The top of the North Tower DID tip over and fall

Originally posted by tooo many pills
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?

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

Oh, actually what would make a fire suddenly bigger like that would be a sudden rush of new oxygen, which could have been caused by a floor beginning to collapse and opening a jet of fresh air. At least, that's the best I can come up with. Even explosives don't make sense in that instance.

reply to post by Varemia

Even explosives don't make sense in that instance

A new explosion adding more power to an existent fire doesn’t make sense? You cannot rule out an explosion unless you can see through a building. How can you say it was air without a shadow of a doubt, yet disbelieve that something could have blown up and increase the fire so easily? That just doesn't make any sense. That would be like me sitting here and telling you it wasn’t air feeding the fire because I saw inside of the building and the floors didn’t collapse. There is no proof it was air. What is clear is that there was a notable increase in the fire’s temperature and intensity, similar to an explosion, 5-6 seconds before the tower completely fell down in unison.

Originally posted by tooo many pills
reply to post by Varemia

 

Even explosives don't make sense in that instance

A new explosion adding more power to an existent fire doesn’t make sense? You cannot rule out an explosion unless you can see through a building. How can you say it was air without a shadow of a doubt, yet disbelieve that something could have blown up and increase the fire so easily? That just doesn't make any sense. That would be like me sitting here and telling you it wasn’t air feeding the fire because I saw inside of the building and the floors didn’t collapse. There is no proof it was air. What is clear is that there was a notable increase in the fire’s temperature and intensity, similar to an explosion, 5-6 seconds before the tower completely fell down in unison.

Well, explosion shock waves usually reduce the intensity of fire by exhausting oxygen and thrusting the excited particles into a normal state (don't quote me on that. I'm no expert). An incendiary like napalm might increase fire, but I'd think that would be easily recognizable.

You know that when you take a billow to a fire it makes it bigger? Same basic concept, I assume.

The thing about the statement that you can't rule it out until you can see through the building is that it can be applied both ways. You can't come to the conclusion that explosives were used without being able to see into the building. Since other simpler causes can be found, going with explosives is making the situation more complex than it appears. It is a possibility yes, but that doesn't make it the most probable.

reply to post by Varemia

This is new.

Your comment...

Well, explosion shock waves usually reduce the intensity of fire by exhausting oxygen and thrusting the excited particles into a normal state (don't quote me on that. I'm no expert). An incendiary like napalm might increase fire, but I'd think that would be easily recognizable.

Sorry, I quoted you on that. Oh well.

What I don't get is this. How can someone that is just trying to "get it", say THAT (what you posted and I quoted), but not get the fact that...how can I say this tactfully, THE TOWERS WERE BLOWN UP.

Usually when people understand relatively complex (but not really) scenarios, smart people can put things into perspective. Like, lightweight aluminum plane vs. massive steel and concrete structure for instance. Only so much can happen. Only so much has ever happened when a plane has hit a building. Only so much has happened when a skyscraper had a fire.

But 911 was different. Two planes and, what, 6 buildings destroyed? Because of Radeks rationale?

Or yours? BTW, what is your rationale? Or, are you still thinking that it was all a natural byproduct of an aluminum plane and some jet fuel?

reply to post by Stewie


I think I've given up on trying to convince others of why I understand it the way I do. I'm not a government agent, and I'm not blindly following a religious cult of the official story of what happened on 9/11. I'm not prone to falling ill under rhetoric from both sides, and I don't take a positive emotional reaction to being accused of being close-minded or idiotic. It actually makes me wonder sometimes what it is that goes on in a person's head that makes them enjoy belittling others, or wanting to feel a sense of superiority over their understanding of some trivial event of the past.

I see a strange division when I speak on this site. I'm a neutral in the middle of hot water and oil, for some reason left unscathed amidst the violent reactions between the two. Because I have more resemblance to water, the oil tries to react to me. It's as if fighting is all that is sought in these instances of people. Some think they are more intelligent for the manner in which they perceive something.

The words "obvious" and "undeniable" keep getting thrown around. The obvious is only obvious to the observer that is interpreting the situation. What is a plane to one man is a bird to another. What is a light to one man is a star to another. In this case, what is an explosion from a bomb to one man is a compression of heat to another. Both think they make more sense. Both violently clash in opinion.

Why?

I seek answers, so I ask. I tell others what I see in hopes of being corrected by the more knowledgeable. I want to have the entire day make complete sense, second by second. I want to be able to teach others what really happened. Yet, I am not finding these answers. I am being constantly tugged and pulled to agree with one side or the other, when in truth there are no sides.

