If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?

Originally posted by Phoenix
Ie: One cannot assume even distribution across entire structure in calculation.

If you could make that assumption then it would be a true statement to say: My calculations show that the removal of 50-75% of columns from anyone side would stil leave the towers standing - it just flies in the face of logic to me.

I agree, but where did we see the removal of so much integrity?

Read my post above. We're talking small areas of columns, not large chunks of the whole building being taken out. Redistribution should not have been that major of an issue.

In a controlled demolition, you want to:

1) take out the foundational structures to reduce rigidity (massive basement explosions reported)

2) slice the 47 interior pillars with Thermate into 30' sections (pillars where in 30' sections and had Thermate residue - specifically for slicing high strength steel) (pools of molten steel and iron lasted for weeks)

3) Use gravity and successively blow out each floor so that the collapsing floor above mets NO RESISTANCE. (eyewitnesses report multiple explosions)

4) The result is a 110 story steel skyscrapper, FREE FALLS without ANY resistence, completely and into it's own footprint into a perfect pile of bit size pieces that can be quickly WITHOUT INVESTIGATION be spirited away for melting, destroying any chance of investigation. (This was an illegal act.)

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
In a controlled demolition, you want to:

1) take out the foundational structures to reduce rigidity (massive basement explosions reported)

2) slice the 47 interior pillars with Thermate into 30' sections (pillars where in 30' sections and had Thermate residue - specifically for slicing high strength steel) (pools of molten steel and iron lasted for weeks)

3) Use gravity and successively blow out each floor so that the collapsing floor above mets NO RESISTANCE. (eyewitnesses report multiple explosions)

4) The result is a 110 story steel skyscrapper, FREE FALLS without ANY resistence, completely and into it's own footprint into a perfect pile of bit size pieces that can be quickly WITHOUT INVESTIGATION be spirited away for melting, destroying any chance of investigation. (This was an illegal act.)

Originally posted by bsbray11


The raw numbers are from NIST's report, as they list the safety factor ratings of the perimeter and core columns themselves.

Those ratings, with other figures from NIST, are then used by Trumpman to derive the %'s in this paper:
911research.wtc7.net...

Trumpman doesn't offer up any information on himself, but I think it's kind of pathetic that that's your method of determining legitimacy in the first place.

I believe both of those assume a fully intact structure with no damaged columns and no fire.

What I'm looking for is an analysis done on what was the known damage and fire effect from a structural engineer - if truthout and other organizations, individuals with certain theories are to be taken seriously then it would seem prudent to hire several respected structural engineers to do an analysis with the cost covered by donation.

Why has this not been done - afraid of the answer maybe?

Heres the only peer passed study (peers with apptitude)
Peer reviewed study


Its not pathetic to ask for credentials when peer review is done by doctors of philosophy and such with no expertise in the subject matter used by CT'ers.

An object cannot fall through 110 objects as fast as it falls through thin air.

WAKE UP PEOPLE - IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT

[edit on 29-7-2006 by The Last Prophet]




[edit on 29-7-2006 by The Last Prophet]

I still have found nothing credible in the offical accounts as to why the Twin Towers fell at the speed the fell, also known as freefall, which is consistant with demolition.

The speed alone at which the towers collapsed is perhaps, in my opinion, the most incredible part of the whole thing.

Am I a structural engineer? No. But having attended many large structure demolitions (usually of locally important buildings being cleared for new development) I must say the twin tower collapse resembled these in every way.

And of course, I still am yet to hear any credible explaination for building 7.

My .8 pence.

"If the twin towers were left burning, could they soon collapsed?"

Are you asking "If the twin towers were left burning, could they have soon collapsed?"

Noting the lack of grammar it is astonishing no one previously duly noted the question as not being in English.

I am astonished what is being posted here. Is DHS or someone really paying dollars for doubts? Hey I'd post all day long within the well rebutted Popular Mechanics parameter, which is totally absurd and focuses on red herrings while ignoring hundreds of PHds on Scholars for 911 truth and other independent viewpoints. What's the pay scale anyway, will my soul feel any better?

There is zero evidence supporting the government and commission story, zip nada, unless you take the thermite coated samples from the pillars. The bulk of the crime scene evidence was sent overseas for scrap. Shall we all give up, and swallow the blue pill or the red one here on the Matrix-Bizarro Planet? What we find may be what the Japanese call "shabai," meaning "poor quality," or grooving on garbage, but the overwhelming evidence makes me think of the OJ case. After all, what better way to get away with it. You just have friends in the government, e.g. as the police department, planting red herring evidence? Furman ran away from home then and destroyed a Kennedy, suggesting deep roots in the CIA-RFK Manchurian Candidates COINTELPRO syndrome and so forth. The world is so nuts, I think I might just take the $233.87 an hour from the USG ultimately, and spout Popular Mechanics nonsense, but may I put in the contract, "you cannot have my soul?"

