It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# How can seemingly intelligent people dismiss the eyewitness accounts of hearing explosives?

page: 9
1
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 11:30 PM

bsbray wrote:

Ok, Newton's first law of motion:

"An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The unbalancing force would be the steel and concrete that the building was collapsing into, providing massive resistance to the falling mass. This would've caused a significant diminishing in terms of the momentum if the buildings were falling via gravity. Will you agree on this?

1. do I agree with newtons law of motion? of course.

2. Do i agree that the momentum/velocity should have diminished becuase it encountered the resistance of the steel and concrete the building was collapsing onto? um, NO! and why I disagree is the focus of this post.

3. and do I agree you did a half-assed job at proving your point? YES

Basically, youve stated Newton's law, which is correct, but your application and interpretation of it is off. Basically what you are saying is: A falling object that encounters resistance in it's fall will always reduce in it's downward velocity; the wtc collapse was a falling object encountering resistance, it should have reduced in downward velocity if it was a gravity driven collaps.

That statement is true in some cases, and false in others. In the case of the WTC collapse, there would have been zero decrease in downward velocity despite encountering resistance from all the concrete etc. Heres where I expose the flaw in your screwy physics. This will be a little long, but bare with me.

Lets say I have a big transparent bucket of honey and a marble. I place the marble in the top of the honey and then let it go. What do you think will happen? Do you think it is going to start moving down and then suddenly start slowing down due to the resistant honey? Nope, that is not what will happen. This is what will happen: Ill place the marble in the top of the honey, then let go. It will start to increase in downward velocity, then it will increase alittle bit more, then it will reach a downward velocity of say 1 inch per second, and will not increase anymore. Once it reaches the downward velocity of 1 inch per second, it WILL NOT SLOW DOWN or SPEED UP despite encountering the resistance of the honey unless acted on by a force outside the system. This is called equilibrium. equilibrium is when all the forces in the system balance out. keep in mind, resistance from the honey isnt the only force at play here.

Think about this, before I let go of the marble, it was standing totally still. It's downward velocity was zero. A moment after I let it go, it was traveling at a downward velocity of 1 inch/sec and it stayed at this speed. This means the marbles downward velocity had increased even in the face of resistance. Also notice that there never was a moment when the marbles velocity was slower than it was at any time before; it never slowed down despite resistance from the thick honey. Now why is it that an object can encounter resistance, yet can actually be increasing in velocity? In this example, in addition to resistance, gravity is also a force at work here in this system. The special thing about gravity is that it is constantly pulling on the object in the downward direction. Basically it's constant ongoing pull is replemishing some of the momentum lost from the resistance. since the constant force in the system is greater than zero, this dictates that the equilibrium point will be at some velocity greater than zero. The equilbirium state in my example here is stable, this means object's velocity's will "attract" to the stable state, which is a constant downward velocity of 1 inch per second.

So what if I throw the marble into the honey at a downward velocity greater than 1 inch per second, like say 3 inches/sec? In this case I actually will observe a drease in downward velocity. But this is only becuase Its initial velocity was greater than the equilibrium velocity. Also remember that the equilibrium point is stable, so this means objects velocities will attract to the stable state. If an object's initial velocity is greater than the equilibrium velocity, its velocity will decrease to approach the equilibrium state. If an object's initial velocity is equal to the equilibrium velocity, its velocity will remain at that velocity untill acted on by a force outside the system. If it is less, it will increase in velocity to approach equilibrium.

Im sure you can see where I am going with this. The honey acts as the resistant concrete and steel below the collapsing building, and the marble represents the collapsing mass. The marble starts at zero velocity, and then increases in downward velocity untill it reaches the equilibrium velocity, and then stays at that downward velocity continuing to fall down towards the bottom of the bucket. The top of the twin towers initially had a zero velocity before the collapse intitiated. Like releasing the marble, the buildings would increase in downward velocity in the face of resistance untill it reaches the equilibrium velocity, and then they would stay at that velocity with a constant downward speed with no slowing down or decrease in downward velocity! as observed in the videos!!! we saw the towers fall with a constant downward speed, no slowing down or retardation. If you dont beleive me about the honey experiment, please try it yourself and prove me wrong. You wont observe any slowing down if you start the marbles initial velocity at zero!

