The History of High Rise Collapses

Originally posted by Varemia

With some research, you would learn that it's not that simple. The buildings were aged and built before planes of the size and caliber of the airliners existed. They were built to withstand impacts, and they did quite successfully. They stood for an hour after the impact, and probably would have continued standing if there wasn't jet fuel fire and fireproofing blown off.

So, the architects and engineers could never envision a day where planes might be bigger? They gathered around and said "Lets build this gigantic tower, and we will build it so it can withstand a hit from the biggest jet liner we have today! But one more ounce of stress than that, and shes coming down, in this city of millions of people....so make sure, 1 plane, biggest one we got, but no more!"

That just sounds....silly, from an engineering standpoint.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Id also like to comment about the "Footprint". People are claiming that the footprint theory is a lie, because "other WTC buildings were heavily damaged." So what? How tall was were the Twin Towers? If those bent and collapsed, they would have destroyed entire city blocks. Considering their size, how they came down was completely in their area, or footprint. Actually this is one of the most damning parts of the official story. There was a problem - the WTC was losing buckets of money by the day, and full of asbestos......but you cant just get a permit to bulldoze the most famous NYC landmark.

But see, here's a problem with that idea. The buildings did not implode into their "footprint." They progressively collapsed from the top down. When collapsing in that manner, they naturally won't bend over and fall on other parts of the city.

You will then of course bring up WTC 7, which collapsed very differently than the towers. It lost half its floors due to inner collapse before the collapse reached the base and blew out the columns with the force. That building did tip over, but it had already lost so much resistance, that it didn't begin to tip until the top half of the building was crushing into the ground and creating somewhat of a pivot.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

So, the architects and engineers could never envision a day where planes might be bigger? They gathered around and said "Lets build this gigantic tower, and we will build it so it can withstand a hit from the biggest jet liner we have today! But one more ounce of stress than that, and shes coming down, in this city of millions of people....so make sure, 1 plane, biggest one we got, but no more!"

That just sounds....silly, from an engineering standpoint.

They wanted to build the tallest building ever. Actually, the buildings were built quite ingeniously and well for impacts even today. However, it was impossible for the building to withstand varied intensity of fire throughout the floors. The steel was designed to stand a very massive load, even under damage and heat. However, the steel was being heavily heated on some sides and not others, making the material naturally flux. The slow bowing eventually caused a collapse, and then down comes the top.

Originally posted by Varemia


But see, here's a problem with that idea. The buildings did not implode into their "footprint." They progressively collapsed from the top down.

...At free fall speeds...

Originally posted by Varemia
You will then of course bring up WTC 7,

Which no plane hit.....

Originally posted by Varemia
which collapsed very differently than the towers. It lost half its floors due to inner collapse before the collapse reached the base and blew out the columns with the force. That building did tip over,

As did the top of one of the other towers...which then magically turned to dust before it hit the ground.

..Ex

reply to post by Varemia


do you have any idea what is involved in softening steel like that I can tell you right now being on fire that long would have had no effect of the steel what so ever even to melt steel it has to reach 1200 degrees celcius so that side of your story is flawed. How is it they had a documentry on the attacks out so quickly to explain what happened does anyone find that a bit suss.

Also to pick a day when there were no fighters close enough to be scrambbled as they were training correct me if i'm wrong there are just many things that lead to there being more than what you the American public are being told.

reply to post by Varemia


with the area it was hit the upper part of the structure that people believe was weakened it would have toppled over the side not fallen straight down. Especially if you are going to try and tell people that the jet fuel weakened the steel which it didn't. Your story doesn't add up think about it in your head how it should fall there is no way in hell it should have fallen the way it did but you can believe it if you like doesn't bother me but at the end of the day the story doesn't work.

Originally posted by v3_exceed
...At free fall speeds...

If that was true, then the debris would not be falling faster than the buildings.

Which no plane hit.....

But which debris from a collapsing steel building hit.

As did the top of one of the other towers...which then magically turned to dust before it hit the ground.

Apparently you missed the massive debris pile... Plus, only an idiot would think that a piece of a building falling 80 stories will remain intact on the ground.

do you have any idea what is involved in softening steel like that I can tell you right now being on fire that long would have had no effect of the steel what so ever even to melt steel it has to reach 1200 degrees celcius so that side of your story is flawed. How is it they had a documentry on the attacks out so quickly to explain what happened does anyone find that a bit suss.

I never said the steel melted. It just got very hot on some places, and not as hot on other sides of the same steel. Did you know that when one part of a metal is heated while the other isn't, it will want to curl? Same principle.

As for the documentary, that's not important. I have no idea how fast is too fast for you, or when quickly was. A month, 2 months, a year after the attack? I don't know. I know scientists were trying to explain the collapse the moment it happened.

Also to pick a day when there were no fighters close enough to be scrambbled as they were training correct me if i'm wrong there are just many things that lead to there being more than what you the American public are being told.

I recall there being a lot of firefighters there. In fact, many almost made it to the impact site within WTC2, but the stairs were obstructed and the elevators were kaput.

Originally posted by v3_exceed
...At free fall speeds...

Oh dear, that lie once again - why do truthers keep bringing that lie up? Simply by looking at the videos of WTC 1 & 2 falling, it is clear the debris falling off the buildings is falling at free fall speed, whilst the buildings are falling much slower.