[edit on 29-7-2006 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by Phoenix



Its not pathetic to ask for credentials when peer review is done by doctors of philosophy and such with no expertise in the subject matter used by CT'ers.

Well, here's where I'd like to point something out (from my perspective). Before the FINAL FINAL NIST report came out, I was 100% convinced the planes and fires brought down the buildings. Then the report came out and the NIST told how many columns they felt were taken out by the planes, and made the statement no single structural member ever saw sustained temperatures above 250 C for any appreciable length of time. The relatively low number of columns identified as taken out in the NIST record, along with the statement of no sustained elevated temperatures, led to a situation that looks to me like the towers shouldn't have fallen!

That's actually when I stepped back from my original position and said...hmmm. Maybe something else DID help them come down!

[edit on 7-29-2006 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Phoenix
I believe both of those assume a fully intact structure with no damaged columns and no fire.

I believe you're missing the point. Why do you think anyone would talk about missing columns or lessened integrity?

Why has this not been done - afraid of the answer maybe?

You're asking the wrong person. There's a lack of analyses from both side that has any hard info.

Heres the only peer passed study (peers with apptitude)
Peer reviewed study

Read over this: 911research.wtc7.net...

After reading that, do you think that paper reaches very accurate cocnclusions, or is very scientific with information?

Its not pathetic to ask for credentials when peer review is done by doctors of philosophy and such with no expertise in the subject matter used by CT'ers.

What about a physics paper reviewed by physicists? Or Judy Wood's contributions? Or Kuttler's? You're cutting it close to a straw man.

NO ONE can refute a Controlled Demolition anymore.

NO ONE can refute it in logic: A building CANNOT FREE FALL without help.

NO ONE can refute it in common sense: It's a text book demolition

NO ONE can refute it by evidence: Thermate residue, physics, Newtonian Mechanics

www.ealchemy.org...

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
NO ONE can refute a Controlled Demolition anymore.

NO ONE can refute it in logic: A building CANNOT FREE FALL without help.

NO ONE can refute it in common sense: It's a text book demolition

NO ONE can refute it by evidence: Thermate residue, physics, Newtonian Mechanics

www.ealchemy.org...

Yeah, can people can refute it. Get over it. Every single one of those statements can be refuted.

[quote]There was an uncontrolled fire much lower in Building One in 1976. It was set by an arsonist janitor, and was pretty severe. Flames coming out of windows, took some hours to control. And this was before fireproofing and all of that had been installed.

REPLY: Ummmmmm, the towers were completed before '76, so the insulation was completely done. The fire mentioned was nowhere near as hot or widespread, 'nor did they last as long.

The reporting of "melted steel" was a presupposition, and later retracted, as the temps (up to 1100 degrees) did in fact cause buckling of the floor trusses and the clips that supported them. Result?.... they came down.

The "free fall" was actually just under 14 seconds, not the 10 as mentioned by many, which would cancel many CT's speculation. The "thin air" arguement depends on the actual total time of the collapse.

Hearing "explosions" is one thing, but what actually was said was "... what sounded like explosions.

The towers would HAVE to come straight down on themselves, because of the way they were designed. The structural integrity of the buildings below the procedural collapse would prevent it from tipping/falling to one side or another.


[edit on 29-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Hey I'd post all day long within the well rebutted Popular Mechanics parameter, which is totally absurd and focuses on red herrings while ignoring hundreds of PHds on Scholars for 911 truth and other independent viewpoints.

REPLY: Well rebutted? by whom? Jones?
So the structural and mechanical engineers et al, who wrote the Pop. Mech. article are somehow less knowledgeable than those you mention?

Hundreds of PHD's? I've seen no such number of those who agree with Jones (whose "presentation" was very poorly done; "Lame" might be a better word).

I've seen only one who has attempted to vet his theories.

Originally posted by zappafan1


The towers would HAVE to come straight down on themselves, because of the way they were designed. The structural integrity of the buildings below the procedural collapse would prevent it from tipping/falling to one side or another.


[edit on 29-7-2006 by zappafan1]

As Willy Wonka would put it - Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.

In actuality just the opposite of what you just said would be the physical case. If the lower section of the building below the initial failure point had been of such integrity it could have resisted the loads of the failing upper section, the upper section would have ABSOLUTELY went over the side. Instead - and a VERY IMPORTANT POINT HERE - is that the opposite side of the building at the level of initial failure gave way in a COMPRESSIVE failure, while the top portion of the building was placing the same area in TENSION.

It was the sudden compressive failure of the opposite side of the failing floor that "righted" the top and resulted in a near perfectly vertical collapse. And it is the sudden compressive failure of structural members in bending tension that kind of is defying physics.