So what about the bases of the twin towers? werent they thicker? yes they were, although no one knows exactly how thick, we only know it was thicker. This could change things only when the collapse reaches the base of the building. When the collapse reaches the bases, it would encounter an increase in resistance, this would push the equilibrium point closer to zero, causing the downward velocity to decrease in order to "attract" to the new equilibrium velocity. There certainly would be a decrease in downward veloicty once it reached the bases of the building, But the big question is would the decrease in downward velocity be visible to the naked eye? It would have to be of a certain thickness to be visible to the naked eye, otherwise the decrease would be infantesimal and difficult to detect. Is this decrease even visible in the videos with all the debris blocking the view of the bottom portions of the tower? Again, weither it would be visible to the naked eye or not would depend on exactly how thick the bases are. Since no one knows the true thickness of the bases, no one can come out and say with certainty "The building's downward velocity should have retarted once it got to the bases of the building if it were gravity driven, and we dont see this.." So since no one knows, how can anyone say with certainty "We should have seen retardation in the collapse once it hit the bases, we didnt, so this is proof of fowlplay!". As if you know with certainty.

Bsbray, theres no way you could prove that the downward velocity would decrease as the building fell from the top and middle.Impossible! a falling object in the face of constant resistance that starts with an intial velocity of zero DOES NOT SLOW DOWN! youd be defying physics. And the core doesnt get thick until you get to the base, you couldnt prove with certainty weither or not we would observe retardation when the collapse reached the base.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by bob2000]

[edit on 26-9-2005 by bob2000]

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:43 AM
Bob,

First of all, thanks for your thought-out response. Also, WCIP has offered some figures on specific column sizes in his last post on this thread, which were taken from the NIST report, if those would be of any interest to you.

Let me start off by agreeing that your honey and marble example illustrates a legit concept to take into account here.

However, you also make some assumptions for your explanation to work. Those assumptions are:

A) The amount of force driving the collapse remained constant (though we know that this was not the case).

B) By the time the WTC towers were collapsing at 6.4 floors per second (76.8 feet per second), they were not already collapsing at their maximum velocity, but still had room to gather further speed if the strength of the beams, concrete, etc. remained constant.

C) That any further increase in the velocity of the collapses could occur in spite of the resistance after the collapse initiations.

In regards to A,

It's pretty well-known that most of the WTC's debris was ejected outside of its footprint during collapse. Simply watching a video of one of the collapses will clearly show huge amounts of debris being blown outside of the footprint of the building, though still with a center of gravity within the frootprint. This is clear evidence that the material allegedly driving the collapse was being utterly destroyed at a very rapid rate. I would think it pretty safe to say that the driving force was rapidly losing mass as the collapse progressed further and further.

Example of the plunger being rapidly disintegrated:

And here:

In short, it's obvious that there was not a constant application of weight to drive the collapses. Of course the weight of the plungers and the amount of force they applied diminished as rapidly as the plungers themselves. This rapid weakening of the driving force, coupled with the descent into thicker columns, should be enough to more than compromise any potential that was left for further increases in velocity.

In relation to your marble and honey example, the marble would be descending into more dense honey while it itself was quickly losing mass, and you would expect it to still gain speed.

In regards to B,

Take into consideration here that the towers were already falling at a rate comparable to the rate of free fall in a vacuum. As you can see in some video clips shot from below the collapse, such as this one or this one, debris free-falling next to the towers is falling at speeds comparable with the actual collapsing region. What this would suggest, if the gravity theory is true, is that steel and concrete provided hardly any more resistance to the rapidly disintegrating plunger than air provided the falling debris.

In regards to C,

Here, I am basically pointing out that you are assuming that the resistance provided by the concrete and steel would be little enough to allow the collapses to actually reach the velocities that they did in the first place. That is to say, velocities of at least 76.8 feet per second, or 6.4 12-foot floors in 1 second, while both resisting thicker and thicker columns with a plunger of less and less weight.

I'm really tired, so for now, I'll leave it to a matter of opinion as to whether or not you think the disintegration of the plunger would compromise the potential for an increase in velocity, which you argue would've compromised the retardation of the collapse from diminishing momentum.

