Where Did the Towers Go?

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: hellobruce

Really? Your tactics are too deliberate. Show me one video of a part of a jet from 9/11/01. They were all over the lawn - now show me.

Pentagon Video

a reply to: wmd_2008

So you send me a video of photos (which came out years later) that doesn't play? I'm talking about news footage that shows the wreckage which should be visible to anyone looking at the lawn that day. And there had to be literally thousands of eyeballs looking. Why is there no footage, posted on 9/11/01 of this wreckage that was so available in photos released years later? Your video, I assume, was a joke because you wouldn't be that daft to post such nonsense, would you?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008


I am glad your official story site was able to find something from one of those towers to spin, its funny they chose to focus on the concrete still standing. Didn't wtc have some concrete in it?

Have YOU bothered to look at the construction of WTC 7 and the Windsor Tower let me do it for you as your lack of construction knowledge shines like a beacon.

The Windsor Tower or Torre Windsor (officially known as Edificio Windsor) was a 32-storey concrete building with a reinforced concrete central core.

A typical floor was two-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the concrete core, internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams and steel perimeter columns.

More info HERE

Was WTC 7 a reinforced concrete framed building NO!

Again the NYFD said the fires burned for 6 hours, the building suffered impact damage at a side and main elevation.

Your building fires had MAJOR STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS that were concrete the steelwork failed on them .

The MAJOR STRUCTURAL components of WTC 1 & 2 & 7 were steel is it starting to sink in yet

a reply to: cestrup

Well I at least got it to play, and it did have a good song to with it, tears for fears, but yes it is mostly the photos that were released years later.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I never said they were designed the same, or that the concrete should have still been standing.
What I asked, Didn't wtc 7 have some concrete in it?
No sure where you get that I am comparing how they are built there.
Simply asking if the building contained similar materials as the other
If the building was just falling due to the one column failing, then would the existing concrete that was not weakened or damaged by the fire, offer some type of resistance to the building falling. If yes, then why did it not?
If no, well why would the concrete not?

Again, the NYFD said it burnt for 6 hours, but most the fires were beyond vision and there was not firefighters in the building since 11. The fires seen at the windows were not the fires that caused what we saw, I am sure you are aware of that.
So how do they know that they burned uncontrollably for 6 hours?
We can see what happened to the madrid tower, it is engulfed, no questioning that.
WTC 7 is not the case.

Perfect storm of fire that causes never seen before thermal expansion that cause the 1 column in the building that if fails will lead to a total destruction of the building, at free fall speed for 2.3 seconds and that landed almost in its own footprint.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008

I never said they were designed the same, or that the concrete should have still been standing.
What I asked, Didn't wtc 7 have some concrete in it?
No sure where you get that I am comparing how they are built there.
Simply asking if the building contained similar materials as the other
If the building was just falling due to the one column failing, then would the existing concrete that was not weakened or damaged by the fire, offer some type of resistance to the building falling. If yes, then why did it not?
If no, well why would the concrete not?

Again, the NYFD said it burnt for 6 hours, but most the fires were beyond vision and there was not firefighters in the building since 11. The fires seen at the windows were not the fires that caused what we saw, I am sure you are aware of that.
So how do they know that they burned uncontrollably for 6 hours?
We can see what happened to the madrid tower, it is engulfed, no questioning that.
WTC 7 is not the case.

Perfect storm of fire that causes never seen before thermal expansion that cause the 1 column in the building that if fails will lead to a total destruction of the building, at free fall speed for 2.3 seconds and that landed almost in its own footprint.

If you are going to COMPARE structures or anything for that matter it's apples with apples I NEVER said that you said the were designed the same BUT the site you linked to does NOT consider the differences.

Using TRUTHER site logic I could enter the car below in the Daytona 500 and win.



After all it's the same a body, 4 wheels, engine and a seat for the driver!!!