[edit on 7-29-2006 by Valhall]

The 767 had smashed through the outer wall and hit the inner core directly destroying the fire protection. The intense fire that followed had then concentrated around the core. Two things would then have happened. Floor trusses, softened by the fire, would have fallen away from the core. Without the trusses to hold it firm, the core would have lost crucial support. At the same time, the core’s exposed steel girders, also long softened by the heat, would have begun to buckle under the weight of the tower. The result: a progressive collapse

REPLY:The above, from a BBC report, is correct up to the point that it fails to mention the fire weakening the floor trusses to the point they could not support the weight of the structure above them.

Below is part of a theory from "what really happened", which shows how far some will veer from the facts. The first source is from an MIT study of the floor trusses:

The single-bolt connections in the framework of the World Trade Center popped and fell apart during the September 11 terrorist attacks, causing the floors to collapse on top of each other, according to a new study. The analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concludes the bolts did not properly secure the towers' steel floor trusses, The New York Post reported yesterday.

Now we'll see how the CT's from "what really happened" distort the truth, at the same time lying about the wall columns to support their claims:

If the 'truss theory' and the above MIT study were true then all of the single bolt connections above the aircraft impact level would have "popped and fell apart" the moment the coredropped - the descending core would have sheared off all bolts connecting trusses to the inner core.

REPLY: The above is exactly false, as only the bolts affected by the heat-effected trusses wuld fail.... at first. The failing of the trusses would not have caused the core to "drop", as it was the most solid part of the structure; although the heat would have weakened the core in the areas most affected by the fire.

The perimeter walls were not designed to be load bearing and would have had no strength without the bracing of trusses, therefore the top section of WTC 1 should have visually disintegrated as the roof came down.

REPLY: This is just a ludicrous statement, made doing no research whatsoever. The perimeter wall collumns were designed to carry 45% to 50% of the load. The structure above the damage would have no reason or cause to disintegrate. The "roof section" was still connected to the floors above, and the total gross weight would then cause bolts/trusses to fail as it came down.

Here's an example of truss failure in the exact same type of construction. Please note that this without the added weight of 5" of concrete flooring:
[link] imageigloo.com...

[edit on 29-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Originally posted by zappafan1


The "free fall" was actually just under 14 seconds, not the 10 as mentioned by many, which would cancel many CT's speculation. The "thin air" arguement depends on the actual total time of the collapse.

Not at all. I have always used the 14 second timeframe.

Its still too fast.

The WTC was not brought down by explosives. Look at the tapes again. And how the hell is someone going to get exploives into the building, yet alone two. And why would the government try to hide such things? It's completely madness.

Many of you forget that there were 15-30 floors above the impact zone. When you have 5 floors burning with thousands of gallons of fuel sread about the floors its not good. The fire weakens those floors, so when those 5 floors collapse, so does the massive block of building above it which mean a lot of pressure on the bottom floors.

Now, watch the tape again. The building starts to collapse at the impact area, no where else. Furthermore, there was no blast sounds that could be heard.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by The Last Prophet
NO ONE can refute a Controlled Demolition anymore.

NO ONE can refute it in logic: A building CANNOT FREE FALL without help.

NO ONE can refute it in common sense: It's a text book demolition

NO ONE can refute it by evidence: Thermate residue, physics, Newtonian Mechanics

www.ealchemy.org...

Yeah, can people can refute it. Get over it. Every single one of those statements can be refuted.

You can refute it but you'd be WRONG...

PLEASE TRY the FIRST ONE...
If you can run through a wall at the same speed you can run through THIN AIR - I'll shut up.

In a perfect controlled environment it would have taken 100 seconds to fall. (minimum)
It took only 9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
If you can prove JUST THIS ONE THING wrong, you'll be my hero. Otherwise, I'd say you're in serious denial. Defending your misplaced beliefs in the face of truth.

Originally posted by The Last Prophet

In a perfect controlled environment it would have taken 100 seconds to fall. (minimum)
It took only 9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
If you can prove JUST THIS ONE THING wrong, you'll be my hero. Otherwise, I'd say you're in serious denial. Defending your misplaced beliefs in the face of truth.

What took 9.6 seconds? What? Which building?

It took WTC 1 approximately 18 seconds to collapse. Freefall figures to right at 9 seconds. That's twice as long.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by The Last Prophet

In a perfect controlled environment it would have taken 100 seconds to fall. (minimum)
It took only 9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
9.6 SECONDS
If you can prove JUST THIS ONE THING wrong, you'll be my hero. Otherwise, I'd say you're in serious denial. Defending your misplaced beliefs in the face of truth.

What took 9.6 seconds? What? Which building?

It took WTC 1 approximately 18 seconds to collapse. Freefall figures to right at 9 seconds. That's twice as long.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No. Closer to 15

911research.wtc7.net...

Even that is pretty damn fast for a building of that size to be pulverized to dust and collapse like that.