But considering the increase in the thickness of the beams, and the estimates of 80% of the building being thrown outside of its footprint, I think that if I was in a clearer state of mind I might be able to cut it down to a little more than just opinion, to fact, by comparing these figures to the max rate of acceleration possible on Earth (which is constant regardless of mass if I remember correctly). If someone else wants to take what I'm getting at here and run with it before I get a chance to come back and look at it later, I'd appreciate it.
If I'm thinking clearly, it should null the argument Bob has put forward outright.

Finally we get a good discussion going!

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:16 AM
Bob,

I found these pics from www.whatreallyhappened.com... - sometimes a pic, is worth a thousand words.

Look at what was left standing after the Windsor Building burned at 800ºC for more than 18 hours.

Now here's a pic of the WTC core before project completion.

How can a fire be so hot as to melt the inner core, yet not so hot to also melt this person standing outside, where the heat would escape?
These pics show a person standing waiting to be rescued.

And yet another person:

WTC 1 burned at 800ºC for 85 min and WTC 2 burned at 800ºC for 56 min.
The towers fell and we could not see the basic core standing. Whether or not we accept the top floors falling onto the bottom floors at full velocity or not, we still need to explain how there are no remaing beams or core sticking up into the heavens.

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:50 AM

Originally posted by bob2000
...and do I agree you did a half-assed job at proving your point? YES

Heres where I expose the flaw in your screwy physics.

Lets say I have a big transparent bucket of honey and a marble.

These are very interesting statements considering the fact that fluid mechanics, and hence your sticky marbles, have about as much to do with the collapse of the WTC towers as panda bears have to do with the space shuttle. And before you say what I know you're gonna say, China only has rockets, and everybody else used chimpanzees.

Bsbray, theres no way you could prove that the downward velocity would decrease as the building fell from the top and middle.Impossible! a falling object in the face of constant resistance that starts with an intial velocity of zero DOES NOT SLOW DOWN! youd be defying physics.

Oh dear... Lucky for you the ever-unforgiving HowardRoark is not around, coz that one would be perfect for his sig.

This will be a little long, but bare with me.

I'm kinda sorry I did bear with you for that entire post, but what you have in truth laid bare here is the fact that all you debunkers repeating the mantra of "you don't understand the physics" or "you misapply the physics" has come back to bite you in your bare kabooses, with a vengeance.

[edit on 2005-9-27 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 10:39 AM

I'm kinda sorry I did bear with you for that entire post, but what you have in truth laid bare here is the fact that all you debunkers repeating the mantra of "you don't understand the physics" or "you misapply the physics" has come back to bite you in your bare kabooses, with a vengeance.
[edit on 2005-9-27 by wecomeinpeace]

um. Bob2000?

Dude. You just got well and truly
.

(everyone? Sorry. We needed some levity here for a sec. I'm going now

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 10:47 AM

Look at what was left standing after the Windsor Building burned at 800ºC for more than 18 hours.

As you see, the metal structures have collapsed. Only concrete is left.

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:27 AM
I believe the towers were demolitioned, here's my reasons:

1) When I saw the second collapse live on TV, the first thing I thought and even said out loud was "that was a demolition, there's no way that could fall on it's own like that". My first impressions are rarely wrong, and for some reason I have never found that exact same TV footage again.

2) What are the odds of two identical towers dropping strait down just like they were a planned drop if they fell on their own? Especially concidering one of the towers was only damaged on the corner while the other was damaged in the middle.

3) If you pour 10,000 gallons of JP5 fuel around a steel bar out in the open air and let it burn, will it get hot enough to bend? No way. Not unless you introduced oxygen into the fire to increase the temperature. Jet fuel, just like gasoline or kerosine simply doesn't get hotter the longer it burns without a combustable additive, contrary to what the "pro's" would like you to believe.

-Scott

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:30 AM
I’ve been staying away from this thread because it is just rehashing the same old arguments over and over. People never learn. However, I thought I’d throw in a few corrections:

Originally posted by realrepublican
Bob,

I found these pics from www.whatreallyhappened.com... - sometimes a pic, is worth a thousand words.

Look at what was left standing after the Windsor Building burned at 800ºC for more than 18 hours.

As msdos464 pointed out, the core of the Windsor tower was constructed with reinforced concrete columns, the WTC towers core columns were steel. Concrete columns behave quite differently in a fire then steel columns.