The Windsor Tower main structural supports were REINFORCED CONCRETE in the Towers & WTC 7 it was STEEL.

The fireman may not have been in the building but I would hope they would know when a fire is burning!!! they were keeping on eye on it look at previous posts.

I mean truther sites claim that the fires in the Towers were never intense really



There is plenty of documented evidence of the effects of fire on steel including temperature data generated in office fires that's why millions is spent by the construction industry in fire protection.

You have to remember if a component of the structure is weakened that puts more load on other components.

YOU have to consider everything there is experimental data on this I posted links showing that until this event the loadings generated were not closely looked at just to refresh your memory.

Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as an actual load on the structural frame. What are we doing as an industry to allow this to happen? Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for

Care to comment on the italics in the above quote.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Would you care to show us steel trusses that have actually bent or "weakened" due to fire? Because I don't think any other building that is steel-framed has ever collapsed straight down to the ground, like a demolition, ever in the history of everdom. Oh, but 3 do in one day, supposedly. How many steel-framed buildings have burnt for longer than the towers? What was their outcome? And why are you so hell-bent on taking the side of authority? You do realize you could have been duped and lied to, right? There is that possibility. See, myself, I know that I can be wrong. Maybe 9/11 happened just the way they said. But I'm going to need more proof than they've given other than ridiculing anyone who dares to challenge their theories for collapse. When sane people step back and look at the events - it's rather easy to see that they don't add up.

a reply to: wmd_2008
I wouldn't say truther logic dictates that you could take a pinto and win the daytona, but hey I am not one to crush anothers dream.

I think the better comparison would have been that they both burn in up in about the same time since they are both cars.
I know that not to be true, but you can use that next time you try that one.
I understand your point with the windsor tower, but just cause a part of that building failed due to fire, does not disprove the fact that other high rise buildings that were mainly steel have survived fire for longer then the towers on 911.
Care to add any context of that fire that you linked?? It proves nothing without context. How long after the plane crash was it? Was it after jet fuel burned off, which a lot was expended on initial impact, hence the HUGE fireball coming out of the tower, how long did it burn like as pictured for??
It is a very weird angle too.... In most pictures of the impact zone I have seen it is very clear, never having the other tower almost blocking it.
And wtc 7 you can't find any pictures remotely close to the fires that happened in 1 and 2, since it didn't have a plane that hit it. But yet we need to believe that it burnt uncontrollably for hours on end? No one saw that so why do I need to believe that?
You are right that millions are spent on fire protection, again the towers just had renovations done on the floors that were hit to improve the fire proofing. Most likely in response to what you linked.
Not sure if it was you or not, but some one said that the other floors had the insulation knocked lose due to the swaying of the building, IMO that contradicts the fact that millions are getting spent on it if they didn't know a 110 story building is going to sway... So I have a hard time chocking that one down.
Also the build was full of asbestos which in itself is some fire protection
But in that fateful day, those millions were useless as fire caused the perfect storm of events in 3 buildings causing progressive global collapses

You have to remember if a component of the structure is weakened that puts more load on other components.

Yes I understand that you keep saying this, and every time you do I just can't help but think what you are saying is that if 1 floor failed, then it would have caused the global collapse we saw that day. Even without a plane crashing into it. A good earthquake would have caused the same thing it sounds like.

Link me where that came from so I can read it in context please

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: wmd_2008

Would you care to show us steel trusses that have actually bent or "weakened" due to fire? Because I don't think any other building that is steel-framed has ever collapsed straight down to the ground, like a demolition, ever in the history of everdom. Oh, but 3 do in one day, supposedly. How many steel-framed buildings have burnt for longer than the towers? What was their outcome? And why are you so hell-bent on taking the side of authority? You do realize you could have been duped and lied to, right? There is that possibility. See, myself, I know that I can be wrong. Maybe 9/11 happened just the way they said. But I'm going to need more proof than they've given other than ridiculing anyone who dares to challenge their theories for collapse. When sane people step back and look at the events - it's rather easy to see that they don't add up.

