The top of the North Tower DID tip over and fall

A single air plane cant bring down any building that size with a solid frame of structural steel.

Its impossible.

You know what else is impossible? Molten Metal - pools of it at the base of the towers and pouring out of the exploding areas of the building.

Air Planes alone did not bring down 2 steel frame towers.

Not to mention the 3rd building that was hit by nothing but somehow looks exactly the same as a perfectly planned and detonated building.

reply to post by Varemia


If you watch very carefully, the spire appears to wobble to the right before collapsing to the left. It is only a split second before but it is noticable I saw a video earlier where people reported an explosion just before the tower collapsed. Could the shockwave of an explosion made the tower wobble the oppposite direction before collapse?

Please watch for what I am referring to.

eta: 1:58

Hey Varemia, very interesting view from this angle of the collapse. Maybe I can take a stab as to why it fell as it did?

We all know (hopefully) by now that the WTC had the "tube-in-tube" design, with exterior columns and interior columns set up in a T-in-T style. Now, we do know that its not the only buildings with this design, however, they did have light steel trusses for the floors to connect the columns from the exterior to the core. Now notice, most other buildings with this design template dont have light steel trusses as floors, but rather I-beams or more sturdier than truss supports. Unfortunately we cannot get our hands on the blueprints for the John Hancock or Sears Tower, and I cant really find too many photos during construction of them where they show clearly the floor's structural design (for obvious reasons ) Anyways, back to the point.

This gave the towers flexibilty and made them lighter. In fact the floor trusses also had dampeners on each end to stop the swaying from the winds. The floor trusses are not steel I-beams. They are lighter, more flexible, and are proven to be dangerous in large fires when unprotected, or when fireproofing fails. The towers were able to survive the initial impacts thanks to this design because it allowed for the impact to be disspated via the dampeners and helped slow down the swaying of the buildings after impact. Once the fires started, they began to adversly affect the floor trusses and the core beams. Ok I'm sorry I know I'm going on, but heres the main point: Before the collapse began, firefighters and police personel (like the guy on the radio in the video) could see serious deformations and slight movements in the North Tower beginning. Notice if there were detonations of high power explosives they would have been very audible all the way down to the street and people would have been running from the tower once they heard the "Kabooms" happening but before the building started collapsing.

As the collapse started, the top twisted, as this was due to the columns failing not at the same time, but progressively from most damaged/heat affected to least. That would account for the twisting (IMHO) as the connections failed. Once the top twisted and popped off, you can see how the exterior columns started to peel away. This is where the T-in-T design causes the biggest problem. What was holding the exterior columns up? The floor trusses. How were the trusses connected to the exterior? Via two 5/8" bolts which connected the top of the truss to the exterior via a seat on the exterior's core's side, and at the base of the truss, another connection to the dampener with two 1" bolts in a slot.

Ok the image shows it a lot better. In effect, look at that, and tell me how well that will hold up when the horizontal sheering stresses are put on it from the force of 10+ floors moving downwards as one unit, pushing the exterior columns forcefully away? Remember, this is already when the building has started collapsing down. Those very connections will fail, as how can two 5/8" bolts and two 1" bolts can withstand thousands of tons of dynamic force, when it was meant for mostly static loading and winds? I believe in NIST they mention how bolts just snapped and failed from the force of collapse or tore out of their seats. Now you have one end completely unsupported. Whats going to happen then? Well, its going to go down and tear away from the interior columns as well, including the weight of the top sections collapsing down. It ends up stripping the floors down as they pancaked onto the one below, leaving behind the exterior columns to stand freely until they too tipped over from the force of the collapse, and the core, which large sections remained standing once the initial collapse ended. But you have to remember this: all of this was happening nearly simultaniously once the top started moveing downward.

I do hope this makes some sense to you, in trying to visualize what I am saying. Once the top started to come down, the design "flaw" made the rest collapse, irregardless of what some people were saying about how sturdy the design was suppose to be. Something like this has never happened before, and no one would have been able to predict something like this ocurring. But if you need me to clarify anything I said, please ask via U2U, I'll be most happy to help clear it up I know I can get a little technical and end up babbling a little making it harder to get what I am saying

great vid!

