It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


In Support Of The Twin Towers Collapsing Due To Fire .

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:00 PM
I should say up front that the following is in part , my opinion , so as not to be required to provide 'proof' by those who will disagree with it .

It is also , in large part , taken from an article from The New York Times , Sept. 8, 2002 , titled "The Height of Ambition" by James Glanz and Eric Lipton .

My opinion :

It IS possible that the towers collapsed from structural failure due to nothing more than being subjected to the intense fires that resulted from the ignition of the jet fuel .

Planes did indeed crash into the towers . Whether they were the alleged flights , I can't say with certainity at this time .

Was it possible for aluminum aircraft to penetrate the facade of the towers and cause this type of damage ? Most definitely , YES .

Should the planes have 'crumpled' instead of penetrating the facade ? NO .

Were there secondary explosive devices used to further weaken the structures ? I can't say conclusively , one way or the other .

Did the towers fall as a direct result of successive charges ? In my opinion , NO .

Can the massive dust clouds be explained in a credible way ? YES .

Is it possible that most of the concrete was pulverized ? Most definitely , YES .

Did any steel 'vaporize' ? In my opinion , NO .

Were the towers structurally sound before the impacts , with tried-and-true methods of construction ? NO .

Is it relevant that no other steel high-rises had suffered total collapse , due to fire ? NO , as these towers were not constructed with methods that were used in any other steel high-rises .

In order to understand how the towers collapsed due to fire alone , would you need to have a cursory understanding of the properties of steel , as well as knowledge of what types of steel were employed in the construction of the towers ? YES .

The following is taken from the above-mentioned article . Some of it has been paraphrased and I have interjected my thoughts here and there . I will do my best to use "parenthesis" when quoting directly from the article .

"When they drew up the blueprints for it's construction , they had unwittingly written the script for it's eventual destruction . The project's architects and engineers used brand new , untested technologies to raise an unprecedented amount of real estate into the sky . They created a pair of lightweight , almost willowy structures ..."

" Even before they were built , though , critics derided the Buck Rogers quality of the towers noting that new technologies and new architectural paradigms often bring new vulnerabilities ."

"The trade-center towers could be the start of a new skyscraper age or THE BIGGEST TOMBSTONES IN THE WORLD ." ( Louise Huxtable , architecture critic , New York Times , 1966 ).

Keep in mind that "ten million square feet of office space represented more rentable office space than existed in all of Houston , Detroit , or downtown Los Angeles at the time ".

"...the center could endanger thousands in the case of a fire or an explosion ". (Lawrence A. Wien , in a Sept. 1964 letter to Gov. Richard J. Hughes of New Jersey). Wien would ultimately suggest...that an airplane might someday hit the World Trade Center , with disastrous consequences."

"Now,they had to figure out how to build towers 110 stories into the sky that wouldn't crumble under their own weight."

"Since the first steel-reinforced skyscrapers were built in the latter part of the 19th century,these nature-defying structures had always relied for their basic support on a kind of three-dimensional cage,or grid. The grid permeated the entire building--massive steel columns interrupting the floor space every 20 or 30 feet.
The point was structural integrity: if one of the closely spaced steel bones failed, another would be there to take up the slack,avoiding total collapse."

"In case of fire,thick sheaths of masonry--brick, stone or terra cotta--around the steel would protect it from the heat, even in out-of-control blazes."

"Leslie E. Robertson, the man who designed the guts of the twin towers, had to figure out how the buildings would support themselves, as well as how to economize wherever possible. He decided that masonry-encased interior columns would be sturdy,but expensive,and this would also eat up tremendous amounts of rentable floor space. So, Robertson and his team abandoned the traditional way of doing things by doing away with the masonry and used gypsum (sheetrock) instead, for the interior walls."

(Keep in mind that Yamasaki was commissioned to design the towers,not build them.The 'building' would be the responsibilty of the engineers, namely Leslie Robertson in this case .)

"Robertson and his team made the decision to incorporate the pinstripe columns of the exterior walls into the main structural elements of the entire building,to carry almost half the weight of the building,as well as the lateral rigidity that would be needed for resisting the wind.This would erase the need for interior columns,thereby allowing for more open floor space."

*** "Using exterior columns rather than interior ones for lateral stifness also allowed Robertson to reduce the total amount of structural steel by at least 30% . The steel in the tightly spaced columns became as THIN AS A QUARTER-INCH toward the top, where it had less load to carry." (emphasis mine)

"Instead of using massive beams or heavy framings for horizontal floor supports, Robertson chose to use bar-joist trusses (thin steel bars and angle iron,topped with corrugated decking).These trusses would hold up the concrete floors as well as provide lateral support to the exterior columns,keeping them from buckling under the load they would carry).