How can a fire be so hot as to melt the inner core, yet not so hot to also melt this person standing outside, where the heat would escape?

Several things need to be pointed out here.
1) that picture was taken early, after the impact, before the fires had time to progress around the whole floor.
2) there were multiple floors that were on fire, the floors above that one were fully involved.
3) that was not where the heat was escaping, that was where the fresh air was entering the building to feed the fires. The heat was moving up the interior of the building as the core area shafts acted like chimneys.

WTC 1 burned at 800ºC for 85 min and WTC 2 burned at 800ºC for 56 min.

I’m not even going to ask where you came up with that ridiculous number for the temperature of the fire. Obviously you have no understanding of chemistry and physics and thermodynamics.

But, if you do insist on using that low temperature of 800 C, you do realize that steel looses up to 60 percent of its strength at 600 C?

The towers fell and we could not see the basic core standing. Whether or not we accept the top floors falling onto the bottom floors at full velocity or not, we still need to explain how there are no remaing beams or core sticking up into the heavens.

Because it was a buckle failure of the interior and exterior columns.

As you can see clearly in this photograph of the south face of WTC 1, taken shortly before the collapse, the exterior walls of the building were bowing inward due to the tension on them from the collapsed floors.

(the numbers on the top of the grid are the columns designations, to the right are the floors, and in the middle of the grid are the apparent displacement inward in inches. )

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:16 PM
Can someone give me 100% pure proof on his theory ? If not then where is the point in all this threads an some bullishted posts ?

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:21 PM

Originally posted by STolarZ
Can someone give me 100% pure proof on his theory ? If not then where is the point in all this threads an some bullishted posts ?

Dude, with all due respect, if there was 100% in either direction, this thread wouldn't be necessary...

(Have you caught up with the other threads relating to this?
)

[edit on 27/9/05 by Tinkleflower]

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Nemithesis

3) If you pour 10,000 gallons of JP5 fuel around a steel bar out in the open air and let it burn, will it get hot enough to bend? No way. Not unless you introduced oxygen into the fire to increase the temperature. Jet fuel, just like gasoline or kerosine simply doesn't get hotter the longer it burns without a combustable additive, contrary to what the "pro's" would like you to believe.

-Scott

The temperature of a candle flame can easily reach exceed 1300 C. In fact, according to this the adiabatic flame temperature of Heptane in air is 2290 K.

Some good info about structure fires

The key question is, how vulnerable were the floor trusses to fire?

They were thin and lightweight with fireproofing that was easily knocked off. As they heated up they would have sagged. Don’t forget that some of the floors were also carrying the weight of the aircraft debris.

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by STolarZ
Can someone give me 100% pure proof on his theory ? If not then where is the point in all this threads an some bullishted posts ?

Dude, with all due respect, if there was 100% in either direction, this thread wouldn't be necessary...

(Have you caught up with the other threads relating to this?
)

[edit on 27/9/05 by Tinkleflower]

With all due respect... if there aren't 100% in either direction why both sides are acting like they are 100% right and other side is wrong ?

I could've ask some questions but they already have been asked and they are unanswered for me (not only me i believe). There is just to many holes, "weird" stuff and "prooves" from US Gov and from ATS useres.. There is to many: "probably". Almost all my questions begins with: Why ..... ?

And yes. I have caught up with other threads. I have read all of them. And all of them are related to what i have written above. And this is just my personal opinion.

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 05:19 PM

As msdos464 pointed out, the core of the Windsor tower was constructed with reinforced concrete columns, the WTC towers core columns were steel. Concrete columns behave quite differently in a fire then steel columns.

Yes, and you are both incorrect. There was a huge cement core and I plan to keep this very simple (for us layman dummies here), unless you really insist.

Huge quantities of sand and gravel which all has the color of cement is seen. The official tower core design would produce HALF this much sand with NO gravel at all. You are looking at the wrong diagrams for the FEMA core.

Several things need to be pointed out here.
1) that picture was taken early, after the impact, before the fires had time to progress around the whole floor.
2) there were multiple floors that were on fire, the floors above that one were fully involved.
3) that was not where the heat was escaping, that was where the fresh air was entering the building to feed the fires. The heat was moving up the interior of the building as the core area shafts acted like chimneys.