A word of advice for all on ATS: If you want to find the truth, let go of your bias, let go of your emotions, let go of your ideals, and let go of your fears. An event is not based on right and wrong, on left and right, on hot or not. An event is based on what really happened. What happened where and what that led to.

A plane hit a tower. A type of plane that had never hit a high-rise building before. It was a high-rise building built only like the buildings next to it as a revolutionary design that had never been entirely field tested. After the initial impact, the plane sheared into the building, almost appearing to disappear as the metal ripped apart and the steel was pushed past its impact limits, taken out of its place on the wall. The metal of the plane continued to hold a lot of speed and impacted more steel inside, pulverizing concrete and office equipment. The fuel kept inside the plane ignited in the sparks. The air became a fireball and the force of a powerful bomb exploded throughout the rooms that the plane had entered. The fire enveloped numerous floors and became visible outside, issuing volumes of smoke and setting large portions of the tower on fire. The tower issued massive columns of black and white smoke into the air, the fires burning a lot of material. The fires raged and raged until something happened. A rumble occurred inside the tower, only felt as a vibration and no audible frequency. Something began to fail over the next seconds and the top of the tower crumpled on one floor down onto the floor below it. Multiple floors crushed in a second and the fire in the area became compressed by the crushing, causing the fire to balloon out of the sides like a fire going up an elevator shaft. The floors below continued to go down on the ones below, the force enough to release the strength of the steel below and pulverizing the concrete on the way down. The entire tower fell as such, but part of the core attempted to remain as the tower reached the earth. It wobbled for a moment and then the debris hit the ground, creating a shock wave that shook stationary cameras for quite a distance and making the wobbling steel core fold at the bottom like a tower of cards in on itself.

This is what happened. Insert your explanations for why it happened or provide evidence that more happened than is directly apparent.

"What I don't get is this. How can someone that is just trying to "get it", say THAT (what you posted and I quoted), but not get the fact that...how can I say this tactfully, THE TOWERS WERE BLOWN UP."

At least someone on this thread knows how to use their eyes. The building did not fall in a pancake fashion, it was completely blown to smithereens. What happened to all of the computers, telephones, office furniture, filing cabinets, electrical/phone wire, machinery, steel columns, refrigerators and everything else those buildings contained. There literally should have been a mountain of debris when those two buildings collapsed. There wasn't a mountain of debris because those buildings and their vast contents were literally blown to bits. What would cause two enormous buildings and their contents to literally evaporate or vaporize into thin air?

reply to post by Varemia

The floors below continued to go down on the ones below, the force enough to release the strength of the steel below and pulverizing the concrete on the way down. The entire tower fell as such, but part of the core attempted to remain as the tower reached the earth.

That explanation seems to me to be an oversimplification. If what you say is correct and the upper-floors crashed through the undamaged and comparatively stronger tower below then how did the upper-section of WTC2 regain stable equilibrium after pivoting around its centre of mass? In the videos you clearly see the top-section of the tower start to topple sideways (before it is engulfed in a cloud of dust). I'm no cognoscenti in physics, but as far as I understand, when an object becomes displaced from its centre of mass it must continue that displacement until it reaches stable equilibrium. Put simply, the top-section should have kept pivoting around its centre of mass, and it does. At one point in the video you even see that the roof-line of the top-section of WTC2 through the dust at an almost 90 degree angle, so how did it straighten up and fall through the tower below when it was experiencing unstable equilibrium and had no external forces acting upon it? The rotational force (torque) of the top-section means it should have kept pivoting around its centre of mass. This is a very basic law, called the conservation of angular momentum

The sheer speed of collapse seems hard to believe in a gravitational collapse as well. We have a tower that is built with a 10x load bearing capacity falling through itself at essentially near-freefall acceleration for the initiation collapse, as admitted by NIST, and for the entire collapse as admitted by the Commission Report. Another thing to keep in mind is that the upper-section of the tower only represented about 10% of the towers overall mass because the strength of construction diminished further up the towers because there was less weight to support. For me, this makes it hard to believe that the upper-section could have simply bulldozed through the lower-section. It's tantamount to a very heavy brick falling on my head, it might damage my spine and give me serious concussion, but it sure isn't going to fall through my body at near-freefall, it will fall to the path of least resistance. Poor analogy, but you get the idea. Are we really meant to believe that WTC2 collapsed in 10 seconds (as admitted by the Commission Report) which is almost the rate at which an object falls through thin air? Also, what happened to those 15 floors above the impact zone? Shouldn't those 15 floors have fallen to earth in one piece instead of vanishing from the rubble pile afterwards? As others have said, it seems likely to me, that the upper-section was blown to smithereens in mid-air.