It makes a lot of sense, GenRadek. The failure of some before the rest would also explain the tipping that Wide-Eyes noted, as the columns on one side fail, it tips that way, but the increased weight on the remaining ones make them fail, and then it goes that way.

The video I found was actually posted a week ago, so that's probably why very few have seen it. It's a wonderful view of almost the whole tower for the minutes before collapse and the minutes after.

Around the 1:30 minute mark, did I hear "a car bomb exploded"?

Originally posted by Pipebomb24875
Around the 1:30 minute mark, did I hear "a car bomb exploded"?

Yeah. They said there was a car bomb at the state department on capital hill, and that the pentagon was hit.

reply to post by Varemia


Those reports turned out to be false, about the car bombs, but that was a shining example of how initial reports were very much confused and in error.

Back to the collapse, people always say that explosions were heard as the towers were burning, and that is a big "duh" moment in reality because we have two planes burning inside two buildings, with another 20-40 floors combined burning out of control. Somehow people believe that these reports are all evidence of demo charges going off. Many times people use the people's own words that were describing the impact, fires, start of collapse as an "explosion" or "like bombs going off", as if this is total proof that bombs were used. But I always point to how we do not pick up any charges going off right before any movement of the building, and that the sounds heard closest to the tower was in fact the steel failing. A great example of how steel failing and snapping sounds like is the crane crash:


Could this have been the sounds described by some right before the collapse? We dont see any blasts ocurring prior to the start of movement. Its almost gradual, and coupled with reports from the police choppers describing how the building's structural integrity is going, columns are bending, floor trusses sagging and collapsing, all point to a catastrophic structural failure in the making, not from magical demo charges that explode silently and invisibly, and even then, only when the building is already collapsing. I always say, the demo charges explode first, we see them and hear them explode first, then we see the building move, not theother way around.

Lets say everything happened just as they say it did. I would think that a good 30+ floors would still be standing. The trajectory of the top falling over, sholdn't have brought down the remaining 70 floors. something caused the bottom 40 floors, and basement, to collapse, and it wasn't a fire on the 70+ floors.

Scalded Frog is correct, those are the main columns still standing. Mark the center of the building and see where the columns are after the collapse - in the middle.

The standing spire is obviously intact and remains standing for a few seconds.
At this point it does one of two things, either:
A) it turned to dust, or
B) fell straight down leaving a cloud of dust that was clinging to the beams.

If it was A then the OS is a lie. Not even conventional demolition would explain it.
If it were B then it fell down into the basement sub floors of which there were 6.
The rest of the collapsed material should have filled the basements leaving no room for the steel columns to fall straight down again disproving the OS and conventional demolition theories.
Add to this the pools of molten metal and fires that burned for weeks after the collapse. I don't even think thermite would account for that.
By deduction we are left with the tactical nukes theory or some other type of unknown exotic weapon that would allow for the spire to disintegrate or fall straight down and account for the molten metal and fires.
It is entirely possible that both conventional explosives, thermite and some other weapon were used to bring the towers down. The collapses don't need to be ascribed to one source only.

Originally posted by Myendica
Lets say everything happened just as they say it did. I would think that a good 30+ floors would still be standing. The trajectory of the top falling over, sholdn't have brought down the remaining 70 floors. something caused the bottom 40 floors, and basement, to collapse, and it wasn't a fire on the 70+ floors.

If you remember, the floors weren't solid blocks falling down. They were a lot of interconnected pieces. When they come crashing down, they don't just suddenly decide to stop because they reached a certain height. They're going to continue crashing downward (if momentum is real). The collapse wouldn't be able to stop until a strong enough force resisted it, like the earth itself, and as you may remember from every video of the collapse, once it hits the ground there is a heavy earth shaking. That means there was a LOT of downward force being contained in the collapse.

reply to post by Myendica


You would be correct in your assumption if the building was built conventionally, with a steel skeleton interior, rather than the T-in-T design at the WTC. The reason why the bottom floors failed as well, was due to the design of the floor-truss/exterior column system. Once the floors above began to move down gaining speed and more momentum, there was nothing to stop that massive force from sheering the connection of the lower floors. I would agree with you that it would have been impossible for this to happen had the floors been supported by welded steel I-beams instead of light steel trusses. But I would encourage you to look at my earlier post and see my explanation as to why it collapsed the way it did. Its mostly covered there.

