Why Should the WTC Towers Suffer Complete Collapse?

reply to post by Valhall


Here's a link to a higher resolution version of the photo of WTC 2 posted above:



You can see that there is a section of the outer facade at the base of the dark column with aluminum cladding still intact, so it is definitely not the corner of the building.

I still find the dark vertical column above it to be far too large for any part of the perimeter columns, which you can see falling below. I believe what you're seeing is a chance alignment of a section of surviving facade and a piece--perhaps of the corner of the core, since it appears to have truss collars on it--lining up behind it.

Originally posted by gottago

Here's a link to a higher resolution version of the photo of WTC 2 posted above:

[img] I believe what you're seeing is a chance alignment of a section of surviving facade and a piece--perhaps of the corner of the core, since it appears to have truss collars on it--lining up behind it.

Well, it's not the facade. It's three three-column external panels (they may, in fact, still have cladding on them, but that's beside the point). You can even see where the middle one is offset to the panels on either side.

I have seen some videos recently talking about this 911 topic. It seems there are a number of unanswered questions such as where did the molten metal come from that was sitting beneath the towers for weeks after the collapse?

Also building seven fell just like a controlled demolition - which seems unusual.

I'm no expert in physics so I can't answer the original poster's question about why the walls were ejected outwards.

I recently read this:
www.infowars.com...

reply to post by gottago


Gottago, that is a very clear picture. It is facade still joined together. Which should state the casting, bolting and welding done, was exceptionally well done, to keep so many sections (what little was left of them) together under that massive type of kinetic thermonuclear pressure.

People still want to claim alleged planes and jet fuel fire brought down those buildings? Not a chance.

reply to post by Valhall


If that was a perimeter wall, it would have foundry cast spandrel plates very obviously noted. That piece has no foundry cast spandrel plates connecting the perimeter wall 3-tube sections.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Valhall

 

If that was a perimeter wall, it would have foundry cast spandrel plates very obviously noted. That piece has no foundry cast spandrel plates connecting the perimeter wall 3-tube sections.

Don't know what to tell you other than you can't make that statement as fact since you can't see the backside of it. It's a combination of 3 3-column external panels and it appears to still have the aluminum cladding on it. The side panels appear to have cladding up to the seam and the middle panel appears to have cladding up a little further (don't even want to guess at the height difference). Above that point I do believe you can see spandrels on the exposed central panel.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Valhall

 

Don't know what to tell you other than you can't make that statement as fact since you can't see the backside of it. It's a combination of 3 3-column external panels and it appears to still have the aluminum cladding on it. The side panels appear to have cladding up to the seam and the middle panel appears to have cladding up a little further (don't even want to guess at the height difference). Above that point I do believe you can see spandrels on the exposed central panel.

Yes, I can. I have many times linked photos of both in these discussions. One is designed nothing like the other. There are no spandrel plates in the photo gottago linked. That is obvious.

How do you know for certain it is the backside of anything? The back and front looked the same on the facade. How are you seeing all the detail you are describing on seam etc?

The other image behind the facades give the optical illusion one is attached to the other. I cannot tell what that background image is.

reply to post by OrionStars

reply to post by OrionStars



Not thermonuclear, DEW. There is no way for thermonuke to explain the toasted cars flipped all around; the Hutchoinson effect perfectly describes what happened. It is really the only answer that fits all the particulars.

reply to post by Valhall


How can you tell what that is? I cannot tell what that is, and I have looked at both repeatedly for almost 7 years. It could be HVAC duct. There was 198 miles of HVAC duct in the twin towers. We can see, from photos, some of that survived intact on the ground, in some very long recognizable pieces. They looked highly pristine considering all that trauma they endured when being so fragile compared to steel.

The one under, in the foreground with silver reflection, is partial connected sections of the facade.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Valhall

 

How can you tell what that is? I cannot tell what that is, and I have looked at both repeatedly for almost 7 years. It could be HVAC duct. There was 198 miles of HVAC duct in the twin towers. We can see, from photos, some of that survived intact on the ground, in some very long recognizable pieces. They looked highly pristine considering all that trauma they endured when being so fragile compared to steel.

The one under, in the foreground with silver reflection, is partial connected sections of the facade.