Another things that's probably worth noting is that NIST's multi-million dollar computer simulation doesn't even bother documenting most of the collapse. They stop after the initiation collapse, so NIST haven't really explained how the towers collapsed, all they've done is explain the initiation collapse and stopped there. If that doesn't get your 'BS detector' ringing into overdrive then nothing probably will. NIST haven't explained the speed of the collapse, the explosive nature and how large sections weighing in excess of 400-tons became embedded in neighbouring buildings, the symmetrical pattern, or the destruction of the core. All they do is 'explain' what led up to the collapse but they don't explain the collapse itself in any sort of quantitative way. To top it off, they haven't even done any chemical testing for explosives which violates NFPA code and thus common law. It's inexcusable. The *least* NIST can do is release the parameters and input-data for their computer models for independent scrutiny, but they refuse to do even that, claiming it would "jeopardize public safety". Who would have thought, eh? NIST ostensibly have our best interests at heart.

Originally posted by Varemia
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.

Thank you for acknowledging my post

So often they just get lost in the thread.

reply to post by tooo many pills


Once again, an explosion doesnt do squat to "intensifying" a fire. (Unless its a large fuel tank filled with flammable gas/liquid). An explosive as is being suggestive of a "CD" will not makethe fires hotter.

It can snuff out the fire.

en.wikipedia.org...

Oil well fires are more difficult to extinguish than regular fires due to the enormous fuel supply for the fire. In fighting a fire at a wellhead, typically high explosives, such as dynamite, are used to consume all the local atmospheric oxygen and snuff the flame out. Doing so removes the oxygen necessary for the fire to burn, but the fire's fuel, whether it be natural gas or oil, is still present and oil can shower down upon the working crew.

So if people are claiming that the fires increasing in intensity are suggestive of explosives at work, that would be a false assumption, due to the fact that the explosives themselves are very powerful and would have snuffed the fires out. A fireball intensifying a fire would mean there was MORE fuel added to the flames. Explosives are the opposite.

reply to post by Stewie

But 911 was different. Two planes and, what, 6 buildings destroyed? Because of Radeks rationale?

No, now THAT is oversimplification of the situation mixed with a healthy does of incredulity. Stop with the incredulity. I see that nearly 100% of the truth movement's arguments and ideas are firmly planted in, not facts, but incredulity. "Oh there is no way a plane can knock a building down." "Oh there is no way a fire can destroy a building." "Oh there is no way a plane can be obliterated in a 500mph crash." Enough with this personal incredulity garbage. It gets us nowhere and only promotes more and more ignorance. Here on ATS we are suppose to deny ignorance, not embrace it.

Two planes impacted two large towers. The resulting impacts, damage, and then more damage from the fires caused the structural integrity of both towers to fail. Due to the size and height of the towers, debris was allowed to fall on the complex's smaller structures below. Most of the debris came down in the path of each side of each tower, akin to like how an arrow can be split by another arrow, or a banana peel peeling open its four sides. Some buildings took more damage while some where squashed flat. One took a direct hit and had fires break out which went unchallenged for nealy 7 hours. Coupled with damage from the impact and the growing out of control fires, this building had its structural integrity compromised, and it too failed and collapsed progressively.

As to the events leading up to the collapse of all three main buildings, they have been addressed in NIST's final reports. Comprehensive, many facts, and tests have been done to show the most probable chain of events leading to total global failure. I see that nearly all who argue NIST's final results, have barely skimmed the document. Most, if not all, of the questions they have, have already been answered in the pages of the documents. But for some reason, some people's blind ignorance and blind acceptance of the many garbage TM websites, they are still stuck in thinking that the 9/11 Commission Report was suppose to address the WTCs engineering and collapses. If that is not ignorance I dont know what is.

reply to post by GenRadek

Oh yes, right Radek. Deny ignorance. Deny the explosions all over the WTC complex because it doesn't fit your theory that an aluminum plane and some jet fuel can cause the WTC Tower to explode into dust. Deny the testimony of firemen freely found on the internet speaking in their own words about explosions. Keep trying to find other reasons for explosions reported at the base of the building. Keep claiming the material being blown out of the towers as the towers are collapsing is compressed air blowing out windows, of course, just "selective" windows.
You are speculating, trying to find SOME way for this "theory" to work, when more and more professionals in the field are abandoning your fantasy.
But, keep it up, keep trying to convince others you are "denying" ignorance instead of embracing it.