Sometimes even timber can survive better than steel in a fire !!!!!!!!!!!!



Why are you so hell bent on BELIEVING conspiracy sites

Have you worked for a structural steel company in the design/drawing office

Have you done 35 years in construction, been in MULTI STOREY buildings as they are constructed, have you seen and tested structural components sometimes to destruction, have you had to test and recommend products used in construction

Apples with Apples have and OTHER buildings that have suffered damage due to fire been of the SAME DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION or received the same structural damage before the fire I will answer that for you NONE of them.

Now for some fire data!!! CARDINGTON FIRE TESTS

Remember at 600c steel has lost 50% of its strength NOW for some fire data.


www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


First column time in mins after fire started other 3 columns temp at different steel members.


21.5 78 365 628
22.0 80 386 654
22.5 83 404 676
23.0 86 420 697
23.5 88 435 716
24.0 90 450 734
24.5 91 466 746
25.0 93 481 764
25.5 95 494 778
26.0 99 505 788
26.5 104 515 795
27.0 108 523 798
27.5 113 529 798
28.0 119 534 798
28.5 124 537 796
29.0 129 542 796
29.5 133 547 796
30.0 138 550 793
30.5 142 553 792
31.0 148 555 789
31.5 153 557 786
32.0 158 558 781
32.5 163 558 775
33.0 168 557 769
33.5 172 556 764
34.0 177 555 758
34.5 181 554 753
35.0 185 552 749
35.5 189 551 744
36.0 192 549 740
36.5 196 548 737
37.0 199 547 734
37.5 202 546 731
38.0 205 545 728
38.5 207 545 726
39.0 209 544 724
39.5 211 544 723
40.0 214 544 721

That is the STEEL temperature!!!!!!

Lets have a look at 798c what strength has the steel left

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: wmd_2008
I wouldn't say truther logic dictates that you could take a pinto and win the daytona, but hey I am not one to crush anothers dream.

I think the better comparison would have been that they both burn in up in about the same time since they are both cars.
I know that not to be true, but you can use that next time you try that one.
I understand your point with the windsor tower, but just cause a part of that building failed due to fire, does not disprove the fact that other high rise buildings that were mainly steel

Please link to the buildings YOU think are mainly steel

a reply to: wmd_2008

Show me the ones in the link that are not, every one I look at seems to say it steel, or steel and concrete. But none of them are concrete reinforced, they are mainly steel structures.
In your construction experience what else do they build high rise skyscrapers out of?
911research.wtc7.net...
Oh the site does mention that the windsor was reinforced concrete

However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires.

911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: wmd_2008

Assistant New York Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before Number Two came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him… I saw a flash-flash-flash, and then it looked like the building came down. … No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how they blow up a building, when it falls down? That’s what I thought I saw.”

www.globalresearch.ca...




But he's probably a liar in your eyes. Why do I claim this? Because you act like you're some sort of expert as to add weight to your ramblings of parroted, official narrative. Like I've stated: we've all read the reports. We just don't believe them because fire cannot bring a building down in the fashion that we all witnessed on 9/11. IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED SINCE STEEL BUILDINGS BEGAN CONSTRUCTION IN THE 1880s. So, was NIST ever able to recreate the sagging trusses? I don't think they were as we all witnessed "brand new physics" according to them on that special day.

The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST’s tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.

I am not talking in this reply about what plane or no plane...thermite or kerosine.. dustified or simple collapse. Just trying to understand why some people refuse to accept foul play. Nothing personal to nobody..

Really, I just do not get it...but willing to do my utmost to understand. You do not have to look very deep into the whole 911 matter to know stuff just does not add up. IMHO there are too many questions and coincidences on that one day and one place.

I have learned that it is very, very .... and let me repeat...very very hard...for many people to believe and finally to accept that public authorities...or better said... people with power in the government do lie to its citizens. The lie is so very big and absurd that there is no way it can be true.

