I think the first plane hit the wrong building.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
In another thread, a member here made the observation that if the towers were in fact bought down in a controlled demolition, why not destroy them in in order of impact, rather than have the south tower come down first, which in my opinion is a very good question.

Well this got me thinking. If explosives were used to bring them down , they would have to be planted before the impacts(preceeding days / weeks). Now I do not profess to be an expert on explosives, but I would assume that once planted, they are set off with a detonator hard wired to a switch which is manually activated.

This would have been imposible to do with the towers as a long chord running in the street woud be slightly conspicuous so I think we can rule out manual activation.

What about a timed detonator? Given the logistics involved in pulling this attack off, the perpetrators planting the explosives would have had a theoretical timeline as to what time the planes would hit the building. Using an exploding-bridgewire detonator hard wired into the buildings electrical system with a timer, the detonators could have been set to go off at a particular time.

Going back to the 911 Timeline we see that,

8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 11 Hits the North Tower of the World Trade Center

9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001: Newark Controllers Watch Flight 175 Hit WTC

9:59 a.m. September 11, 2001: South Tower of WTC Collapses 56 mins/ 73 mins

10:28 a.m. September 11, 2001: WTC North Tower Collapses 102 mins/ 85 mins

From this information we can deduce how long it took for the buildings to collapse after impact,

North Tower from impact to collapse = 102 minutes.

South Tower from impact to collapse = 56 minutes.

It shows that even though the buildings(which were near identical in constuction) were hit by the same type of planes(similar impacts), the North Tower stood for nearly TWICE AS LONG as the South Tower.

Now if in fact the explosives were on a set timer, it is my deduction that Flight 11 hit the wrong tower.

Had Flight 11 hit the South tower, and Flight 175 the North tower, we can deduce that the South Tower would fall 73 mins after impact, and the North Tower would fall 12 minutes later at 83 mins after impact.

Your thoughts on this theory? Does this seem logical to you?




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
It certainly seems possible. I also wondered at the time why the South tower came down first, it didn't seem right to me.

I hope those far smarter than I respond.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychoses
 


It was simple physics

South tower was struck 15 floors lower than North (78 to 83 floors vs
93 to 98) - that meant hundred of thousands of tons more weight
to be supported by structure

Also South tower was struck at oblique angle at intersection of south and
east faces. The impact ripped out a corner of the building leaving that
section "hanging" in air unsupported. If watch collapse sequence
can see building fall toward that section first.

North tower was hit dead center - the remaining exterior columns formed
an arch around damaged section helping to support it until heat from
fires softened the steel and caused columns to buckle



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I think using a timer would have been dangerous. What if both planes missed and then they couldn't stop the timers? The buildings would have appeared to have exploded for no reason!

Detonating them manually and wirelessly would have made more sense, although why they detonated them in the reverse order doesn't make sense.

Maybe there was something time-critical involved which left them with no choice but to destroy the second building that was hit first. Maybe someone was getting to close to discovering something.

Or maybe it was just that the 2nd building to be hit was a lot more critically damaged than the 1st. I think they were very poorly designed buildings and the builders must have cut a lot of corners when they were building them, so however solid they appeared to be, they never stood a chance.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I think by saying it was either a hard-wired cable or a timer removes a plethora of other methods of detonating explosives.

I mean, if even 'lowly terrorists' can wire explosive up to cell phones, so that they detonate when the phone's number is dialled, surely someone with the mental capacity to pull off 9/11 as controlled demolitions would have access to something equally technologically advanced?

Would they not have just dropped down to Radio Shack for a few cell phones, or used a wireless system?

I agree - it seems somewhat logical that the building which burnt longest should collapse first, but I don't think that it is evidence that something went wrong and they hit the towers in the wrong order.

It might be as simple as how the planes hit - one tower was hit square-on, the other was hit through the corner, with parts of the plane coming out the adjacent side. Surely this would result in different levels of damage to different parts of the building, thus resulting in different times for the structures to collapse?

Food for thought (nom, nom, nom...)

Rewey



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
I think they were very poorly designed buildings and the builders must have cut a lot of corners when they were building them...


Wow... that's two very big calls there... Is that an assumption, or based on something you've read?

Rew



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Just my opinion. Both buildings totally disintegrated along with WTC7...they can't have been built that well!



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
the first impact was to merely take out local television stations. they knew it would fall second.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by Myendica]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
This is simple in my honest opinion.

The second tower was hit lower and at a greater speed that is why it fell first.

No explosives were used.

I do believe that people in the government knew something was coming that morning or very close to it, but I don't think that the towers were imploded.

Everyone can say what they will about my opinion.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 




thedman said.......
South tower was struck 15 floors lower than North (78 to 83 floors vs 93 to 98) - that meant hundred of thousands of tons more weight to be supported by structure.


Please clarify this statement. How did planes hitting the building increase its mass by 100,000's tons?



thedman said.......
Also South tower was struck at oblique angle at intersection of south and east faces. The impact ripped out a corner of the building leaving that section "hanging" in air unsupported. If watch collapse sequence can see building fall toward that section first.


Here is an image of the south tower impact zone and it is quite clear the corner of the building is not "ripped out" or "hanging unsupported"





thedman said.......
North tower was hit dead center - the remaining exterior columns formed an arch around damaged section helping to support it until heat from fires softened the steel and caused columns to buckle


You can't be serious? If by chance you are, some links to substantiate you claims rather than citing "simple physics"?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Psychoses
 


I really like the thought you've put into this.

