The truth about WTC attack..., page 1

After sifting through what ATS has to offer on the subject, I'm still totally confused about what actually happened to the WTCs.

The reasons I think the towers collapse wasn't caused by the aeroplanes:

1. They fell perfectly straight. Lets say the planes caused the destruction we witnessed, they weakened one side of the building, so why didn't it topple to one side.

2. Say that the fires from the crash caused the WTC to fall. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent as we witnessed. The only other buildings that I have seen fall in such a way have been demolition projects.

3.OK, again we'll say the fires caused the fall, this time how did the heat from these fires concentrate on the steel? Did anyone else see this story where scientists created stupidillion amounts of heat in their z-machine.
I've read how hydrocarbon fires are, at maximum, 850 degrees, so how did this energy jump into the structural steel? Furthermore, if it did manage to melt the steel, why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?

4. How did Tower 2 fall before T1. T1 was hit by a plane first, yet it fell second. Please forgive me if this is totally ignorant, but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same, so T2 should have fell after T1 and the amount of time should have been the same as the difference in times of the plane attacks.

5. The BBC found that suposed hijackers were still alive.Source.

I've read other believable reasons that suggest this was an 'in-house job'. The removal of the dogs used to sniff bombs a week before the attack, Marvin Bush (Bush's brother) bring head of a security firm used by the WTC and the gagging of fire fighters.

I also think that there is something wrong with the official story due to the actions of 'scholars for 9/11 truth'. One thread contains a letter (at the bottom of the page) and the author of this letter was sacked. In it he states how NIST falsified the findings of UL labs, because the steel should not have been melted.

A true investigation into the events of that fateful day will never be known because the building's remains were quickly shipped off to China to be melted down.

Now the reason for this thread.

See, my opinion is only that, my opinion. I smell a fish, but I have nothing substantial to support it.

Please could someone with a good knowledge in this area post with irrefutible evidence either way. (Therefore the evidence must be impartial and ultimately be the truth.)

Please can a mod remove any unworthy replies. I just want a thread that someone can look at to get true facts, that tells us either way, what happened.

Originally posted by byhiniur
After sifting through what ATS has to offer on the subject, I'm still totally confused about what actually happened to the WTCs.

The reasons I think the towers collapse wasn't caused by the aeroplanes:

1. They fell perfectly straight. Lets say the planes caused the destruction we witnessed, they weakened one side of the building, so why didn't it topple to one side.

2. Say that the fires from the crash caused the WTC to fall. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent as we witnessed. The only other buildings that I have seen fall in such a way have been demolition projects.

3.OK, again we'll say the fires caused the fall, this time how did the heat from these fires concentrate on the steel? Did anyone else see this story where scientists created stupidillion amounts of heat in their z-machine.
I've read how hydrocarbon fires are, at maximum, 850 degrees, so how did this energy jump into the structural steel? Furthermore, if it did manage to melt the steel, why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?

4. How did Tower 2 fall before T1. T1 was hit by a plane first, yet it fell second. Please forgive me if this is totally ignorant, but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same, so T2 should have fell after T1 and the amount of time should have been the same as the difference in times of the plane attacks.

5. The BBC found that suposed hijackers were still alive

1-4/

The towers were not designed to withstand the weight of several floors falling onto each other. Combine this with the weight of the plane and the fire that would buckle the steel and the tower collapsed. Even steel in a house fire can buckle and this is why in many areas the buildings regs require fireproofing (eg plasterboard).

The buldings fell downwards because of gravity. There were no sideways forces once the floors crashed onto each other. The building did not collapse from the bottom as in a demolition. Video evidence suggesting bombs going off as the towers fell, show just that: blasts as the towers were already falling (probably caused by electrical mains damage). The towers collapsed at different time spans because the damage to each tower was different.

Why use explosives if a plane can cause so much damage anyway?



5/

I agree there is no good evidence the named hijackers were on the planes.
We have no proof the hijackers were on the planes. We must therefore question if they were involved, and if not who was?

If they were not involved, why were the authorities quick to say they were? And why was it announced within hours that Bin Laden was the man behind the attacks if the government had no prior knowledge?

Originally posted by byhiniur
1. They fell perfectly straight. Lets say the planes caused the destruction we witnessed, they weakened one side of the building, so why didn't it topple to one side.

That is a common misconception. It is based on the mistaken idea that skyscrapers are solid, rigid objects. We think that because they are so massive, but in fact they are made up of a flexible framework.

Many people also tend to under appreciate the shear size of the tower floor plans. These were not a typical building where you can fit four of them in a city block, they were the city block. 200 feet per side, almost an acre of floor space per floor.

In order for the buildings, or parts of the buildings to have toppled to the side like you imagine, two things would have had to have happened.

Firstly the center of gravity of the falling portion would have had to have shifted 100 feet from the middle of the building floor plan to being outside the building envelope. There was no lateral force on t he structure, the only force on it was downward. Gravity.

Secondly, and this is more important, the structure of the building would have had to remain rigid and inflexible as it tipped over. No steel framed skyscraper in the world possesses that quality. The frame would have racked and twisted out of alignment. Since a steel framed structure derives most of it’s strength from the geometry of the structural components in relation to each other, one you lose that geometry, the frame would have lost all rigidity and stiffness. Thus the only direction for it to have gone was straight down.

Originally posted by byhiniur
2. Say that the fires from the crash caused the WTC to fall. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent as we witnessed. The only other buildings that I have seen fall in such a way have been demolition projects.

