean that it was going to be done by following proper procedures. So what if normal demos go from bottom to the top? This wasn't supposed to look like a controlled demo. But they did, and because it went from top to bottom, unlike a normal demo, doesn't make the possibility invalid. You say "In fact, the only explosion that occurred..." how do you know? That's not "In fact" There was a worker who testified that he was down in the basement and explosions occurred right before the first plane hit. He saw his fellow co-worker burned and his skin falling off of his body. They were down in the garage, not up on floors 92-94 where the plane hit

__________________________________

"In 1998, OBL ordered the WTC to be bombed, the terrorists set bombs in the underground garage. That explosion did not bring down the building, even though that was the intent. There was not enough explosive force. That explosion was absorbed by the ground and the roof of the garage. The WTC was not compact, meaning it was not solid inside. If you ever lived in an apartment building that is created in like manner, there are empty spaces between floors. The walls may be fairly thick, but if the person who lives above you walks heavy or drops something, you hear it. That is sound wave vibration. Now imagine that same vibration during an explosion of a plane full of jet fuel. Sound wave, energy wave and transfer wave all move the internal support. No matter what happens to the outside of the building, it is the internal damage that causes it to fall.

The force on the outside was miniscule compared to the damage on the inside. The building did not absorb the energy and because the buildings were not solid, the energy wave was not absorbed"

"compact" does not mean "not solid inside". How do you know the force on the outside was miniscule? The building absorbed the energy

Originally posted by malachi777
reply to post by esteay812

 

No, as each floor fell, they became like a grinder and quickly turned to dust and rubble on the way down. As the building collapsed, the floor, hitting the floor below it, likely turned to rubble because it stoped suddenly for a fraction of a second etc... When I was a kid, I used to throw dried clay into the air and watch it smack the ground. When it did, it did the same thing.

AS each floor fell they became like a grinder? Says who? I thought they were pancaking? A stack of pancakes does not become a grinder. Do you know how quick a fraction of a second is? If there was even that fraction of a second. The towers collapsed in rapid succession all the way down. There was no resistance from the tower below that was still structurally intact. If you throw dried clay in the air and it hits the ground, the ground provided the resistance that made it break up into rubble. There was none of that resistance at the WTC. Like a house of cards, both towers fell.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

Well, while my head is quite hard the ratio of brick weight to cranial resistance is not indicative of collapsing tower weight to undamaged lower floor resistance.

The ratio I provided is very similar to that of the towers and the weight that collapsed to the floors below. The towers had thousands of tons of debris from the point of impact fall upon the floor below, and the one below, into a pankake effect.

Originally posted by esteay812
I am not claiming they were in complete free fall. That would be impossible, because there was in fact, undamaged levels below the collapse sight. I am claiming that the falling floors would be deviated from the path that they in fact fell in.

In order for the building to fall into it's footprint, there would have to be little to no resistance from the undamaged floors beneath the collapse start point.

That's not so, first the amount of debris falling on the floors below was much greater than any resistance provided by each of the floors below. Second, the towers were made to SWAY with the wind, they were not rigid, which once the collapse started would have facilitated the collapse straight down, and btw, it wasn't exactly straight down.

I find it telling that some members claim "the towers couldn't have collapsed on its own footprint", and then others say "it is not possible for so much debris to have fallen so far away from the towers"...

Which is which?...

edit on 28-9-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

why would the falling debris on the floors below be much greater than any resistance? That doesn't make sense and the "falling debris" would have only fallen to the floor underneath. Why would the fact that the towers "sway with the wind' facilitate the collapse straight down? It was straight enough.

Telling about what? The towers couldn't have collapsed into their own footprints without them being a controlled demolition. Having both towers and another building somehow do that for a total of 3 times makes it so obvious. If one person says one statement and another says the other, they don't necessarily have to support each person's statement. Why are you confused?

Two huge towers hit by one plane each and having the same exact effect, falling directly into their footprint. Yes some times the odds are beaten, some people win the lottery but not twice. What are the odds of having the same result. Two planes, two buildings same result what are the odds of all the ways they could fall in different directions to fall that they fall the same. I would love to see someone try and produce the same effect twice, two planes two buildings and have both fall into their footprint, no explosives.

reply to post by zerimar65


I think that's basically the major point. That originally it couldn't have happened how they said it happened. So, they changed how they said it happened. They changed it to a bottom up collapse of the structure. When their original story was a top down, pancaking collapse. And the two are two different things. And the orig top down version of the story was impossible.

The entire structure from bottom to top had to "give way" all at the same time for the story to make any sense.