Sounds like a personal problem for you. So are you intimating the whole thing should be called an HVAC because you're still looking for 198 miles of it? or are you intimating that it should be called disintegrated steel because you haven't been able to make out three distinct panels in seven years of staring at them?

Anyway - there you have it.

Originally posted by eyewitness86
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Not thermonuclear, DEW. There is no way for thermonuke to explain the toasted cars flipped all around; the Hutchoinson effect perfectly describes what happened. It is really the only answer that fits all the particulars.

With all due respect, eyewitness, yes, there is. DEW is controlled, confined and directed to a specific area thermonuclear energy, but does exert some massive indirect energy outward. It is not an uncontrolled indirect thermonuclear weapon, such as the H- and A-bombs, with both uncontrolled direct and indirect thermonuclear energy. As evidence on Dr. Judy Wood's website, when DEW is used in Iraq. Yet, the same effect would happen with the H- and A-bomb on automobiles, buildings, etc.

www.drjudywood.com...

www.drjudywood.com...

Dr. Hutchinson is experimenting with intentional human made anti-gravity apart from thermonuclear energy. Anything defying natural gravity can be considered "anti-gravity". However, that is not actual anti-gravity but results from other pressure from under an object defying gravity.

Originally posted by Valhall

Sounds like a personal problem for you. So are you intimating the whole thing should be called an HVAC because you're still looking for 198 miles of it? or are you intimating that it should be called disintegrated steel because you haven't been able to make out three distinct panels in seven years of staring at them?

Anyway - there you have it.

Your first sentence is looking very much like a snide personal attack. I have not done that to you.

I said it could be. It did not say it was. You are the one insisting is has to be perimeter wall and nothing else. Please clarify the object, and prove it is a section of perimeter wall. What you point at is not a clear spandrel plate or perimeter wall tube. Casted spandrel plates ran the width of the sections of tubing connecting them together as a unit section. The backside had foundry cast braces and very large bolt holes to secure the floor trusses on the perimeter walls.

Gottago clarified the image of the facade, which also was not clear in other photos presented in discussion. That helped me identify what that was.

reply to post by gottago


So it is the facade then? That's why I thought it looked like the corner, cause it is the aluminum facade, with a piece of the steel box column of the outer wall structure showing behind it.

It's not the central core. The central core dropped first imo.

Good find on the pic!

(Is the board acting strange to anyone? The last post I saw was the one I replied to here by 'gottago', but after I posted all the other posts showed up.
Confused me for a sec.)

[edit on 13/2/2008 by ANOK]

reply to post by OrionStars



Seeing the enlargement, I very much agree with Valhall's ID of the piece in question. Cladding below, stripped perimeter column with spandrels above.

reply to post by gottago


The perimeter load bearers had no aluminum cladding. The load bearing perimeter walls looked a rusty color as evidenced in the photo at the following link. Anyone accessing will have to scroll down to a color photo of the loading bearing perimeter walls:

www.serendipity.li...

The twin towers had two perimeter steel walls:

1. The primary lateral load bearing steel walls not clad in aluminum
2. Steel facade clad in aluminum to protect against rust and for eye appeal

reply to post by OrionStars


I don't know why you think that; the "wheatchex" perimeter column/spandrel units were covered in alu cladding and that was it.

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by OrionStars

 

I don't know why you think that; the "wheatchex" perimeter column/spandrel units were covered in alu cladding and that was it.

What you are partially describing is fork, not "wheat chex" design, and is the facade, not the perimeter primary lateral load bearing support wall units. They are two completely different designs. The load bearers did not look like "wheat chex". That is Purdue's animated graphic version, which is highly false for twin tower design and construction reality.

It is is "wheat chex" comparions to Purdue people need, they can try the width side of WTC 7:

www.studyof911.com...

That looks nothing like the reality of the twin towers' construction and design.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by OrionStars

 

I don't know why you think that; the "wheatchex" perimeter column/spandrel units were covered in alu cladding and that was it.

What you are partially describing is fork, not "wheat chex" design, and is the facade, not the perimeter primary lateral load bearing support wall units. They are two completely different designs.

Please provide a link picturing and describing "the perimeter primary lateral load bearing support wall units."