Why did the tops of wtc 1 and 2 fall with the center beams?

In the past, when the working theory on the governments side was a pancake collapse, one thing that never made sense was how the tops of each building dropped with out the 47 center beams pushing up through the roof.

While watching wtc2 fall, I always wondered how the top appeared to tilt off to the side on the begining of the collapse. This never made sense to me because the plane did not take out all the beams.

Even at the bottom of the collapse of wtc1 a large section of center beams survived for a few secondsm and they were at the bottom of the collapse which got the bulk of the debree.

Also why didnt the top of wtc2 simply roll off the building. It seems like the release of its energy should have been directed sideways but the building seems to have pulled the top back in line with the collapse.

The top straightened out and fell because the rest of the tower was in the process of being vaporized.

I'm not sure what you mean by this though. Perhaps you can clarify?

Even at the bottom of the collapse of wtc1 a large section of center beams survived for a few secondsm and they were at the bottom of the collapse which got the bulk of the debree.

You're right and a good observation on this:




That can't happen without the core failing first. This completely contradicts NIST's theory, and about every other "official story" theory you can think of.

Hey bsbray,

Got the full size image url for that?

Thanks!

kinda begs the question?
Its much bigger here in Canada.
Almost everyone I talk too knows its a fakeout.

Originally posted by SteveR
Got the full size image url for that?

That is the full-size for that one.


I have two others like it, here are their full sizes:






Those are only ones I know of, sorry.

Here is another thing. The NEW official report says the trusses did not seperate but they sagged, there by pulling the outer wall inwards. Images of proof were shown on wtc2 of the outside walls bent inward.
So why is it in this photo which was the 1-2 seconds into the collapse of wtc1 does this photo show perfectly straight outer walls?

Look at this video and see why the building tilted.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You're right and a good observation on this:

That can't happen without the core failing first. This completely contradicts NIST's theory, and about every other "official story" theory you can think of.

You're right, that picture alone gives the lie to the official partly line about successive floors collapsing. Also little things that they like to ignore, like the massive central support structure, or else the central support structure is transmogrified into a feeble little elevator shaft in their NOVA tv docudramas -







R

Originally posted by deltaboy
Look at this video and see why the building tilted.

So, you are saying corner damage caused WTC 2's tilt? So, why did WTC 7 fall symmetrically then? Either assymetrical damage causes asymetrical collapse or it doesn't. Which is it? The laws of physics must be really selective. On one tower they work, but on another building, they took the day off.

Originally posted by Griff

So, you are saying corner damage caused WTC 2's tilt? So, why did WTC 7 fall symmetrically then? Either assymetrical damage causes asymetrical collapse or it doesn't. Which is it? The laws of physics must be really selective. On one tower they work, but on another building, they took the day off.

I don't know, should WTC7 tilt as well because of big gash in the middle?

WTC 7 should not have fallen anyway Anyone who believes that it should have obviously hasn't looked at the evidence close enough.

The towers could not have tilted or collapsed unless the massive central support structure had first been destroyed by explosives. Look at the post-911 images and you will see that huge steel beams have been neatly SEVERED.

The central support column as depicted by the official government liars:



And as it really was:








Ratsky.

I'm not an expert on the subject and only playing devils advocate but to me it looks like you take out one side of a few floors (or weaken the supports on one side). And, like a lumberjack cutting out a wedge of a tree, the upper section tilts. Since it happened at the top the center of gravity of the upper section is still over the foot print of the building itself so when it statrs to fall the weight begins the pancake effect downward not giving the upper section time to tilt more and fall away to the side completely. The other side of the impact might be still intact which may also help keep the upper section attached.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I don't know, should WTC7 tilt as well because of big gash in the middle?

You're right in that the gash wouldn't cause tilting. But, I believe the corner damage would cause a little bit of asymetry to the collapse. I'm not possitive of how much because I'm not a dynamicist and I don't have the drawings nor the computer power to analyse it. So, for now, I'm still up in the air on the whole thing. I have not married any theory as of yet.

Edit: Sorry to the OP for taking this thread off subject and onto WTC 7. Let's get back to the origal topic. Thanks.

[edit on 5/16/2007 by Griff]

As far as what the original topic is about. I.E. the tilting of the cap of WTC 2. We have to establish where the fulcrum was. This needs to to be agreed upon by both sides before we can go any further with this discussion. I've seen too many times where one person is arguing about a point against another and based on where they are placing the fulcrum, they both could be right.

So, there are only 2 places where the fulcrum could be.

1. If the fulcrum was the core columns/structure.

This would mean that the oposite side of the tilt would be experiencing tension. And for it to tilt, the oposite columns would have to have exceeded their ultimate strength in tension.

One question I have about this scenario. How could the weight of the opposite half of the building cause the other side to fail in tension when the core is still intact?

2. If the fulcrum was the opposite facade columns.

This would mean that somehow the core was severed.

Either way, in my opinion, a gravity driven collapse doesn't account for any of these scenarios. Not to mention that once it started to tilt, what caused it to stop?

Originally posted by Griff
This would mean that the oposite side of the tilt would be experiencing tension. And for it to tilt, the oposite columns would have to have xceeded their ultimate strength in tension.

One question I have about this scenario. How could the weight of the opposite half of the building cause the other side to fail in tension when the core is still intact?

Perhaps the other (good) side only exceeded the yield or bending strength and not the ultimate or breaking strength and hence was still attached as it came down. This might also be the reason the top didn't just slide off but instead came down with the rest of the building.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by mecheng]

"This would mean that somehow the core was severed."


______________________


Severed by a smoky but not very hot kerosene fire. No matter how you look at it the official cover story makes no sense at all - and they did everything in their power to prevent any real investigation!

Any ordinary small plane accident, or arson case or even a serious auto accident, gets a far more legitimate and detailed investigation than did the events of 911! For example, if a guy with a very vested interest was documented saying "pull it!" before an arson case he certainly would be a prime suspect and carfeully investigated!

NY Sun and NY Post editorials: "Hats off to Larry, a true patriot"




R

Originally posted by mecheng
Perhaps the other (good) side only exceeded the yield or bending strength and not the ultimate or breaking strength and hence was still attached as it came down. This might also be the reason the top didn't just slide off but instead came down with the rest of the building.

Do you mean elongating enough for the tilt but not actually breaking? Possibly, but that's a pretty big elongation without snapping. I won't discount it though. It would still be under tension though and couldn't contribute to a gravity driven collapse since it would be pulling up on the columns instead of pushing them down.

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
"This would mean that somehow the core was severed."

Look, I am not qualified to say why and why NOT something fell. Not my specialty... what i can tell you is that the core was not severed prior to the collapse. The core was actually the last part of the South Tower standing.

You can see the core standing after the global collapse. Griff or Bsbray, could either one of you please comment on the tilt here....you can actually see a large section of the tower that was leaning collapse over. I believe there was a photo of this somewhere. Not sure if anyone has seen this one..I just stumbled across it.



EDIT: Not sure why the video isn't there...link is provided. Sorry, it's only a 45 sec clip

and edit to add photo


[edit on 16-5-2007 by CameronFox]