It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

How the WTC towers fell

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
This post will attempt to lay out a convincing scenario of how the Twin Towers fell as a synthesis of the past month of discussions on this board. Many people rightly believe 9/11 truth is mired in in-fighting and going around in circles, rehashing old arguments and getting nowhere on the one hand, or going off on exotic, far-out tangents on the other. Either judgment leads them to throw up their hands in disgust and say either one of two things: that there is no solid proof, or that truthers are tin-foil hatters. Time to roll out 911.2.

The collapse of the Twin Towers is of vital importance as it is the only aspect of 9/11 for which we have an actual smoking gun, sitting in plain sight for all to see in a massive video and eyewitness record--if only the viewer can understand the implications of what he or she is seeing. Moreover, this evidence is so basic that it does not need to rely upon unknowns, exotic or classified, or on speculation due to withheld or destroyed evidence, and so offers the best means to unlock a key mystery of 9/11.

So what did we actually see at the WTC on 9/11? Let's start with what we didn't see: a gravity-driven collapse caused by airplane impacts and jet-fuel fires--i.e., the official version of events. Why? Because this is physically impossible without massive, unaccounted-for energy sources, and does not match the evidence. A recent thread, or rather flare-up, pretty well sums up these points, and is a great read to boot: Why the "Molten Steel" Argument Needs to Stop. It highlights some major reasons why the official story is impossible--the pulverization of concrete and building contents and the molten steel found later in the sub-basements of WTCs 1,2, & 7. To which one should add the impossibility of the upper sections of the towers explosively disintegrating upon the initiation of collapse and the impossibility of the lower structures collapsing at the speed of gravity itself.

The collapse of both towers occurred in four stages in approximately a twenty-second time frame:

1. First, there were major detonations in the sub-basements, recorded all the way up at Columbia Univ's seismographs, and which expelled white smoke caught on video just before the onset of collapse. This is the infamous "rumble" or camera shake.

2. Ten seconds later, the building's core, critically undermined and pulling down upon the outer building skin by way of the hat trusses at the top of the towers, initiated collapse at its weakest point, the impact area.

3. Almost immediately after, the upper structure began to buckle and topple in a coherent structural mass, but was explosively shattered to ensure it didn't crash to earth in a single mass, causing even greater general destruction.

4. Then the cascading race to the ground, as secondary charges shattered successive floors at a speed faster than gravity itself--since the destruction wave actually beat the first debris ejected above to the ground.

Along the way, those infamous "squibs" shot out at critical areas of the building, the pressure-driven ejecta a sign that the core was being "softened up" before the destruction wave reached them; necessary because this was an inverted demolition, going top down and not bottom up, when these major charges would have been the final coup-de-grace to critical structures.

Not really a mystery at all; this is what we see. The main mystery is how it was done. And this is where we've seen some major recent advances, and I'll highlight these points now.

Point 2 above was an important insight into the mechanism of collapse discovered by Griff and explained in his thread How they can fail at the impact zones even if the core was taken out. Briefly, Griff realized that detonations in the sub-basements that initiated collapse and undermined the cores would inevitably cause the towers to fail at the impact zones without need for further detonations at those areas.

The insight is simple but compelling: the undermined core tugs down upon the entire structure and these stresses are transferred to the outer building skin, the mesh of steel columns that make up the facades and that bear a significant portion of the building load, at the hat trusses which were located in the uppermost floors of the towers. Essentially, the hat trusses are the point at which the core and the perimeter structures are tied together, by way of a massive beam-and-truss assembly. Undermine the core, and it becomes an unsupportable burden upon the perimeter, which gives way at its weakest point--the impact areas. No detonations are needed to initiate collapse--and it looks "real."

The perimeter buckles and the upper building mass begins to topple. Without further detonations, it would fall to earth en masse, causing severe damage, so this structure was demolished immediately after (point 3), in a spectacular grey chrysanthemum-bloom of destruction that showers structural members upwards and outwards for hundreds of yards in all directions.

The cascade wave begins (point 4). Numerous videos highlight evidence of rows of minor detonations and flashes occurring at the leading edge of the wave of destruction as it races down the towers' facades. But the explosives necessary to accomplish this feat have always been dismissed because planting them would have been so obviously invasive by conventional means--telltale wires or detcord all over the place, easily discovered. Likewise, remote firing was not feasible, because charges could have been prematurely set off by radio or microwaves, stray electrical currents, and the like.

