The top of the North Tower DID tip over and fall

Plus, the WTC buildings had basements that provided a good amount of space for rubble to fall into. I don't know how deep the basements were, but they probably contained a lot of the tower.

Also, in what universe does a large chunk of building falling 80-100 stories survive the impact with the earth completely intact?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Amen to that Sphinx.

What are we up against? You and I know. Stupidity, naivete, shills, or the murderers themselves. Let's just let THEM choose, what do you say?

reply to post by Nathan-D

Nathan! Bringing the evidence! Great job!
Yes, that is a great example.
Where did the building go? Let's all talk about that! (Wait, we have all seen it on video, it got blown up!!!)
End of story.

reply to post by snapperski

Thank you for coming to my aid! I am a mere colonel, debating a general...

But the Gen doesn't seem to bring a rational argument, I am not sure how to respond to fantasy.

Let's stay on topic, deny ignorance, and get to the bottom of this crime. We are really close. In fact, we are so close, that foreign policy will start changing REAL soon! (MY fantasy!)

reply to post by GenRadek

Structural engineer?

Not.

Have you reviewed the many photographs of the construction of the twin towers? Designed to be "lightweight"?
Keep bringing it Radek. It is funny.

reply to post by Stewie


Simply stunning. Where have you been the past 9 years?

Have you at all, at all, ever bothered to do any research into the WTCs beyond the lies, half-truths, twists, of the TM sites, Alex Jones, and LC?

I can tell that you have not, but hey, the less the laypeople know, the easier they are fooled. That is what the TM preys on, ignorance. And unfortunately for you, you swallowed their filth hook, line, sinker, and pole. I would recommend you break away from the TM sites and do some actual research into the design of the WTC Towers, the NIST reports, and then get back to us when you have gotten some real facts and information.

I'll get the ball rolling for you, since I know 100% you wont bother to lift a finger and do it yourself, as to here is one site commenting on the WTC design. There are many more out there:

www.tms.org...

The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.

web.mit.edu...
architecture.about.com...
vincentdunn.com...

There we go, I suggest you get started on some real research first. Rather than wasting time ridiculing me on something that I obviously know a bit more than you, go and look at engineering sites, including MIT, and firefighters, etc, and see what they all say about the WTC's design. And no, A&E4T is NOT a real source of info or any of those ###4T sites.

reply to post by GenRadek

Which part was lightweight Radek? The part above the impact area? Are the 100,000 tons of steel per tower the lightweight part? Or the lightweight trusses that have absolutely nothing to do with strength? Or maybe the "lightweight concrete" made the towers pancake and destroy all of that steel?
These strawmen of yours are working against you, Radek. The "lightweight" tower above the impact zone blew up into dust, and caused the "lightweight" 100 k tons of steel to blow out, right?
Your fantasy, not mine.
(The military has done a wonderful job since 911, don't you agree? The last nine years have destroyed how many fine souls? You must be proud!)

Originally posted by Stewie
Have you reviewed the many photographs of the construction of the twin towers? Designed to be "lightweight"?
Keep bringing it Radek. It is funny.

He is absolutely correct. It's very very simple to explain too.

Ignoring factors like live load and overturning, the dead load of the towers can be held up by a single steel column of certain cross sectional area. The less the tower above it weighs, the smaller that steel column can be and as a result, the larger the available office space.

That's the whole point of a high rise office building, maximum space. Using a truss structure and lightweight concrete (it had little in the way of structural role) allows them to use the minimum sized columns and therefore the maximum floor space.

Now, some people say that the WTC was unsafe in its design, but I am not so sure. I am not a structural engineer, but the design is relatively sound. With some better fireproofing and some concrete stairwell protection, not only could the building have stood, but many above the impact point could have survived.

These are the lessons NIST recommends are learned, and indeed truthers use buildings that followed these in their arguments, like the TVCC in China. Your continuing wilful ignorance is against the spirit of ATS. You should not be so unreceptive to facts that you disagree with. You can deny it all you like, but the WTC was designed as it was specifically to be lightweight and have large office floor area.

reply to post by exponent

Yes of course, Exponent. The lightweight part at the top came down and destroyed the heavier bottom. Like I have said before, this is YOUR fantasy, not mine.
Blown to bits, Exponent. You know and I know, and Radek knows.
The smart and honest money is on our side, and we know how honest people are treated in contemporary American society by big government, especially since 911. The big government you so embrace. Must be YOUR boys.
Not mine.

reply to post by Stewie

Which part was lightweight Radek? The part above the impact area? Are the 100,000 tons of steel per tower the lightweight part? Or the lightweight trusses that have absolutely nothing to do with strength? Or maybe the "lightweight concrete" made the towers pancake and destroy all of that steel?

So I can see that you did virtually 0% of what I suggested you do in order to stop looking foolish whenever you start typing about something you dont know about. Well done, I expected that. No surprise for me really. Those that blindly believe the TM are very hard to even suggest anything that may be agianst their religi....... I mean, beliefs about the 9/11 events.