But it all rests on the fact that you believe they cannot remotely detonate explosives wirelessly, at will.

And they can, and could have. Which kind of makes the rest of the debate pointless.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


I agree. As I said, I'm no expert when it comes to explosives and this is just a theory I wanted to discuss as it appears nobody has investigated the possibility.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Psychoses
 


It was simple physics

South tower was struck 15 floors lower than North (78 to 83 floors vs
93 to 98) - that meant hundred of thousands of tons more weight
to be supported by structure

Also South tower was struck at oblique angle at intersection of south and
east faces. The impact ripped out a corner of the building leaving that
section "hanging" in air unsupported. If watch collapse sequence
can see building fall toward that section first.

North tower was hit dead center - the remaining exterior columns formed
an arch around damaged section helping to support it until heat from
fires softened the steel and caused columns to buckle



Wait, so your telling me that the corner of the building was damaged? And then your also telling me, that if I watch the video I will witness the building falling towards one corner on a specific angle?

Ok, I am going to take your word on that. But I have a question.

If the top section is falling away from the structure below it, and the ~70 floors below that are perfectly intact and structurally sound. How is it that the top half doesnt fall of into the streets?

How is it able to symmetrically smash, and completely destroy every single square foot of the tower that (was) below it?

Hmm, crazy.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses
reply to post by thedman
 


thedman said.......
South tower was struck 15 floors lower than North (78 to 83 floors vs 93 to 98) - that meant hundred of thousands of tons more weight to be supported by structure.

Please clarify this statement. How did planes hitting the building increase its mass by 100,000's tons?


No, no... he's not saying the planes are adding 100,000's of tons...

He's saying that the mass of the portion of building sitting directly on top of the damaged areas was much greater on one building, because the plane hit so much lower than the other tower. The 100'000s of tons he's referring to is the mass of the top part of the building which is adding downward pressure on the damaged areas, and would then allegedly drop and 'pancake' the rest on the way down. Therefore, the one with the heavier top part (thereby putting more pressure on the damaged part of the structure) is more likely to fall first...

Rew



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey

Originally posted by Psychoses
reply to post by thedman
 


thedman said.......
South tower was struck 15 floors lower than North (78 to 83 floors vs 93 to 98) - that meant hundred of thousands of tons more weight to be supported by structure.

Please clarify this statement. How did planes hitting the building increase its mass by 100,000's tons?


No, no... he's not saying the planes are adding 100,000's of tons...

He's saying that the mass of the portion of building sitting directly on top of the damaged areas was much greater on one building, because the plane hit so much lower than the other tower. The 100'000s of tons he's referring to is the mass of the top part of the building which is adding downward pressure on the damaged areas, and would then allegedly drop and 'pancake' the rest on the way down. Therefore, the one with the heavier top part (thereby putting more pressure on the damaged part of the structure) is more likely to fall first...

Rew



You realize that even the official story does not prescribe to the pancake theory anymore... right?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by slipkid
 




slipkid said.......
No explosives were used.


Are you familiar with the findings of Dr Neils Harrit's scientific study on dust samples from ground zero?

View the PDF here

I have not seen any scientific evidence which refutes his claims. Here is info substantiating the thermite reaction,

Thermit e at the WTC



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


Floor 83 to 93 is 10 floors. Even if it were one hundred thousand tonnes, this would imply that each floor weighs 10,000 tonnes giving the building a total mass of 1,070,000 tonnes.

The foundations would never have supported the weight of the building!



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Let's imagine for a moment that the towers were pre-rigged from top to bottom with hundreds, if not thousands of explosive demolition devices all wired into the electrical system (I've yet to see any evidence of any explosions of sufficient magnitude btw). Now what happens if there's a blackout (they do happen) due to a cable fault or one of the plane strikes and while we're considering reliability/dependability, what guarantee is there that a plane at high speed & low altitude under conditions of hostile action will even actually get to its intended target at all?

For the perfectly planned inside/outside job that some claim is a fact, there are just too many variables here to ensure success unless we believe there was a backup plan something like an earthquake causing the buildings to come down.

Remote wireless detonation - weren't radio communications within those steel buildings somewhat unreliable for that?

king9072:

If the top section is falling away from the structure below it, and the ~70 floors below that are perfectly intact and structurally sound. How is it that the top half doesnt fall of into the streets?


Perhaps you're considering the entire building as a solid object with uniform overall loadbearing strength here. The strength keeping the thing erect was concentrated mostly in the core columns and, to a lesser extent, the outer columns with the individual floors designed only to hold themselves plus their contents in place (with a generous safety factor designed in of course). Just a foot or two of lateral movement of the building above the impact zone would mean most vertical support is lost due to core damage (upper section core columns no longer sitting on the lower section columns) leaving only the already weakened outer columns still holding it up.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

You realize that even the official story does not prescribe to the pancake theory anymore... right?


No... really? What are they calling it now? Why the change?

Rew

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psychoses
reply to post by Rewey
 


Floor 83 to 93 is 10 floors. Even if it were one hundred thousand tonnes, this would imply that each floor weighs 10,000 tonnes giving the building a total mass of 1,070,000 tonnes.

The foundations would never have supported the weight of the building!


Yeah, I know... but I think he was just making a point. If he was trying to make a claim that was going to allow some sort of technical calculation, we'd want specifics with sources... I don't think he's really trying to mislead... you know how it goes...

Rew





new topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join