I stand corrected about the chimney effect. However, this would not buckle the Windsor core into dust, but I'm supposed to accept that somehow it does so perfeclty with the WTC? Understand, that I do follow nor accept the same diagrams as you.

I’m not even going to ask where you came up with that ridiculous number for the temperature of the fire. Obviously you have no understanding of chemistry and physics and thermodynamics.

But, if you do insist on using that low temperature of 800 C, you do realize that steel looses up to 60 percent of its strength at 600 C?

I think you already know where I got it. With a HUGE cement core surrounding it, how does the steel buckle in such a way as to fall straight down?

Because it was a buckle failure of the interior and exterior columns.

As you can see clearly in this photograph of the south face of WTC 1, taken shortly before the collapse, the exterior walls of the building were bowing inward due to the tension on them from the collapsed floors.

I do not agree. And you base this upon the diagram below:

My terrible physics were put into action, as my diagram looks like the pic below:

Did you research anything on what C4 layers can do to the column?

C4 was built into it at the time the building was constructed.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by realrepublican]

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Let me start off by agreeing that your honey and marble example illustrates a legit concept to take into account here.

I was posting this late last night, and on second thought, I'm not so sure that the falling body could do anything but slow down in the face of all of that resistance. No potential for an increase in velocity would have really been relevant, in my now-revised opinion. Where I was going at the end of the post, though, was to compare the estimated percentage of the driving mass's disintegration to the mass speed those objects could have been accelerated to, as well as the increase in column thicknesses. I don't even really see a need anymore. First I'd like to see some evidence that the mass could have even remained at a constant speed in the face of all that resistance (not that it didn't, but evidence that it should have been possible under the gravity theory).

[edit on 27-9-2005 by bsbray11]

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:02 PM

bsbray wrote:
First of all, thanks for your thought-out response. Also, WCIP has offered some figures on specific column sizes in his last post on this thread, which were taken from the NIST report, if those would be of any interest to you.

really, so they are available to the public? yes, theyll be of great interest to me. please provide them.

wecomeinpeace wrote:
quote: Originally posted by bob2000
...and do I agree you did a half-assed job at proving your point? YES

Heres where I expose the flaw in your screwy physics.

Lets say I have a big transparent bucket of honey and a marble.

These are very interesting statements considering the fact that fluid mechanics, and hence your sticky marbles, have about as much to do with the collapse of the WTC towers as panda bears have to do with the space shuttle. And before you say what I know you're gonna say, China only has rockets, and everybody else used chimpanzees.

quote: Bsbray, theres no way you could prove that the downward velocity would decrease as the building fell from the top and middle.Impossible! a falling object in the face of constant resistance that starts with an intial velocity of zero DOES NOT SLOW DOWN! youd be defying physics.
Oh dear... Lucky for you the ever-unforgiving HowardRoark is not around, coz that one would be perfect for his sig.

1st of all, my honey marble example does have some things in common with the collapse. Although, I admit, it was over simplified and that it left out alot of important details. The collapse was not a simple thing, and I have yet to see any conspirators do any better at provinding examples that in themselves arent oversimplified as well. But one key thing I wanted to point out was that an object can increase in velocity despite resistance; as long as it's initial velocity is less than the equilibrium velocity in the system, that is why a marble can actually speed up while falling through resisting honey if it's intial velocity is zero, which seems counterintuitive to people who beleive resistance ALWAYS equals decrease in velocity. Are you calling me a liar on this point?

also, this is the last time youll see me use an oversimplified example, I learn from my mistakes, and just becuase I used an oversimplified example doesnt mean you conspirators are any closer to being right. all it means is that I used a bad example.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by bob2000]

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by bob2000

bsbray wrote:
First of all, thanks for your thought-out response. Also, WCIP has offered some figures on specific column sizes in his last post on this thread, which were taken from the NIST report, if those would be of any interest to you.

really, so they are available to the public? yes, theyll be of great interest to me. please provide them.

I told you WCIP just posted them, as per the NIST report. In case you don't know what the NIST report is, it's a report issued by the government. They have the blueprints. They still won't let us access the blueprints, but they did provide these figures in the NIST report.