So now, I ask nicely that you stop acting like a child, go back, and read the articles I posted to you for your benefit, so you may for once understand what i am saying, and what you are stubbornly trying to ignore. I gave you all the help you need, now go and do something productive. The WTCs were designed to be as open as possible, and the only way to do that was to have a tube-in-tube design, with light steel floor trusses supporting the floors, which were covered with LIGHT concrete in order to save on weight, and maximize space. The top floors that moved as one unit down when the section below failed, was more than enough to destroy the entire building. The pancaking floors did just that, and were compressed by the sheer force of the collapse. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Are you also aware that the core's stairwells and elevator shafts were not surrounded by concrete walls, but by sheetrock and drywall? but I'm sure in your browsing of the carbon copy TM sites and LC and Alex Jones, they dont mention those facts. They never do. No surprise either.

These strawmen of yours are working against you, Radek. The "lightweight" tower above the impact zone blew up into dust, and caused the "lightweight" 100 k tons of steel to blow out, right?
Your fantasy, not mine.

Really? It did? When? Cause I saw it pretty well intact as it telescoped into the structure below and got obscured by the dust from the tons of crushed concrete and sheetrock and drywall. Maybe you can tell me or something, about how they managed to pack hundreds of tons of high explosives into the top section of the WTC without a soul noticing, and managing to survive the impact and fires, and then detonate when the top is already collapsing down. And where did the steel blow out to? OH you mean when the exterior columns, once freed from the floor trusses they once supported, ended up tilting over and away from the rest of the tower due to the forces of the collapsing building's top. Ah ok, that makes sense. I guess when something is over 1,000ft tall, there is always a good chance that some parts may very well land between 1 and 1,000ft away, depending on how far the topmost section tilted over and away from the main section. Does that answer your question?

(The military has done a wonderful job since 911, don't you agree? The last nine years have destroyed how many fine souls? You must be proud!)

Ok, now with those final words of yours I can see you are doing nothing more than trolling. Its disgusting how you would believe that its only the US military that is evil enough to do such things, but completely ignore the ACTUAL terrorists and monsters who these things in the name of their "god". Those that blow up women and children in market places, at mosques, at churches, on planes, trains and buses. Those that purposly target schools, hospitals, hotels, chruches, mosques, for maximum damage and death. In your eyes they dont exist. I'd love to see you then in Yemen or in Pakistan's tribal areas controlled by the Taliban and AQ.
But no youre right, its our evil military's fault and they are all killing US civilians for fun. I dare you to say that to a US serviceman. It will look pretty funny watching you try and eat corn on the cob with no teeth.

Its disgusting how you make such comments.

Originally posted by Stewie
Yes of course, Exponent. The lightweight part at the top came down and destroyed the heavier bottom. Like I have said before, this is YOUR fantasy, not mine.
Blown to bits, Exponent. You know and I know, and Radek knows.
The smart and honest money is on our side, and we know how honest people are treated in contemporary American society by big government, especially since 911. The big government you so embrace. Must be YOUR boys.
Not mine.

On the contrary, your steadfast determination to ignore the facts and believe only what sounds correct to you is practically a trademark of your current government. I notice once again you've failed to actually address my post, choosing instead to attempt to belittle me personally and throw doubt upon the 'official story'.

Unless backed up by something more than your own personal determination, how exactly are we supposed to believe your opinion? The thought process that went into designing the WTC is well known and they used to be used as examples of innovative new building techniques. To deny this is simply ignorance.

reply to post by GenRadek

Of course I look "foolish" to you, Radek. I am not indoctrinated. If I were, we would have no problem, and I would blow them up too and be damn proud of it! Let's kill them terrorists and some civilians too.
But, you see, I defend only what is mine. My property, and my viewpoints. They are mine, I earned them.
You, on the other hand, based upon your name and Avatar and viewpoints, are an aggressor that is indoctrinated. You represent people that go into foreign lands and lay them to waste. Reconcile that at another time.
On topic, it is clearer than ever before what happened on 911. People around the world are starting to put the pieces together, the WHOLE picture Radek. You are on the wrong side. Reconcile that at another time, too. I am finished with you.

reply to post by exponent

Exponent, you can't be serious. Address your posts!
Let's discuss your dreams, there is probably something meaningful there.
Your posts.

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by exponent

 

Exponent, you can't be serious. Address your posts!
Let's discuss your dreams, there is probably something meaningful there.
Your posts.

Is this what your defence is reduced to? Bizarre speculation about the contents of my dreams? Believe me, my dreams are filled with bikes and babes and all manner of enjoyable things, not debating endless recycled arguments backed up with a steadfast determination of superiority.

If you can't come up with any way to prove your point, maybe you shouldn't have made it in the first place.

How can all three building completly callapse into their own foot print?

Originally posted by StarInvader
How can all three building completly callapse into their own foot print?

Seriously... does it have to be proven AGAIN that the towers didn't completely collapse into their footprints? Though, naturally every time we do prove that the truthers turn around and say "it's close enough." Just like with free-fall. We prove that the buildings didn't fall at free-fall, but a bit slower. Truthers say "close enough."

How can you make such a claim when your evidence only needs to be "close enough?"