for me the video posted shows so clearly its a demolition job,come on,stop insulting our intelligence please,and i've notice Varemia,you slowly seem to be seeing that what happen that day is not right,i mean honestly,how can you say after watching that video hand on heart,and say its not controlled demolition,and watching the video that was posted showing the aftermath from the helicopter view im even more convinced its a demolitions job,now please go look at some buildings that have collasped on there own,then go look at CD buildings,whats with the gapping hole in the middle,why is there not a giant pile of rumble and steel ? and everything is turn to dust,i dont care what you say,common sense tells you,that the top should of at least fell off the top to the side of the building,but it falls back inline,just like the first tower,and as been said its kinda twists round as it falls,its not natural,and just points to CD even more.

reply to post by Scalded Frog


I have to agree with you although it`s not the spire but the core column that disintergrates.
The building leans over and turns to dust in mid-air.
I think the disintergration of the core column proves that there was something else that brought down the towers.
Explosives and nano-thermite may have been used but i think something else was used in conjunction.
Dunno what but it certainly wasn`t fire !

You can view the fire in the top floors of building through the smoke throughout most of the video.

But from 1:56-2:01, watch the fire on that area right where the plane crashed a few seconds before the building collapses.

Look how much more intense and visible the fire is through the rising smoke right before the destruction. There was some sort of "explosion" around the impact area that caused the fire's temperature and brightness to increase exponentially right before destruction.

Common sense tells me that the intense heat in that area during that time span is what actually caused the upper floors to lose their stability and crumble on the rest of the building.

What caused that intense heat?

Originally posted by tooo many pills
You can view the fire in the top floors of building through the smoke throughout most of the video.

But from 1:56-2:01, watch the fire on that area right where the plane crashed a few seconds before the building collapses.

Look how much more intense and visible the fire is through the rising smoke right before the destruction. There was some sort of "explosion" around the impact area that caused the fire's temperature and brightness to increase exponentially right before destruction.

Common sense tells me that the intense heat in that area during that time span is what actually caused the upper floors to lose their stability and crumble on the rest of the building.

What caused that intense heat?

edit on 9-10-2010 by tooo many pills because: (no reason given)

I believe that would actually be because the fire essentially "blew out" of the hole in the wall when the floors crushed downward.

I could honestly state with my hand over my heart that I don't see a controlled demo going on. Too many factors are uncontrolled.

reply to post by tooo many pills


An explosion by a demo charge is not really going to create even more intense heat, but a few floors collapsing onto the burning sections can create the effect when they squash down and force the fires outside, making them more intense.

An explosion from a bomb can actually "blow out" the fire, but not really explode and make it hotter, unless it was a fuel tank explosion. Fun fact, in order to stop an oil rig gushing burning oil, firefighters use explosives to literally blow the fire out, by using the force of the blast to snuff the fire out.

reply to post by Varemia


So, you're telling me that for 5 seconds the inner floors were caving in which caused the fire to blow out of the building stronger, and then the building collapsed? The building collapsed all at once from 2:00-2:01 near free fall speeds.

Watch the video again.
From 0:00-1:55, the fire is considerablely weak and less visible through the smoke.
At 1:55-2:01, the fire becomes much brighter and easily visible through the smoke indicating something just gave it fuel to burn hotter and stronger.
Then at 2:01, a few seconds after the increase in explosions occur the building comes crashing down.
Gee, what happened?

reply to post by GenRadek


I didn't say it was a "demo charge." I said it was an “explosion” because of the increase in fire balls coming out of the building. Now, if it is obviously an explosion then what caused the explosion? All of the jet fuel was already burnt or burning, why the sudden increase in heat and intensity? I don't understand how you can believe the explosion was the result of floors collapsing deep inside the building which fed air to the fire until the entire building gave way because you clearly can't see inside the building, nor can you see a visible sign of that occurring from the outside.

The tower falls altogether from start to finish because of a new continuous explosion occurring near the point of impact.

Watch the video again and look at the times :13 :14 :15 :24

You will see flashes. Here is just one for example:

Originally posted by splint
Watch the video again and look at the times :13 :14 :15 :24

You will see flashes. Here is just one for example:

I looked closely, and that has to be glass. There are other flashes and one or two are off the tower entirely, which implies that something is being reflective in the air, and there is a lot of glass, so it is probably glass.