"What Robertson failed to take into account was the possibility of an intense,violent fire.The thin bars and angle iron which made up the trusses would heat up and soften faster than the traditional girders and steel beams."

"While gypsum is extremely resistant to fire,it can't be expected to remain intact in the event of an explosion or violent impact,such as an airliner crashing into the towers."

"The fire-proofing that the Port Authority chose to use was a newly-invented lightweight,low-cost product called 'mineral wool',which is sprayed onto the steel.Even during construction,the material showed signs of failing to adhere to the steel.Rain would wash it off.When applied to rusty steel,it would flake off."

[edit on 27-4-2010 by okbmd]

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:37 PM
Citations to evidence would be nice to support you claims BTW...

Otherwise this is all opinions right?

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:50 PM
The only way I can imagine an office fire melting steel is if the winds at the 70 - 90th floors were strong and persistent enough to act as a sort of blast furnace, increasing the heat of the jet fuel and office fires many-fold. Unfortunately you would still be left to explain the huge amounts of molten steel under the towers (and building seven somehow) . Good luck.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:53 PM
reply to post by okbmd

"...the contractor who applied the fireproofing , Mario & DiBono Plastering , has since been shown to have had Mafia connections . John Gotti was caught on tape saying that Louis DiBono , the company's president , had to die . DiBono's bullet-riddled body was found in the basement of the Trade Center in 1990."

"In the mid-1990's Frank Lombardi, a Port Authority engineer, discovered that the fireproofing was only half as thick as it should have been."

"On Dec. 23, 1970 , a celebration was held for the construction workers of the North Tower, including a band, soda, and sandwiches."

"James Endler, the construction contractor who oversaw the entire project, was in attendance. He was standing next to Jack Kyle, the chief engineer for the Port Authority, as the band played the Mexican hat dance."

"As the construction workers stomped in unison, Endler felt odd vibrations in the structure, the floor did not seem steady. Addressing Jack Kyle, he asked "how do we stop that vibration?"

" Kyles response--'don't play that song anymore'."

The Port Authority was exempt from city fire codes , due to it being a bi-state agency.

"Due to a series of small fires even before the towers opened, firefighters questioned how safe the buildings would be in a major fire. A custodian/arsonist set a fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower in Feb. of 1975. It blazed for over three hours, spreading up and down six floors.(keep in mind that the steel beams were thicker on the lower floors)."

"Due to this fire, it was discovered that critical fireproofing was missing, allowing burning utility wires to spread the fires between the floors."

"Tenants near the top of the towers would tell of how the steel would 'creek like a ship at sea' on especially windy days, and of how they could hear the elevator cables slapping against the walls of the core."

"Near the bottom of the buildings, the steel was up to 4 inches thick and tapered all the way down to 1/4 inch in the upper stories, allowing the planes to 'slice' the outer columns instead of crumpling and falling."

"The soft exoskeleton and the vast interior volume of the tower allowed it to effectively 'ingest' the Boeing jet whole ..."

" The impact of the plane almost certainly knocked loose acres of the flimsy spray-on fireproofing , which meant that the fires were licking naked steel ."

Conclusion :

The steel structure of the columns was TUBULAR , not solid girders or beams .

The TUBES were as thin as 1/4 inch towards the top of the towers ., allowing an aluminum aircraft to easily penetrate the facade . Look at the photos showing the 'angle cuts' and compare them to the photos of the aircraft wheel that is wedged into one of the upper sections that was knocked loose .

The steel at the base is much thicker . The steel at the top can be seen to be much thinner .

The massive dust clouds were the result of the gypsum and concrete being pulverized .

The concrete used in the construction was a 'lightweight' mix , for obvious reasons ., the weight of the towers crashing in upon themselves would easily pulverize the concrete floors.

The impacts of the planes would have caused massive damage to several floor structures . The intense heat would cause further weakening and failure of the thin material in the floor trusses.

Once the first few floor supports failed , the 'pancake' theory was inevitable ., the combined weight of the higher floors collectively contributing to the failure of each successive floor .

Tubular steel radiates heat much further than solid steel . Will supply links if requested .

The 'squibs' of smoke you see coming out of lower floors is due to the fact that the floors INSIDE the building are failing in succession , compression from blowing out the windows . You are unable to see the floors failing because the facade is not failing at exactly the same rate .

The floor trusses were what was keeping the exterior 'beams' in place . The towers failed from the inside out .

No explosives were needed .

Study the construction history .

The total collapse of the towers was the result of everyone involved trying to build them in the most cost-efficient manner , instead of following construction methods that were known to be reliable .