Its called a "progressive collapse', not a pancake collapse and it has happened many times......several were caused by fires.....of course, this fact will be ignored.....anyhow, heres a link citing many examples, should anyone actually care to learn about it.......

progressive collapse

reply to post by mileslong54


2 identical buildings with 2 identical planes?.....odds arent that long that they produce 2 identical results really.....

Originally posted by mileslong54
Yes some times the odds are beaten, some people win the lottery but not twice.

edit on 28-9-2011 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)

Wrong, this lady had already won the lottery jackpot 4 times.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by Howakan
Its called a "progressive collapse', not a pancake collapse

And that's my point. Originally it was a pancake. That's what was claimed for a good year after 9/11 by various people. When people pointed out that was impossible and the buildings must have collapsed structurally the story was changed in a deceptive way.

While continuing to call the truthers crazy for calling it a controlled demolition the media at the same time also subtly changed their story to match the truther version of the story. To match that it did in fact collapse.

It's just the media came out and said, no it wasn't controlled demolition. It COLLAPSED some other way. But nobody caught the trick. Originally it hadn't collapsed at all.

But that matter was resolved, the truthers were proven right about the collapse, but since they had their heart set on the controlled demolition theory, they just kept right on arguing even though they had won half the argument.

Now what caused it to collapse? Don't know, couldn't tell ya. I'm not the person to ask. Two planes caused THREE buildings to have complete almost instant structural failure. How that's possible. Don't know. But that's how the story goes.

All that's left now is to argue about what we believe caused that. Which I never wished to get into. All I knew is it collapsed.

The truthers say it was controlled demo, the media says it wasn't, but be on the watch. In the future the media may just change their story to match the conspiracy. It's happened before. And more than once.

Also, for 10 years the media said there were no secondary explosions at ground zero and people that claimed to hear explosions were labelled crazy.

New 9/11 theory

Then they changed their story again to claim that the non-existent explosions were caused by aluminum and water.

Same trick used twice. First they label us crazy, and when they can't deny our version of the story anymore, they change it to agree with us, but just say everything happened for different reasons.

Oh, it didn't collapse. It pancaked! Oh, well, um, okay it collapsed, but it wasn't because of bombs! There were no secondary explosions! There were no bombs! You truthers are crazy! Oh, okay, never mind, I guess there were secondary explosions! But they weren't caused by bombs! They were caused by water and aluminum!

And if the truthers point out that story doesn't add up either, they'll call us crazy again, but then before you know it the media will be saying it was a controlled demolition if it keeps going like this.

Originally posted by Howakan
reply to post by mileslong54

 

2 identical buildings with 2 identical planes?.....odds arent that long that they produce 2 identical results really.....

On a linear plane there would be 360 different angles the buildings could have fallen. We don't live on or in a linear plane so then factor in even more ways the buildings could have fallen and then even at that, part of the building could have fallen one way as part of the building fell another as different parts of the building met resistance hitting other falling parts or stationary parts. There are nearly infinite ways for those buildings to fall without explosives but fell both the same exact way straight down. With calculated demolitions yes the odds aren't that "long" as you put it for both building to fall the same way into the footprint. The statistics favor the explosive demolition side of the story much, much more than two identical non-explosive colapses of two identical buildings. Just because there are two planes and two buildings doesn't mean you'll get identical results unless there was another factor, that factor being controlled explosives.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Care to show those "collapses of SKYSCRAPPERS made similarly as the WTC towerds we DO have precedent for?

I think I clarified well enough that they don't exist, so what we have to work with for precedent is other buildings which tend to act fairly consistently in never falling straight down. Perhaps you can clarify succinctly (or point me in the right direction of this information) how the designs of WTC 1, 2, and 7 made them prone to collapse symmetrically into their footprints as a result of asymmetrical damage, in contrast with all other examples of building collapse we have?

So hearsay is enough to persuade you?

The only things I'm persuaded of is that the collapses don't seem kosher to me and there is a pile of seemingly valid counter arguments on all sides (as well as my own lack of awareness where to look for good information as 9/11 isn't my life), the government presented such an air of guilt about something that the majority of its own commission came out against them after the fact, supposed (and simply GOOFY) evidence turned up in very suspicious and convenient manner, our president and VP refused to testify about the matter under oath or without guidance from the VP, we were carrying out related training exercises the same day, the government won't release what should be mundane videotapes, and a whole host of other nagging red flags. I have no idea what may have in fact happened altogether, but I'd sure like to find out and the government makes the thing STINK for some reason.

But thanks for asking?

Yet we never hear these "silent explosives" as the floors collapse. And btw, if we are going to especulate like that we might as well claim Elvis was in the building and he switched the trigger...