reply to post by Varemia

Your story is a fantasy. If you cannot see that, then you either CAN'T see it, or you REFUSE to see it. You are furiously trying to make this theory that a plane can bring down a massive skyscraper work.
There is nothing unique about the Twin Towers, but that lie has been thrown around as truth. We are supposed to believe it is "untested", lol! You discount or ignore any data that does not fit your fantasy, why?
To be balanced, you would bring the material that contradicts your theory and explain why it is a fabrication, or effectively counter that material brought by others. But you don't. When you try to, you get hammered.
Like the testimony of the firemen that reported bombs and explosions, there are multiple accounts on video.
Like the analysis of the videos reported on the "live" news, all of the anomalies in the video suggesting tampering.
Like the fact that the material, steel and concrete was blown into dust.
All by jet fuel and burning office furniture. You are kidding right?

reply to post by Stewie


Who said I was denying explosions at the WTC? I mean geeze, you have TWO 767s burning inside TWO 110 story office buildings, each having about 10+ floors burning out of control, with each floor an acre in size. What the hell wouldnt go boom in something like that?

I watched a garage burn down while I was on my way home late one night. I pulled over to watch and counted about two decent sized explosions go off in the garage before the fire dept showed up. Did I go, "Ohh noezzz!! Explosions!! Run! Bombs!!!" No. There many things in a fire that can create an explosion, and not all of them are caused by bombs. Rule #1 for the Truth Movement to learn and get through their thick skulls. Explosions do not automatically mean BOMBS. This cannot be stressed enough. To ignore the countless other sources that could make a loud boom sound, is embracing ignorance in order to believe a flawed idea. To jump to the conclusion that there just HAD to be bombs inside to cause those explosion noises is embracing ignorance. I posted earlier the crane collapse, did you hear the loud explosions eminating from the crane prior to collapse? Did you see any bombs strapped to the crane? See any explosions? But it sure as hell sounded like bombs going off right? Lets go farther. Ever watched eyewitness accounts of a plane crash, train crash, or a large car crash? Ever hear when some people say it sounded like a bomb going off? Now why is that? Apparently you are stuck on the old flawed thinking of "loud noise = bomb", as is 99.9% of the TM stuck in thinking that. You have to shake that off and get into the real world.

Any and all large massive fires will have explosions. Even once the buildings collapsed, you have a whole new reason for the sounds of explosions. Falling debris. Snapping steel connections, floors collapsing. How many cars, trucks, buses, fire trucks, police trucks, ambulances, were crushed, smashed, burned, buried, in the debris? What happens to gas tanks when they catch fire? What about the oxygen tanks in the ambulances? What about the firefighters' tanks? What happens when you crush them and heat them up? Or puncture them? What about the ammo in the police trucks, cars? Or the ammo in WTC7? What about the policemen's guns? What about the oxygen supply on the aircraft? What about the tires? I can go on and on about various sources of explosion-like sounds. Ignoring all of these most probable and possible causes and jumping straight to "it must have been explosives" is ignorance and dishonesty.

And once again, the only explosions at the base were from the fireballs from the jet fuel as it sloshed down the shafts into the basements and elevators. If that wasnt the cause, then please explain how were people burned to death, burnt to a crisp, melted into plastic seats, if it was a bomb? I want you to tell me how exactly can a large high power explosive just burn people and cause massive fireballs, but not blast people apart? Why were people in the elevators burnt to a crisp? What kind of a bomb does that without blasting them apart?

reply to post by Stewie

Like the fact that the material, steel and concrete was blown into dust.
All by jet fuel and burning office furniture. You are kidding right?

Ignorance must be bliss for you Stewie. Jet fuel and burning office furniture turned concrete, material and steel to dust? So, what about the force of the collapse of a 110 floor building? Ah, did you forget that part? Purposely ignore it? I know what you are doing, and its not going to work. You conveinently leave out the main reason why the concrete was crushed, as if trying to insinuate that only fires caused it. What was I just saying about denying ignorance?

And what steel turned to dust? You mean the steel that was being cleared out for months and months from ground zero? The steel that was collected and sent to Fresh Kills? The steel that was used in the new USS New York City? It all turned to dust? Sorry but that is just a lie you are regurgitating from those damned fool conspiracy sites. No steel was turned into dust, and all that dust was created from the thousands of tons of concrete and sheetrock and drywall in the towers when they got crushed by the force of the collapse. THAT is your source of dust. Have you ever looked into the composition of the dust?