People work, study, busy raising a family and obeying the laws in order to contribute for a peacefull and thriving society. Who would suspect that the foundation everybody believes and relies on has betrayed you and everybody else. It is the feeling of security and trusted state of mind which is violently being disturbed.

I remember that tuesday in september well...I came back from work and heared on the radio that a plane crashed into one of the towers. What an awful accident I did think.... Turned on the TV and witnessed the second plane flying into the other tower. This whole WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 lie feels like as if the government would explain it in a carefully composed report that both crashes were accidents....and the MSM confirms this with no word about a possible terrorist attack. Do you understand what I am trying to say...?

a reply to: Sremmos80



Well let's look at three or their fires.


The Windsor Tower

The building totaled 32 story's, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors.

Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor.

Collapsed Steel

The CONCRETE CORE and CONCRETE FLOORS survived the STEEL WORK FAILED after 2.5 hours!


The Parque Central was a 56 storey government office building in Caracas, Venezuela.

The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep.

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel

The boot-shaped high-rise has an exterior steel framework, much of which will be stripped away and rebuilt, and a concrete interior portion that can be salvaged.

This has NEVER been challeneged (From debunking 911)

The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was

pushed to the outer walls.

A challenge to conspiracy theorist:

1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high

2) Which takes up a whole city block

3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design

4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)

5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.

6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours

7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.

And after all seven tests are met the building didn't fall down.

NO building fire you can link to is the same as the events of 9/11 NONE.

Once again I will show this.

Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as an actual load on the structural frame. What are we doing as an industry to allow this to happen? Seismic design

relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very

simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for

Do YOU actually understand what that paragraph means

Also I NEVER quoted that MILLIONS were spent on fire protection repairs for the towers I said MILLION ARE SPENT by the construction industry on fire protection every year.

a reply to: wmd_2008

So you come up with one more building that was reinforced, not sure why...
Was asking about the list you pulled the windsor building off of, which it said it was reinforced, not trying to trick people about that.
The Bejing hotel didn't show any collapse so of course there was some concrete that was salvageable... what is your point there.

The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set

LOL, Ok... That is why the OEM was there right? Do you think they might have beefed up its load bearing capacity for that?

NO building fire you can link to is the same as the events of 9/11 NONE.

Yes for towers 1 and 2 this cop out works, not for 7
7 didn't take on anything more then every surrounding building, and yet it was the only one that fell.
Yes all the buildings were not carbon copies of wtc 7, that is a pipe dream.
But when you have towers going under similar conditions and not getting even close to the results that 7 had.
Its not like these towers are built with 100% different techniques,I am sure they are not 100% the same, but you can find many similarities.
If you want to hide behind that carbon copy wtc 7 list then go ahead
Oh and it has been challenged, go back to your site and see the little update they have below.

And yes keep linking that one paragraph with no link to the article it comes from, read my response to the last time you asked me to address it. Link me where it comes from so I read the context it is in.

And i know you didn't say millions in regards to WTC, even tho i think that number is probably close to what they spent on their fire protection, just that I was suprised that if millions of dollars are getting spent on fire protection (in general) that buildings could lose insulation due to the swaying of the building...

a reply to: Sremmos80

Actually if you look back to the first time I posted it.

originally posted by: wmd_2008


Another quick quote to SHOW what I was talking about REALLY IMPORTANT PARTS UNDERLINED FOR MEMBERS ON HERE NOT WORKING IN A TECHNICAL BASIS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

Structural engineers do not traditionally consider fire as an actual load on the structural frame. What are we doing as an industry to allow this to happen? Seismic design relies on modelling, risk analysis and changes to the structural stiffness. Wind design relies on additional structural members and wind tunnel tests. Current fire design relies on very simple, single element tests and adding insulating material to the frame. Thermal induced forces are not calculated or designed for

More here if YOU can actually be bothered to read something not from a conspiracy site.