That's just stupid. Everyone knows the aliens took Elvis.

Regardless of the King, however,I wasn't personally in the building, but there are apparently plenty of people that day, and a good number of videos, advising of multiple explosions ongoing for some time. I suppose it's entirely possible the ongoing explosions were taking out key support that eventually led TO an actual gravity-driven collapse into the footprint, which would seem to make a bit more sense on the face of it at that point.

Is it that inconcivable that the plane explosions could have thrown body parts far away from the rubble?

Perhaps not inconceivable, but it certainly doesn't sound likely, offhand. I would have assumed the body parts would all have ended up in the building with the rest of the planes (I suppose I'd have to watch footage of all the impacts, but I don't recall seeing anything blown away from the towers, just the big fuel fireballs. Who knows?).

Every claim made by the 9/11 truthers has been debunked, from the claims of "thermite", including the claim that scientists found thermite showing it was used as explosives is not true.

Is this debunking all centralized somewhere, for ease of access and review? One of the bigger issues I've got is that I don't know where to start, there's about a bajillion websites on it one way or the other, and what bit of work I've put into it up to this point just leaves me with counter-arguments and chasing my blasted tail.

In fact one of the 9/11 truthers wrote up nonsense about thermite being found at the towers which he claimed proved it was used as explosives, yet that 9/11 truther PAID for his paper to be posted in the journal, and it was found that Bentham Open Journal in particular was accepting ANY paper submitted simply to make a profit because whoever submitted the "claims" had to pay for it to be posted.

Well, I'd have to look into that as hadn't heard about this, and devil's advocate as always, that in itself doesn't necessarily make the information untrue.

No explosives, no thermite, only LARGE passenger planes loaded with fuel, and unfortunately with people, and large fires from the jet fuel and the flamable material found in the towers. That plus the shockwaves from the explosions, the rubble that fell on WTC7 which opened a hole which scooped out 25% of WTC7, plus the fires not only from the jet fuel, and the flammable materials, but also from the diesel containers which all the towers had. All of this is what caused the collapses.

I've definitely heard the opinion before, and seen arguments both for and against it. Wouldn't have a problem with collapse in general (or utter gutting by fire, or what have you), but I haven't gotten a good layman's clarification on why we ended up with the types of collapse we did instead of something more like all (granted, not analogous) other examples we have historically, and some of the counter arguments as well as following events keep me unsettled. Eh.

youtu.be...


Um this guy isn't political. He is just a geek. This is a scientist, and you can't find many who will disagree with him. Unless you have this kinda of degree to debate chemistry and FACTS shut up.

Why do people insist it collapsed into it's own footprint? The debris field is clealy larger than the building footprint...

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...

I have to agree with that it was a controlled demolition, ALL 3 of the buildings which are being discussed. WTC 7 is very suspect, and as for the other 2 buildings, something does not seem to add up. I know this post is a waste of time simply because I cannot tell you what the answer is, but something tells me that 2 planes did not cause those buildings to collapse the way they did.

Maybe they knew they could do nothing about the buildings and the explosives were already placed in case of an event like this, Who knows? But seriously though, you would think that somebody who worked there or spent alot of time in those buildings would of noticed these things being installed into the buildings....

You people can sit here argueing all day about this subject, but truthfully where is it going to get any one of you?

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!

This is an example of a complex event being analyzed by non-technical individuals.
First, there are allegations that CGI was used in most if not all of the news clips presented shortly after the impacts occurred. I cannot say whether the event was staged to appear as if planes impacted or not. I will say the case that is made can be pretty convincing if you take the time to watch it and have the understanding of what is being presented. If you are interested I'll provide some links.
Next, when you make a statement like 'a plane going nearly 600 mph' it indicates you have not taken the time to fully investigate the evidence. The planes alleged to have impacted the towers could not be going that fast because the air density at that low elevation would send the planes into uncontrollable vibrations. Look it up.
As for the passengers there are several compelling arguments that question the existence of the alleged hijackers and passengers. It has been reported that as many as 9 of the alleged hijackers have been found alive in various parts of the world. Look it up.
I don't know what the discussion on wind was for but it made no sense.
Malachi, you're fond of falling back on what you claim is 'common sense'. Structural design is not based upon common sense. It is based up math, physics, computer models and assumptions about conditions that a structure will experience. If you want to believe the towers fell as a result of Bin Laden that's your right. You should however, stop trying to justify it with nonsense because that is tip to readers not to take you seriously. You seem to have an interest in this topic and I know there is a mountain of information freely available. You should study it. You may be surprised at what you find.