On this recent thread, Hi-tech, fool-proof CD exists, & here's the patent, we now know of a new CD technology using fibre-optic strands that is a major advance, providing secure, 100% reliable detonations. The towers thus could have been fully wired with fibre-optic lines indistinguishable from those used for the communications needs of its finance industry tenants, and this installation could have been carried out by normal workers who had no idea of its true purpose, over months, with charges swiftly placed by dedicated teams as final preparations.

Finally, the squib question. On the same thread, 11Bravo posted this video of the CD of the Stardust casino in Las Vegas:


What he noticed was a massive squib that shoots out at the final moment of demolition, just after all the minor charges have fired, and this squib/charge then takes out a major structural member, causing the building's actual collapse.

Almost all CDs are done this way, bottom up. But the towers were a top-down CD, necessary to fake a gravity-driven collapse. Invert the process and of necessity you must begin with the destruction of the critical core structure before the minor charges destroy the separate floors. There is further discussion of squibs at the end of the fibre-optic thread that examine these points in more depth.

So, one can see that major pieces of the puzzle of the "how" of the Twin Tower's collapse are falling in place. Several crucial anomalies remain unexplained, but are nonetheless incontrovertible evidence of CD: the pulverized concrete and building contents, and the molten steel found beneath the wreckage of WTC 1,2 & 7. These indicate massive energy sources, but may also be explainable by the cascading charges that brought the remaining towers down, and by the major charges that were required to destroy the massive core at its base and section it as the towers fell.

Hopefully this general exposition shows that the destruction of the WTC can be convincingly explained in its essentials without resort to exotic and unknown devices that scare off the public and derail and divide the truth movement.




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Sorry, but exotic devices are the only way of producing the said results. Conventional explosives can not pulverize concrete into micron fine powder, disintegrate hundreds of victims leaving nothing but tiny fragments etc..

"The towers collapsed to dust.." the words of a NY firefighter.

"10 ton, 50 ton segments of steel, bent like a pretzel. You couldn't imagine the forces needed to accomplish that.." the words of a steel worker who helped clean up the WTC.


Exotic devices not only explain how the towers fell, but also point to who placed them, and where they came from. If you want a smoking gun, this is it.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Very good job Gottago,Its hard to believe that the weight of the top floors caused the floors below to fail when almost all the concrete turned to dust and alot of the steel was thrown outward.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Nice post gottago. You said in a few paragraphs what took me two pages of posting to try and convey. I believe we are on the same page as far as how the towers fell.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Well gottago, thats your opinion to which you are entitled.

Its a wrong opinion, but you are entitled to it.


kix

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I wonder if the TT and WTC can be ¨sweepd to get particles of the demolition years ago, surellyy there must still be evidence in crevices and places as fine dust.
The question is, an someone recover that dust and make analisis of it, since all large metal parts and such were taken out asap and disapeared.
Also getting the basement meteorite and perfor a lot of analisis to see what kind of ëxotic¨devices were used on the CD of the WTC...

great post BTW...



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
^shrunkensimon,

I understand your point of view and I make reference to it in the OP regarding the pulverization of concrete and the molten steel, but ultimately speculation about exotica is doing more harm than good. It's a question of focus. Until you can point to something provable it will only divide and turn people away and play into the hands of the perpetrators. Unfortunately things are all over the place right now, its a diffuse movement.

Nail them down on the provable, then shake out the rest.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I would add a fifth stage: the core structures were brought down after the perimeter columns and floors were, at least below roughly the initial failure points, and WTC2's still-standing core was stripped of its outermost ring of box columns, which is probably very significant.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
and WTC2's still-standing core was stripped of its outermost ring of box columns, which is probably very significant.


Maybe they were the columns that needed to be severed? I'll have to look at some of the drawings and see what I can come up with if it would be significant or not.

Any other ideas as far as why the outer columns collapsed when the innermost hadn't? My opinion so far is that the elevator shafts would have been more reinforced. Thus allowing for it to stand a few seconds longer.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by bsbray11
and WTC2's still-standing core was stripped of its outermost ring of box columns, which is probably very significant.


Maybe they were the columns that needed to be severed? I'll have to look at some of the drawings and see what I can come up with if it would be significant or not.

Any other ideas as far as why the outer columns collapsed when the innermost hadn't? My opinion so far is that the elevator shafts would have been more reinforced. Thus allowing for it to stand a few seconds longer.


bsbray & Griff,

Here's a schematic of the core at the sub-basement level; I've been meaning to post this for a while. The box columns are dotted-in in doubled rows of red, the regular grid in yellow, and the cross of tightly spaced center columns in blue.



So what you have are two levels of reinforcement in the core--the two outer rows of box columns running longitudinally, and the central cross of tightly spaced columns.

It's pretty obvious what happened: like bsbray said, they took out the outer box columns and that initiated collapse. The perimeter and the floors are all dependent on them.

The rest of the core was severely undermined as well, but what kept it up as long as it did was the central cross.


[edit on 19-7-2007 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
There are many theories about why and how and I just wanted to throw this into the mix.

Sorry that I don't have actual links to these, they are part of my archives that I have gathered over the years.


Stratesec had an ongoing contractor to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down" according to CEO Barry McDaniel. The company, formerly named Securacom, acquired an $8.3 million World Trade Center contract in October 1996



Stratesec (Securacom) differs from other security companies which separate the function of consultant from that of service provider. The company defines itself as a "single-source" provider of "end-to-end" security services, including everything from diagnosis of existing systems to hiring subcontractors to installing video and electronic equipment. It also provides armored vehicles and security guards



At IPO in 1997, Securacom listed among its clients Washington Dulles International Airport, Hewlett-Packard, EDS, United Airlines, Gillette, MCI, the World Trade Center.



From 1996 to 2000, Securacom installed what was referred to as "a new security system" at the World Trade Center. Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers, was CEO of Securacom from 1999 until 2002.



Marvin Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000.


I am not saying that it was pre-wired for demolition but it certainly could have been.

Personally though I believe we need to look at the basement for answers


"At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"

Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, "That's the $64,000 question."

Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."

911review.com...

Here is some good info on the original construction and design

people.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:18 AM
link   
^Intheshadows

Very interesting quote you cited from Loizeaux. That's more than a hint, considering he's Mr. CDI.

I said it on another thread, but worth repeating; he acts incredibly jealous about 9/11, since they had to clean up after someone else's party, and drops quotes dripping with innuendo like this all the time.

If I were a silent truther in the MSM, I'd go have a nice long on-the-record interview with him in his favorite bar, and leave the tape recorder running.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Maybe they were the columns that needed to be severed?


They were the columns that connected to the trusses, and the trusses are all gone too by that point. One idea that's been put forth is that explosions actually came outward towards the floors from the outer ring of core columns below the initiation point, but it's hard to say of course.

One thing that bothers me is that those energetic puffs were seen coming out on the far sides of floors, such that if you followed the puffs back the way they came, you'd eventually come out the other side of the building and miss the core completely. And I still think that those expulsions are directly related to something that was placed in the buildings. So that would either suggest something behind the perimeter columns or in the floor or etc., assuming nothing moved before collapse and everything just detonated where it was. You may have noticed that aside from almost all of the concrete being pulverized or worse, the floor trays are pretty hard to find at Ground Zero, and so are trusses.


Christophera, the guy who's been asserting that the towers really had reinforced concrete cores with an outer wall of box columns and elevator supports inside, pushes his case so hard (so he's told me before in exchanges) only because he thinks there's no way we can figure out how the towers were brought down given the structure we were told about, that he claims is fabricated, because it just wasn't the right structure.

If the towers had reinforced concrete cores with an outer ring of box columns, then that could very well explain why the core appears to have its outermost ring missing in the image below, and why the core structure itself looks gray and opaque:




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I actually believe there was concrete in the core. At least up to a certain height. Probably the same height as the core standing in your picture BsBray. It just doesn't make sense otherwise because everything pre 9/11 said either "steel reinforced concrete core" or "concrete reinforced steel core". I tend to go by the concrete reinforced steel core.



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If the towers had reinforced concrete cores with an outer ring of box columns, then that could very well explain why the core appears to have its outermost ring missing in the image below, and why the core structure itself looks gray and opaque


They probably encased the inner core columns in concrete but that's not going to significantly change their performance, and the box columns were doing most of the work in any event. Their's no indication in the remains or the arch'l plans released under cover of night that those were anything but steel columns. Just glance at the construction photos--that core was red steel through and through.

The inner core remains standing later because they concentrated on taking out the outer rows of box column--they held the towers up, and it matches with your photo of the spire.

[edit on 19-7-2007 by gottago]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
They probably encased the inner core columns in concrete


Do you actually mean encased? As in, basically a concrete column with a steel box column inside of it?


Their's no indication in the remains or the arch'l plans released under cover of night that those were anything but steel columns.


I don't trust those drawings. They're several years too late and I don't even know the original source for them. Do you? Plus, they're architectural and dated after the construction period, so at best it's information being provided by proxy even before being anonymously sent out. Not a credible source, imo. No better than FEMA's unsupported and vague descriptions of the WTC structures in 2002.