[edit on 27-4-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by okbmd]

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:04 PM
reply to post by theability

I stated up front that it was opinion coupled with an article from the New York Times .

Why is it that people like you always want someone else to do all the footwork just so you can ridicule it anyway ?

I posted this as an opinion ., not as an attempt to see to it that it was to your liking .

The information is just as available to you as it is to me .

If you are truly interested in knowing what happened , then why don't you contribute to the effort , instead of simply lurking around waiting for the next thread , so that you can ridicule someone who has at least put forth effort in finding the truth ?

Why don't you post something as a counter-opinion , instead of asking me to prove my OPINION ?

How can one 'prove' an opinion ?!!!

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by dashen

I will not be left to explain the molten metal at all , as this thread is not about molten metal any more than it is about WTC7 or the Pentagon .

I see the de-railers are on this one early .

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:13 PM
reply to post by okbmd

I stated up front that it was opinion coupled with an article from the New York Times.

Just like the MSM had this opinion before a investigation had been completed.

So in other words, everything the MSM says is all prefabricated scripts to support the original agendas.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:16 PM
Just stopping by to say great thread. Good luck with the debunkers.

Lot of info here for people to gather in and I hope that they pay attention.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:20 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by okbmd

Would you PLEASE explain to me how a description of the construction history of the WTC is an OPINION ?!

If you actually look at the construction of the WTC towers this isn't a tin can like you believe!

Seriously I can go on an on about this, 1300 foot buildings if they were so weak they'd succumb to GRAVITY long before a plane!!!


Gravity is the strongest force against the standing structure.

It never stops, it never goes away. Amazing that buildings still stand when you claim they are so weak.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by okbmd

Then the next force that the 1300 foot towers need to have in design consideration is EARTHQUAKES!

Much stronger than a jet crashing into them!

Now tell me again how these things are weak!

There isn't an online course to be a structural engineer, you actually ahve to go to school for years. Imagine that if they were so incompetent, then why not a world wide revision to architectural engineering??

Ohh there hasn't been any revisons to the engineering community to change the weakness that you say exist.

So what then?

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:13 PM
It is my opinion that the impact of the two jet planes had little to nothing to do with the collapse of the towers and certainly nothing to do with the collapse of building 7.

It is also my opinion that all three buildings were set with hi-tech explosives designed to collapse them straight down on their own footprint.

It is my opinion that IF the hi-jackers were militant islamics, the Mossad possibly in conjunction with elements of the U.S. government knew of the plan to fly planes into the buildings and "layered" their own operation on top of it. Otherwise it was a purely false flag event the purpose of which is painfully obvious.

So now we have my opinion and we have your opinion. I am curious what the consensus of ATS scholarship is on the subject.

So lets have a new and unbiased investigation to see what actually happened and that way we can all shut up about it once and for all.

Otherwise it will continue to be a festering wound in the soul of America.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:18 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by okbmd

Once again , please do not humiliate yourself by attempting to appear capable of an intelligent debate , when it is apparent that you possess no such skill.

I am sorry was that suppose to be discussion, and you accuse me of not having skills?

sorry I'll remove my post on your other thread sicne you seem to be above me!

btw watch that tone!

Remember this isn't about me right? its about the truth and evidence!
Yet again thanks for showing your true side!

BTW what degree if your claiming to be an expert state your expertise!

That usually goes with the claims you make, otherwise the skill you say you posses are all imaginary!

What degree? please by all means share with me what school, what discipline of engineering?

being a student doens't mean a thing...

[edit on 27-4-2010 by theability]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by theability]

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:22 PM
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by expat2368

And you are entitled to your opinion without having to 'prove' said opinion .

There was a time I held some of the same opinion as you do . Maybe still some , to a degree .

I , however have not reached a point that will allow me to say that I am confident that 'THIS' is what happened .

Therefore , I will continue to study and search for 'the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth' ...

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:31 PM
This guy is working boths side of the argument!!!!

Seriosuly what are you trying here??

This Thread here okbmd started is about NANO-THERMITE

and in this thread that okbmd states the issue was fire!

WOW talk about agenda!!!

[edit on 27-4-2010 by theability]

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by theability

I explained the schooling and the degrees above .

Strike three , you're outta here ...

Ignore will have been activated by the time you read this .

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by okbmd

After seeing you use of both side of the argument

Prove that there haven't been any revisions . Or , is that just something that you read off the back of your cereal box ?

You obvisouly have no expertise to claim or support.

On one thread you claim its fires that bring down the wtc and on another you claim its nano-thermite!!!!

OK now that is huge sisues with me!

Sorry I can't support this anymore!

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by theability

You should go back and read the other thread VERY carefully.

Okay , now Ignore is activated .

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in