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Stewie

 

But 911 was different. Two planes and, what, 6 buildings destroyed? Because of Radeks rationale?

I see that nearly 100% of the truth movement's arguments and ideas are firmly planted in, not facts, but incredulity.

do you know how patronizing that comment is!
i find that rather insulting,do you actaully read anybodys posts,or only your own,infact i find you to be the one with incredulity,not seeing what is clearly a demolition of those buildings,with all your self proclaimed great knowledge please explain to simple old me this.

1/both buildings turn to dust

2/the gapping hole after the collaspe at ground zero (no pile of rumble)

3/the burning basement 6mths after collaspe

i do belive you failed to explain these question.

plus all these years later they are still finding human bones bits on roof tops..what force would do that,just disintegrate human remains to tiny bits,and like another has already stated,all office furniture infact everything was disintegrated,it was the day of miracles.

and why are they afraid to have a open public independent inquiry,even after they destroy all the evidence.

Originally posted by snapperski
reply to post by Stewie

 

do you know how patronizing that comment is!
i find that rather insulting,do you actaully read anybodys posts,or only your own,infact i find you to the one with incredulity,not seeing what is clearly a demolition of those buildings,with all your self proclaimed great knowledge please explain to simple old me this.

1/both buildings turn to dust

2/the gapping hole after the collaspe at ground zero (no pile of rumble and steel)

3/the burning basement 6mths after collaspe

i do belive you failed to explain these question.

1/ Both buildings didn't turn to dust. The concrete pulverized on the way down creating a massive dust plume.

2/ There was a huge pile of rubble and steel left over that they were cleaning up for months. It was at least 6-10 stories high, which is small for a 110 story building, but as the clean-up crew was saying, they were finding 14 floors compressed into as little as 8 feet in some areas.

3/ That has been explained to be what happens when there are underground fires in rubble of the basement of a collapsed building.

reply to post by Varemia


Never heard of fires in collapsed buildings before, thought you said this had never happened ?

The buildings DID turn to dust, any nub can see this, in every single pic and video.

!4 floors compressed into 8 feet huh, sounds like explosives too me.

Furthermore i would like to see the pics of these floors, i have seen 1000's of photos and there is no distinguishable ANYTHING other than about 15% of the steel beams, the rest are GONE.

The top of the tipping building pulverized into dust before it impacted anything, of course that is not strange to you, cause you "get it".

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Varemia

 

Never heard of fires in collapsed buildings before, thought you said this had never happened ?

The buildings DID turn to dust, any nub can see this, in every single pic and video.

!4 floors compressed into 8 feet huh, sounds like explosives too me.

Furthermore i would like to see the pics of these floors, i have seen 1000's of photos and there is no distinguishable ANYTHING other than about 15% of the steel beams, the rest are GONE.

The top of the tipping building pulverized into dust before it impacted anything, of course that is not strange to you, cause you "get it".

edit on 10-10-2010 by GrinchNoMore because: (no reason given)

Yeah, anyone can see that the rubble was extensive and widespread over the entire world trade center complex. How does 14 floors in 8 feet sound like explosives? Explain, because to me it sounds EXACTLY like pancaking of floors.

Where in the heck did you get 15% as a number of the steel beams on the ground? Did you do some magical calculations that normal humans don't have access to?

It didn't pulverize into dust before impacting anything. It fell and hit the ground, and much like dropping a magnetix block made of little interconnected pieces, it shattered on impact, spreading its debris on the earth.

reply to post by Varemia
This is an example of what a pancake/progressive collapse generally looks like. The floors are stacked on top of each other. With the towers, what we have are two one-hundred story buildings leaving a 5-10 story pile, and the rest being essentially pulverised apparently by gravity. The upper-section of WTC2 above the impact zone was seen toppling sideways and should have fallen to earth in one piece, but there's no sign of it in the rubble afterwards. Why? EDIT: note, the building below wasn't steel-framed.

reply to post by Nathan-D


As you can see in your picture, those floors are very large concrete and iron-rod re-enforced floors which are much sturdier and heavier than the light steel truss and light concrete layer on top of ribbed steel decking. Much lighter and easier to crush and compact than a heavy block of concrete.

Remember the design of the WTC. It was meant to be light and flexible, yet strong enough to withstand high winds. Those floors pancaking on top of each other would have crushed the delicate trusses like nothing.