There have been no large fires in buildings similar to the WTC towers. Remember that there are lots of different types of buildings out there with different structural systems and different building materials. Further more, there have not been any other buildings that were as severely damaged structurally from causes other than fires. WTC 1 and 2 were both hit by airplanes, WTC 6, 7, and the Marriott were all hit by pieces of the towers as they fell.

Originally posted by byhiniur
3.OK, again we'll say the fires caused the fall, this time how did the heat from these fires concentrate on the steel? Did anyone else see this story where scientists created stupidillion amounts of heat in their z-machine.
I've read how hydrocarbon fires are, at maximum, 850 degrees, so how did this energy jump into the structural steel? Furthermore, if it did manage to melt the steel, why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?

There is another thread here about the role of the fireproofing. that might help your questions.

Structure fires can routinely exceed 1000 C.


This post might help explain things a bit.

You might want to read up on this test of the typical cubicles in use by one of the tenants.

Originally posted by byhiniur
4. How did Tower 2 fall before T1. T1 was hit by a plane first, yet it fell second. Please forgive me if this is totally ignorant, but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same, so T2 should have fell after T1 and the amount of time should have been the same as the difference in times of the plane attacks.

Lots of reasons.

There was more weight above the impact point in 2 than in 1. The fires were different. The impact floors of WTC 1 had been retrofitted with new fireproofing, the impact floors of wtc 2 had the original materials.

The impact into WTC 2 caused more damage to the long span section of the trusses on that side.

Originally posted by byhiniur
I also think that there is something wrong with the official story due to the actions of 'scholars for 9/11 truth'. One thread contains a letter (at the bottom of the page) and the author of this letter was sacked. In it he states how NIST falsified the findings of UL labs, because the steel should not have been melted.

Worng, wrong, wrong. :

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by byhiniur
1. They fell perfectly straight. Lets say the planes caused the destruction we witnessed, they weakened one side of the building, so why didn't it topple to one side.

That is a common misconception. It is based on the mistaken idea that skyscrapers are solid, rigid objects. We think that because they are so massive, but in fact they are made up of a flexible framework.

Many people also tend to under appreciate the shear size of the tower floor plans. These were not a typical building where you can fit four of them in a city block, they were the city block. 200 feet per side, almost an acre of floor space per floor.

In order for the buildings, or parts of the buildings to have toppled to the side like you imagine, two things would have had to have happened.

Firstly the center of gravity of the falling portion would have had to have shifted 100 feet from the middle of the building floor plan to being outside the building envelope. There was no lateral force on t he structure, the only force on it was downward. Gravity.

Secondly, and this is more important, the structure of the building would have had to remain rigid and inflexible as it tipped over. No steel framed skyscraper in the world possesses that quality. The frame would have racked and twisted out of alignment. Since a steel framed structure derives most of it’s strength from the geometry of the structural components in relation to each other, one you lose that geometry, the frame would have lost all rigidity and stiffness. Thus the only direction for it to have gone was straight down.

Originally posted by byhiniur
2. Say that the fires from the crash caused the WTC to fall. Why have larger fires in 'similar' buildings not caused the same type of decent as we witnessed. The only other buildings that I have seen fall in such a way have been demolition projects.

There have been no large fires in buildings similar to the WTC towers. Remember that there are lots of different types of buildings out there with different structural systems and different building materials. Further more, there have not been any other buildings that were as severely damaged structurally from causes other than fires. WTC 1 and 2 were both hit by airplanes, WTC 6, 7, and the Marriott were all hit by pieces of the towers as they fell.

Originally posted by byhiniur
3.OK, again we'll say the fires caused the fall, this time how did the heat from these fires concentrate on the steel? Did anyone else see this story where scientists created stupidillion amounts of heat in their z-machine.
I've read how hydrocarbon fires are, at maximum, 850 degrees, so how did this energy jump into the structural steel? Furthermore, if it did manage to melt the steel, why didn't the towers turn into burning infernos?

There is another thread here about the role of the fireproofing. that might help your questions.

Structure fires can routinely exceed 1000 C.


This post might help explain things a bit.

You might want to read up on this test of the typical cubicles in use by one of the tenants.

Originally posted by byhiniur
4. How did Tower 2 fall before T1. T1 was hit by a plane first, yet it fell second. Please forgive me if this is totally ignorant, but the buildings were pretty much exactly the same, so T2 should have fell after T1 and the amount of time should have been the same as the difference in times of the plane attacks.

Lots of reasons.

There was more weight above the impact point in 2 than in 1. The fires were different. The impact floors of WTC 1 had been retrofitted with new fireproofing, the impact floors of wtc 2 had the original materials.

The impact into WTC 2 caused more damage to the long span section of the trusses on that side.

Originally posted by byhiniur
I also think that there is something wrong with the official story due to the actions of 'scholars for 9/11 truth'. One thread contains a letter (at the bottom of the page) and the author of this letter was sacked. In it he states how NIST falsified the findings of UL labs, because the steel should not have been melted.

Worng, wrong, wrong. :

A good summary. The first building to collapse did so, because tge plane hit it lower down, so there was far more weight above the damage. IMO, there is nothing mysterous about the collapse of the twin towers, but Building 7 is a different matter.



[edit on 28-3-2006 by Clipper]

9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags

9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags

An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
  Posted 17 days ago with 12 member flags

Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags

new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags

Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags

Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags

you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: