Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Then by your logic, controled demolition shouldn't work.
Buildings NEVER can fall down.
Rrrrrriiiiiiggggghhhhhhhttttttttttt.
Or was WTC special?


Structural FAILURE.
Just as a controlled demolition is INTENTIONALLY causing structural failure.
Every structure under the right conditions can and will collapse.
It DID collapse attacking that fact is taking it into the realm of PURE SILLINESS.
The debate is intentional or not.

And an object no longer properly held up will fall and if heavy enough it WILL fall on objects under it that ARE held up properly and and WILL possibly (most likely) screw up that object and make it fall.
Sorry to inform you.

Added to the fact that it was designed to upon such a structural failure to IMPLODE to mimize the damage to New York at large. Considering the fact that a building falling over like a felled tree will kill alot more.



The Titanic could sink and did my friend and it wasn't intentional.

I commend your mistrust of the government.
It IS f***ed.
But come on.






[edit on 25-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

and titanic cracked in to big pices

as the wtc´s should have done

Originally posted by zerbot565
and titanic cracked in to big pices

as the wtc´s should have done

Steel and concrete falling down from great heights and steel SHIPS sinking to the bottom of ocean is not the same animal.
And the titanic cracked into two parts because its butt was starting to stick in the air and it's structure wasn't designed to take the stresses of holding its but in the air.

The rest of my comments I shall tastefully keep to myself.


[edit on 25-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

you do that and ill do the same ,

it still wont change the fact that the top of the towers should have slidd of the structure leaving most of it still intact and still standing today

reply to post by zerbot565


Really. Why?

you must be teasing me but ok

for a building to fall in on it self it must lack inner structure to hold it up
even more so for it to totaly collapes in on it self at free falling speed

wtc´s had very much inner structure it should not have collapsed in on it self

in light of the official story fires weakend the inner structure , but only at the parts where the plane flew in hence you have max 10 floors with this damage , yet the rest of the building is still intact

a tall building bends in the wind so to say ,

the logical outcome would be that the bending affects the structure where its weakend and tilts the structure in the direction where ist most weakend

so now you have an upper part of a building tilted in the weakest direction , it should then by all logic snapp at that weak point falling down to the ground leaving debrise still hanging from the mesh structure

as for wtc 7 to collapse, it if any of the buildings should be still standing yet it to suffered from this " free fall syndome" we only see in total loss of inner structure

i dont know how more plain i can say it

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by WraothAscendant

 

Then by your logic, controled demolition shouldn't work.
Buildings NEVER can fall down.
Rrrrrriiiiiiggggghhhhhhhttttttttttt.
Or was WTC special?[/quote]

The WTC towers looked like the photos at the following link website, because according to you and others they fell all by themselves? The structures, in the photos below, had no controlled demolitions, of any type, used. Those photos are excellent examples of how structures fall without controlled demolitions of some type:

web.ics.purdue.edu...

reply to post by zerbot565


Will post a diagram for you so I can best explain my retort.
I gotta draw it.

Be patient please.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
The Titanic could sink and did my friend and it wasn't intentional.

This is way off topic but this analogy keeps coming up and just proves that people who use it really don't understand physics, which also explains why you can't comprehend the physics problems with a gravity fed collapse.

The Titanic did not defy physics and it's failure has been easily explained. They used inferior RIVETS that snapped and allowed the joints between the steel plates in the hull to leak. It had nothing to do with what happens during the collapse of a building.

reply to post by ANOK


Yea that hitting the iceberg thing was just a hologram. Right?

Oh and here you go my friend.

reply to post by zerbot565




****Note: the 3rd image shows how the floors really have nothing holding them up EXCEPT along the inside and outside edges.****
And to beat a dead horse.




Here is an example of the minimium support on most of the floor.




And here is my own ELEMENTARY example. I didn't want to take too much time to do this.




Oh and all the images except the one obviously drawn by me is from wikipedia.

Ok I fixed it cut the top one was cut off a bit. It showed a side view of the building as it kinda shows.


Anyway. Now tell me there is no way it couldn't have collapsed in on itself unintentionally.
Well, yes it was intentionally, they DESIGNED IT that way so it would do that in the event of such a structural failure.
And NOT splat a large amount of buildings around it. Sure it splatted a few nearby buildings but not as many had it say fell over like a tree part that is cut off.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Oh and all the images except the one obviously drawn by me is from wikipedia.

Anyway. Now tell me there is no way it couldn't have collapsed in on itself unintentionally.
Well, yes it was intentionally, they DESIGNED IT that way so it would do that in the event of such a structural failure.
And NOT splat a large amount of buildings around it.

Well it would collapse on itself if it was built like your schematic drawing, but you forgot to put in the core. It looks like this:




That would create a bit of resistance, I think even you would agree.

Also, do you have any reference to your non-splat design theory? Or is that your own idea?

Originally posted by Richard Gizinu

If you're looking for an explanation other than the logical and observable fact that contents in a 1/4 mile tall bulding will be destroyed when it falls, and some of it will be ground into dust sized particles..........

Well then, you've got to came up your own theory. Then post it here if you please....

First let's do an analysis of the USGS study of the dust, which you are obviously loathe to do, instead preferring gross and thoroughly misleading generalizations.

Look at this table of the major elements of the dust:



The USGS took 2 samples of the fireproofing to analyze, which are the diamond-hatched bars at the upper right of the table with the blue arrow pointing to them, and which are labeled "girder coatings" in the full table (cut off in this enlargement).

They show that much of the rest of the dust is roughly consistent in composition with the fireproofing, excepting the high levels of iron found in the actual dust itself, which varies in concentration from 2 to 4% in samples gathered about lower Manhattan. The fireproofing itself has trace amounts of iron in it.

What does this mean? It means that steel was turned to fine particulate and made up 2-4% of the vast dust cloud.

You said it is a "logical and observable fact that contents in a 1/4 mile tall bulding will be destroyed when it falls, and some of it will be ground into dust sized particles." That statement is true, for what its worth. But you know as well as I that this is only true for friable materials such as wallboard and fireproofing, which are obviously the major components of the dust.
You should not be finding 2-4% iron particulate in the dust.

Furthermore, subtract the wallboard and fireproofing and other friables
--and even the concrete--from the equation--say it is 75% of the dust, which is a low figure working in your favor--and suddenly the iron becomes the predominant component of the remainder, and the rest of the trace elements are also magnified to become important components as well.

That remaining percentage of dust is chock full of heavy metals, and that is what is really important in this study, and which has been diluted by the blunt presentation of the data without any analysis, because a simple subtraction of the expected components of the dust from the total would obviously uncover the freakish composition of the rest.

To create that amount of iron particulate from steel requires massive energies, and is obviously a byproduct of the demolition of the towers. How they were demolished, I don't yet know. But there is your proof.

Now its your turn: regarding the iron particulate, 'you've got to come up with your own theory. Then post it here if you please....'

[typos]


[edit on 26-1-2008 by gottago]

reply to post by OrionStars


True to a point... but an operation of this size and scale would have needed far more than two... and it only takes one to expose it... General Smedley Butler is a prime example... the tycoons (aka the wealthy and powerful) of the day plotted to overthow FDR and estabish a military facsist regime in his place (granddaddy bush was involved in this plot) and the picked General Butler to be their man... trouble was he was a real patriot and exposed them... of course their wealth and power kept the whole lot out of jail and smeard Butler but still the plot was foiled.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


You did not reference from where you lifted those. Could it be from NIST and/or FEMA? If so, they are not exactly correct. However, it is quite convenient when not desiring any contradiction to points of presentation. That is the typical expecting of people to buy a presentation at face value. Then becoming huffy about it when they do not.

It is also a prime example of presenting what may be partial facts, and conveniently leaving out the balance of the facts, which may well contradict those points of argument. The partial facts will not change from being facts, but become useless for points of argument, when all other pertinent facts are deliberately excluded.

Yes, it may be accurate, from what is presented, but it left out the rest of the facts which were not convenient for points of argument. That renders any points of argument false.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant

Oh and all the images except the one obviously drawn by me is from wikipedia.

Anyway. Now tell me there is no way it couldn't have collapsed in on itself unintentionally.
Well, yes it was intentionally, they DESIGNED IT that way so it would do that in the event of such a structural failure.
And NOT splat a large amount of buildings around it.

The built it that way with the intent they would splatter, and do far more damage, all over Manhattan all on their own? You know nothing concerning the construction of the towers. You prove it everytime you post concerning the twin towers. You treat them as if someone built them from oversized child's erector or tinker toy set. They were definitely not built that way. That is a fact not your convenient fiction.

Here are more images of buildings falling on their own:

web.ics.purdue.edu...

If the twin towers had fallen on their own and toppled, they would have done far more damage then they did by DEW. That also is a fact not your convenient fiction.

reply to post by gottago


Gottago, just an alert. You have to explain, to some people, what the cranes are sitting on are not the center core supports. I have already had to explain that, to at least one person presuming the crane bases are center core supports. They do not realize there is another set of structural steel framing inside the center core supports. Do not expect them to believe you. However, at least you will will be correct, and those getting huffy will continue to be incorrect in their self-denials.

reply to post by gottago


Before we proceed, are you aware that Jones has moved on from the iron-rich microspheres in the dust thing, and has conceded that it would be the result of the burning of office materials?

Look into flyash. It's the ash produced by incinerators around the world. The spectrographic analysis of Jones' dust and flyash is identical.

He's now moved on to the thermite chips theory.

Care to continue?

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by OrionStars

 

True to a point... but an operation of this size and scale would have needed far more than two... and it only takes one to expose it... General Smedley Butler is a prime example... the tycoons (aka the wealthy and powerful) of the day plotted to overthow FDR and estabish a military facsist regime in his place (granddaddy bush was involved in this plot) and the picked General Butler to be their man... trouble was he was a real patriot and exposed them... of course their wealth and power kept the whole lot out of jail and smeard Butler but still the plot was foiled.

I realize there are more directly involved. However, it is not as numerous as people think it is. A larger number will be in the know, but kept out of the inner circle direct planning. They have direct involvement only for their portion of what has to be done. That would be top level people in the military-industrial (and financial) complex. Then there are those just trying to keep their jobs, maintain status quo, and have no involvement at all.

How does one become an effective whistleblower, without being directly or indirectly involved? No one can. If they know something amounting to a bona fide validated smoking gun, and hold it back, that places those people in indirect complicity, because they could prove that much but chose not to. I have seen people in that situation. They can prove enough to have a smoking gun, and can go no further. They will not risk losing their jobs, plus, their reputations from falsely being maligned, as punishment for wanting to do the moral/ethical action. I understand their predicament. They emotionally suffer for it. Anyone with a working conscience does feel torn apart in those circumstances.

Morgan Reynolds and Sybil Edmonds are prime examples of what is necessary to have bona fide smoking guns of any real value. But not on the inside to have the complete picture to completely prove it. I give them and John Lear exceptional credit for their courage to come forward, and support them all the way no matter how it turns out.

reply to post by gottago


Gottago, I appreciate you promoting that report.

That was a specialize steel forging and casting for various structural steel, particularly the center core supports. Even the bolts were specialized forged steel unlike other bolts and greatly oversized. It all had to be to do what was claimed by the architect, structrual engineers, and contractor working the jobs.

If the contractors and sub-contractors suspected the buildings would not stand up to claims, they had a legal liability to say it and/or refuse to work those jobs. Had they not been able to hold to the claims, those buildings would have posed a public safety and employee hazard from the day they started to rise and were completed.

That did not happen through bomb, fire, or any normal ground movement on any Manhattan day. They had subway cars running into the sub-level of one twin tower, which would put stess at the base those buildings could easily take and keep tickin' into the distant future.