Just glance at the construction photos--that core was red steel through and through.


There are no photos showing a completed core structure for any given floor. They weren't built like that regardless of the actual final structure. Concrete would probably be set afterwards anyway, imo, considering how vulnerable it would be sticking ahead of the columns, because concrete has no tensile strength to resist wind loads.

Similarly, concrete floor slabs aren't laid at the current (most visible) floor in most/all construction photos I've seen. They came later.



The inner core remains standing later because they concentrated on taking out the outer rows of box column--they held the towers up, and it matches with your photo of the spire.


Why would only the outer row of box columns hold the towers up?



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by gottago
They probably encased the inner core columns in concrete


Do you actually mean encased? As in, basically a concrete column with a steel box column inside of it?


That should have been more precisely worded. By inner core columns, I mean all core columns but the outer rows of box columns. And by encased, I mean that steel columns would have been sheathed in concrete, but this has to occur after the core is erected. The concrete would have served essentially for fire protection.



Their's no indication in the remains or the arch'l plans released under cover of night that those were anything but steel columns.


I don't trust those drawings. They're several years too late and I don't even know the original source for them. Do you? Plus, they're architectural and dated after the construction period, so at best it's information being provided by proxy even before being anonymously sent out. Not a credible source, imo. No better than FEMA's unsupported and vague descriptions of the WTC structures in 2002.


I'm referring here to the architect's final schematics of the north tower that are posted on 911Research; I posted one of them above to illustrate the core structure schematically. Those are definitely the real deal; nothing's fishy about them at all. The only problem with them is that they are not the engineering drawings, which is what you really need to have a full understanding of the core structure. A schematic floorplan can only tell so much of the story, but they offer a lot of valuable info in any event. Plans and elevations, detail drawings, and specs for the steel structure--all that no one has ever released, and probably never will, as it would be just too damning.



Just glance at the construction photos--that core was red steel through and through.


There are no photos showing a completed core structure for any given floor. They weren't built like that regardless of the actual final structure. Concrete would probably be set afterwards anyway, imo, considering how vulnerable it would be sticking ahead of the columns, because concrete has no tensile strength to resist wind loads.


Exactly. A steel-reinforced column is a different beast entirely from a concrete-sheathed column--in the first, it's the concrete doing the work of carrying the static load, with the steel (usually a "column" of rebar) adding tensile strength. This is great for smaller buildings, but at the scale of the WTC, load-bearing concrete columns would have been an impossibility.

Every photo shows a steel-framed building going up. The plans corroborate that. The steel was doing the work. Whatever concrete there was in the core came later, and had very little to do with how it stood up.

Now, even if they encased the core in a concrete-reinforced shell, as I've seen proposed, you still have to do this work floor-by-floor, and you can see from the construction photos that floorpans are already in before you see any serious concrete in the structure. So, you pour 108 open rectangular concrete boxes one on top of the other, each divided by floorpans--i.e., each a separate unit. The building would sway two yards off center in high winds. So you'd have this enormous stack of concrete boxes shifting and wearing on the floorpans and joists, adding amazing stresses for no structural gain and wearing upon the steel structure, creating a recipe for disaster. A bit like badly moored cargo in the hold of a ship at sea. Just didn't happen.



The inner core remains standing later because they concentrated on taking out the outer rows of box column--they held the towers up, and it matches with your photo of the spire.


Why would only the outer row of box columns hold the towers up?

Again, a bit glibly worded, but essentially true. The box columns are obviously "the core of the core." They were doing the lion's share of the work of the core in literally holding the building up (and they were what the major floor-spans were attached to). The inner core columns, though more numerous, are there to provide rigidity and knit the whole thing together. That's the purpose of the central cross of core columns, where they reduced the spacing between column rows by about a third. Simply put, the two rows of box columns provide brute strength, the inner cross provides rigidity; very elegant design.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Falling faster than gravity?

The interior of the building was falling first, we just saw the exterior and judge the time from that.

All the major damage was inside.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   
What would be the point in explosions in the basement? They wouldn't contribute anything to how the building fell.

They were just parts of the elevator mechanism crashing down. Eye witnesses said so.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by albie
What would be the point in explosions in the basement? They wouldn't contribute anything to how the building fell.

They were just parts of the elevator mechanism crashing down. Eye witnesses said so.


Did you read any of this thread before posting that?

This is a really good and well thought out piece, by far the best I've seen in a while also helped by posts from bsbray11 and Griff.

Strange how the debunkers havn't showed up yet.....must be busy typing their set pices....!

MR



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join