The fact that truthers keep posting this lie just shows that they really are not interested in the truth, just their silly conspiracy theory lies!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by v3_exceed
...At free fall speeds...

Oh dear, that lie once again - why do truthers keep bringing that lie up? Simply by looking at the videos of WTC 1 & 2 falling, it is clear the debris falling off the buildings is falling at free fall speed, whilst the buildings are falling much slower.

The fact that truthers keep posting this lie just shows that they really are not interested in the truth, just their silly conspiracy theory lies!

If you talk like that it makes people retract into a shell of ignorance. Keep a civil tone and don't make anything that sounds insulting in your arguments. Trust me, it makes people listen better.

reply to post by Varemia


i work with steel everyday so yes i know how steel works ok to soften steel it takes up to two days you can't speed it up the only next step is getting it close to melting point.

Now the fighters I was on about fighter jets not fire fighters.

reply to post by Varemia


also forgot to add the whole section of the steel beam needs to be hot as it wont bend why don't you go buy some steel and try it with an oxy acetylene set before you try and educate me on how steel works.

Originally posted by v3_exceed
reply to post by Varemia

 

I'm not going to get into the argument that the trade center towers were built to withstand exactly this (plane impact). I'm not going to get into the argument that the trade center towers had fires burning that were far below the tolerances for steel to melt/weaken significantly and I'm not going to get into the argument that each floor of the trade center was built to support itself plus the two floors above it.

Presumably because you realise that if you do you'll lose?

Sorry, but that's how it looks. And just ending your refusal to debate with a bare assertion about what you believe is hardly compelling either.

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by Varemia

 

i work with steel everyday so yes i know how steel works ok to soften steel it takes up to two days you can't speed it up the only next step is getting it close to melting point.

Now the fighters I was on about fighter jets not fire fighters.

Ah, my apologies. The steel wasn't necessarily softened, however. It was weakened by heat. It was probably softened while under the rubble with sustained fires for weeks, but not inside the towers.

As for the fighter jets, I don't know enough about that. If you have good sources that I can look into, it would be very helpful. Doing google searches on 9/11 is nearly impossible nowadays.

Its the same old names just waiting for a 9/11 thread to start to try and hijack it,and try and belittle the OP...they work as a team,i wonder if it 1 person with many accounts,and use there many accounts to star there own comments.

Varemia/exponent/dereks/thedman/alfie1/weedwacker

This group work as a team,to kill any thread concerning 9/11....they dont seem to comment on any other threads..its like there sitting there waiting for a 9/11 thread to start...then go out of there way to take it off topic,always avoid the questions they cant deny....its getting boreing lads...move on....if you so convince that the government story is true,then why are you here...and so dedicated in trying to kill any 9/11 thread.

reply to post by Varemia


The only other way you can weaken steel is if it gets close to melting point and high winds come through and oxidize the the steel same way an oxy set works this was the reason for the downfall of the oil rig of the coast of britain. But from the shots of the steel at JFK the beams weren't corroded at all so that didn't happen.

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by Varemia

 

also forgot to add the whole section of the steel beam needs to be hot as it wont bend why don't you go buy some steel and try it with an oxy acetylene set before you try and educate me on how steel works.

It won't bend under normal pressures, sure, but when you have the weight of 20+ stories pushing on it while it is being weakened partially, it's not just going to stay still. It will slowly but surely give, unless the images I've seen of the towers are faked. I mean, you can physically see that the section just below the impact is bowing inward.

reply to post by Varemia

As i said before the steel only gets weak when put near melting point and what does it matter if the steel got hot in the rubble thats after the fact so has no bearing on what you are saying.

Originally posted by snapperski
Its the same old names just waiting for a 9/11 thread to start to try and hijack it,and try and belittle the OP...they work as a team,i wonder if it 1 person with many accounts,and use there many accounts to star there own comments.

Varemia/exponent/dereks/thedman/alfie1/weedwacker

This group work as a team,to kill any thread concerning 9/11....they dont seem to comment on any other threads..its like there sitting there waiting for a 9/11 thread to start...then go out of there way to take it off topic,always avoid the questions they cant deny....its getting boreing lads...move on....if you so convince that the government story is true,then why are you here...and so dedicated in trying to kill any 9/11 thread.

I comment on other threads that I feel like I can contribute to. Stop turning this into a personal vendetta.

Honestly, if you were a member of a board that had a section all about how true the OS was with regards to 9/11, would you ignore it, being the truther you are? Or would you go there and try to argue your points and convince the people there that something was afoot on 9/11?

Move on? You guys are all so convinced about the OS being false. Why don't you move on and stop trying to fight people who support the OS? Supposedly our arguments are so full of horse manure that no one with a logical mind would believe it. Right...

Originally posted by vkturbo
reply to post by Varemia

 

As i said before the steel only gets weak when put near melting point and what does it matter if the steel got hot in the rubble thats after the fact so has no bearing on what you are saying.

Could you link me to some source material on this? I've read very different things from firefighters, structural engineers, and scientists in their papers. What you're saying is fairly contradictory, and therefor I would enjoy some evidence for your claim.

reply to post by Varemia


www.youtube.com...

well I tell you what I can't see any girders bending here can see steel oxidizing like thermite is feeding it but most of that side of the structure looks intact.