And since you can't go back a page and look at the figures, I'll repost what WCIP provided.

Originally posted by WeComeInPeace
From the NIST WTC Report:

NIST 1-1 Structural and Life Safety Systems (pdf)
p11 (pdf71)
Exterior Walls
Columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of thinner steel plates, as thin as 0.25 in., with the grade of steel dictated by the calculated gravity and wind loads. In this manner, the gravity load on the lower stories was minimized. In the lower stories the perimeter column webs were often more than 2 in. thick.

Core Columns
The columns in the lower floors were primarily very large box columns, as large as 12 in. by 52 in., comprised of welded plates up to 7 in. thick. In the upper floors, the columns shifted to the rolled wide-flange shapes.

The figures are grayish, but they do show that the columns were thicker at the bottom, as well as some measurements are given as to the exact thicknesses.

Originally posted by bob2000
But one key thing I wanted to point out was that an object can increase in velocity despite resistance; as long as it's initial velocity is less than the equilibrium velocity in the system

Then you have your work cut out for you. Prove that this could've been the case at the WTC, while the driving mass disintegrated and the collapse fell onto thicker columns all the way down.

Also remember that while you accuse us of oversimplifying the collapse, Newton's First Law of Motion should apply at all times to the collapse, as should the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, and any others we may address. These things are laws for a reason, and their exceptions have been stated (and are indeed the whole basis of our arguments).

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 04:05 AM

Originally posted by bob2000
1st of all, my honey marble example does have some things in common with the collapse....Are you calling me a liar on this point?

Did I call you a liar? No. Are you putting words in my mouth? Yes. Knowing the truth and speaking untruth makes one a liar. Not knowing the truth and speaking untruth merely makes one wrong. I'm simply saying that you are wandering around in a completely inappropriate area of physics. Keep googling...

...and just becuase I used an oversimplified example doesnt mean you conspirators are any closer to being right. all it means is that I used a bad example.

Simplified explanations can be fine, as long as they are appropriate to the system being examined/described. But I'm more interested in the crux of your statement above, which expresses very clearly to all present that you are going to keep changing your stance and searching about until you find anything that can somehow seem to sort of kinda convincingly match up with your preconceived conclusions. "So, let's everybody welcome another member to the Coincidence Theorists team! *thunderous applause* It certainly seems that the 9-11 conspiracy wackos on ATS are in trouble, Jerry." "No doubt about it, Tom, vastly outnumbered and stone cold kuhraaaaaaaaaazyyyy!!" *canned laughter*

And now, back to our regular scheduled programming...

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." - Dresden James

[edit on 2005-9-28 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by realrepublican
Yes, and you are both incorrect. There was a huge cement core and I plan to keep this very simple (for us layman dummies here), unless you really insist.

Huge quantities of sand and gravel which all has the color of cement is seen. The official tower core design would produce HALF this much sand with NO gravel at all. You are looking at the wrong diagrams for the FEMA core.

. . .

I do not agree. And you base this upon the diagram below:

First of all that diagram was produced by the BBC on 9/11 (or reasonably close to) itself and is just plain wrong.

There is ample evidence of the construction techniques used in the WTC towers and At no point in the construction of those buildings were concrete core columns or concrete walls used.

The design and construction of the building was well know and studied by building engineers around the world.

The only masonry used in the construction was the lightweight floor slabs.

The core walls were double layers of 2” thick drywall panels. That sounds pretty strong, but in at least one case firemen who where trapped in a stuck elevator on 911 were able to chop their way out though the elevator shaft.

Because of the rigidity of the hollow tube design, it was not necessary to brace the building with a masonry or concrete core construction.

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by bob2000

really, so they are available to the public? yes, theyll be of great interest to me. please provide them.

NIST – WTC web page

The draft reports can be found here

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative
hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought
down by controlled demolition using explosives planted
prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any
evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers.
Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly
showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact
floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating
floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 03:20 PM

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative
hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought
down by controlled demolition using explosives planted
prior to September 11, 2001.

Gotta love how they worked within the conclusion that they had already settled on. They never addressed any of the major issues that suggested demolition, like the squibs or lack of retardation or loss of momentum.

As if they would tell you anyway. They work for the government.

top topics

1