Where Did the Towers Go?

originally posted by: Biigs
Thermite or somthing similar must have been used, steel simply doesnt melt with jet fuel..

Where did you get the silly claim steel melted from?

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: Bedlam
why did the whole building come down and not just the middle section where the plane hit?

What was going to hold the rest of the building up?

Do you even know how it was constructed?

a reply to: hellobruce

The entire building was steel framed and concrete floors.

Concrete doesnt turn to dust after an hour of jet fuel burning on it, nor does steel weaken.

The building has an impact it was designed to take and then some time of burning jet fuel and other such stuff, in the middle of the building. When it came down it came down from the bottom not the middle.

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: hellobruce
When it came down it came down from the bottom not the middle.

You obviously have not even seen a video of it collapsing....



As if you had watched video's of the collapse you would know they collapsed from the plane impact point....

As if you had watched video's of the collapse you would know they collapsed from the plane impact point....

So the top 20 floors was able to completely pulverize the 100 floors below it without ANY resistance from solid steel beams and supports NOT effected or weakened by the fire? Had the top 20 floors collapsed 10 floors then slid off leaving 80 floors still standing, then I would be on your bandwagon, but that didn't happen...sooo either the bottom floors were HELPED or our understanding of science and physics needs a reevaluation, because we are WAY wrong.

Just watch some demolition videos where the explosive charge DIDN'T cut the lower support columns correctly, or the explosive failed to detonate...what happens? An entire building can be held up by a single beam, or that single beam can support the weight and gives RESISTANCE to momentum causing the building to fall in all sorts of funky ways that weren't planned.

originally posted by: IroncladFT

As if you had watched video's of the collapse you would know they collapsed from the plane impact point....

So the top 20 floors was able to completely pulverize the 100 floors below it without ANY resistance from solid steel beams and supports NOT effected or weakened by the fire? Had the top 20 floors collapsed 10 floors then slid off leaving 80 floors still standing, then I would be on your bandwagon, but that didn't happen..

No, basically the top 20 floors demolished 1 floor, then 21 floors demolished 1 floor, then 22 floors demolished 1 floor etc etc. It was a chaotic event.

The crushing weight was getting heavier as it fell down, why do you think suddenly 1 floor would stop 20+ floors falling on it?

a reply to: hellobruce

And if you know anything about general psychics you will know that while thats major weight, you need to initiate some sort of jolt of the weight to initiate a collapse.

Now if there had been some element that explained that, i could believe that 20 floors squashed 20 other floors, just crumbling like a sand castle is just nonsense.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Sorry but only an IDIOT would beleive the BS she comes up with!!!

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: hellobruce

And if you know anything about general psychics

I know that they are all hoaxers!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: hellobruce

And if you know anything about general psychics

I know that they are all hoaxers!

The generals or the psychics?

a reply to: hellobruce

The problem with it being 21 floors smashing the next is that the building was always able to hold up that mass. With ejecta spewing out up to 600ft - the mass is actually becoming less and less and just like any collision; it should have came to a halt. This is like saying that a car (the top 20 floors) of the same densitiy of a passenger limo (the lower 80) would meet in a head on collision and the car would smash all the way through the limo to the very end, leaving nothing but the rear of the limo and everything else destroyed. Most people don't accept this because it's out of the realm of physics. The energies of the cars will displace themselves evenly -- not have the smaller car plow through the larger limo.

a reply to: IroncladFT

Not quite how it worked, aircraft impact caused structural damage sprayed on fire protection was damaged heat from fires weakened the steel, part of the structure failed any mass falling on floor slab could only be resisted by the connections holding that slab their own mass and the DYNAMIC loads generated destroyed the towers.

a reply to: cestrup

NO the floorslabs could fall internally due to the design.

Not quite how it worked, aircraft impact caused structural damage sprayed on fire protection was damaged heat from fires weakened the steel, part of the structure failed any mass falling on floor slab could only be resisted by the connections holding that slab their own mass and the DYNAMIC loads generated destroyed the towers.

man, you should give this info to demolition experts. Why even set all of those charges at the base? Just chop out one floor and let "dynamic loads" do the rest. I take it you think the core of this building was weak. I take it you think that this building wasn't already able to hold the weight (and moreso) of the damaged upper floors. I agree with another poster who stated that if the building started collapse, displaced it's energy, halted and toppled over - like a failed demolition, I'd believe what I witnessed (that explosives etc were not used).

**disclaimer - I don't know what was used or where jets went or any other strawman tactic that may be used against me

a reply to: Biigs

You dont understand the construction or the effect of DYNAMIC loading.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: cestrup

NO the floorslabs could fall internally due to the design.

This falls apart when the floor is dustified - which everyone can see with their own eyes - so what extra mass are you speaking of? The massive dust wave landing on the next floor?? You can't have it both ways, either the floors stay in tact and "pancake" like you'd have us believe or they turned to dust (which everyone sees) and mass is lost tremendously at every collision which would have brought the process to a hault about 70 floors before it did.

a reply to: cestrup
You obviously dont have a clue what do you think the dust was please list what you think the dust cloud comprised of because I need a

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: IroncladFT

As if you had watched video's of the collapse you would know they collapsed from the plane impact point....

So the top 20 floors was able to completely pulverize the 100 floors below it without ANY resistance from solid steel beams and supports NOT effected or weakened by the fire? Had the top 20 floors collapsed 10 floors then slid off leaving 80 floors still standing, then I would be on your bandwagon, but that didn't happen..

No, basically the top 20 floors demolished 1 floor, then 21 floors demolished 1 floor, then 22 floors demolished 1 floor etc etc. It was a chaotic event.


The crushing weight was getting heavier as it fell down, why do you think suddenly 1 floor would stop 20+ floors falling on it?

Sorry but it doesn't work that way. For the building to completely demolish like the towers did the support structures have to be cut. Not to mention a collapse does not pulverize concrete only an explosion can do that.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: cestrup

NO the floorslabs could fall internally due to the design.

Seeing how the towers were designed to survive the impact of a plane larger than the one that hit them then it wasn't designed to fall that way.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I already stated what the dust was. Do you not read what I post? Where was this "pile driver" in the final debris? Or was it such a blend of power and fragility that it crushed the entire building then magically crushed itself on top of the debris?

Maybe you're into the "brand new physics" that NIST speaks of. It's a shame that they could never recreate this with a model or even get steel to weaken using temperatures higher than those that burned at the towers. Maybe then, your one in a zillion model of collapse would make sense. I mean, how many firsts happened on 9/11? Black boxes missing, planes bringing down world-class skyscrapers, fire causing a controlled demo, some of the best manuevers ever performed at low altitude by less than amatuer pilots, box cutters subduing an entire flight, missing film from one of the most guarded buildings in the US, NORAD in Northern Canada not protecting the ****ing capital and country's largest city, being told to "stand down" as a 757 barrels towards who knows what in DC, etc -- I could literally go on forever. But here's patriotic you. You soak in everything they say, and even if it seems a little off, you'll defend it because you're either scared to go against the grain or you're a blind supporter of authority and ridicule anyone who challenges them. You want to laugh at what I think? Go ahead