What is structural fire engineering

Oh it's on page 5 of the pdf just in case you have trouble finding it!!!

It hardly needs a context it's a statement of FACT up until 9/11 the thermal loading/stress on a steel frame due to a fire was not calculated as thoroughly as seismic or wind loads on a structure.

You replied to that post so obviously you didn't bother reading the link.

Of course when comparing two situation/ products or senarios you HAVE to look at a like for like situation or what is the point of a comparison.

Where there is smoke .....

Another picture here showing damage to WTC7

SW Corner Damage

a reply to: wmd_2008

I find it hard to believe the construction community and all those architects and engineers didn't think about fire when they built the buildings..
Or how fire reacts to the buildings when it does occur.

Arup Fire’s presentation regarding
tall buildings and the events of 9/11

Seems like this is focused on 911, so in that regard can we use it to any other building? Thought no other building ever can compare to any of the towers on 911?

It is our view that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically
important document for tall building design worldwide.

... So this report takes what NIST had to say as gospel is seems and what they had to say was bunk science lol
No wonder you are all about this.

Sorry, seems like another company paid to further push the story nist wants out there.

Of course when comparing two situation/ products or senarios you HAVE to look at a like for like situation or what is the point of a comparison.

Ya so stop posting these crazy list with crazy guidelines as to what can be compared to the wtc towers

Thanks for the 2 most posted photos ever for wtc 7, well SW corner damage link is dead but I know what you are getting at.

As for the one with smoke, that is not just wtc7.. You do know wtc 5 is right below that right and it was burning and smoking as well right?
Yes some of it is coming from 7, just not all of that smoke. Makes the picture look worse then it really was.

That picture does show evidence of fire, not of fire burning out of control for 6 hours
I bet if you find a picture an hour later form the one you showed, you would not have nearly as much smoke.
I couldn't seem to find a time stamp on it, be interested to find out how long that picture was taken after the collapse of the north tower

a reply to: wmd_2008

Is there any context to those pictures of steel? Lol, what's your deal? This is like the 4th time in this thread where you either post a quote or picture with no context. There's a story behind those beams you posted and I'd like to read it

a reply to: cestrup

Sometimes even timber can survive better than steel in a fire !!!!!!!!!!!!

From that same post, would love to see the context in how that timber was able to survive a fire that deformed steel....

originally posted by: St Udio

originally posted by: Nochzwei
But off course the towers went to the same place as MH 370

Go Figure

the squads or cells of radical Muslim/Islamic pilots....(long since rare) are now on the ascendancy

the airlines & western economies do not want to admit that the pilots of MH370 were zealots intent on taking close to 300
Infidels to their death and the Martyrs to their glory and reward !


perhaps the 911 pilot squads are re-invigorated now... and many more such 'Mystery' flights are to follow #370

Now ... ATS interested members...
mesh together that post of mine - which suggested a resumption of 'cells' to crash planes into buildings/targets
with the 'authorities' discovery investigation(s)... found at this link with very new info:

www.dailymail.co.uk... anifest.html

don't be swayed with the circular logic and round-about disclosure... the fact that new cell groups are intent on seizing commercial/western aircraft is busy being 'spoon-fed' to us all -or- we would all 'storm-the-castles' & throw out the den-of-iniquity which demands that all Muslims are peace-loving & are never radical (decree of the 0bama regime no less)

They ain't gonna say straight out that a group of 100+ radical Muslims are gonna pick-up where the 911 operation left off..
i.e. form some 30-40 2 man cells to commandeer 'western commercial passenger aircrafts'...augment the pilots with a quickly notified 3 person team-of-hijackers...so as to 100% guarantee the seizure of the Jets & to wreak havoc on Targets in the non-Islamic sphere....

(' western chaos' to draw in the return of the Mahdi in the very near future ~less than 12 months~)