"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

WTC 1 and 2 were built in a fashion that put the load of the buildings around the "shell" of the buildings correct?
Well think of them like a Coca Cola can. Take a knife and jab it all the way through the can (not totally cutting it in half ofcourse). Then stuff some paper towels in the can and light them on fire ( to "weaken" the metal :@@ then wait to see when the top section of the can completely demolishes the bottom section of the can.

What?.....That didnt work?.... damn physics....always working against me.

oh yeah....I dont know what started the collapse of WTC 1 & 2
But I know why they collapsed.......gravity....its a bioch.

Originally posted by playswithmachines

I also have some experience with explosives, what i see & hear are explosives.
The demolition expert who spoke of this died suddenly in a car accident..
'Nuff said......

Danny Jowenko right. Listen to what he said about WTC 1&2.



He did not think WTC 1&2 were brought down by explosives.

I didn't go through all 17 screens to see if this had been posted so if it has forgive me. This is the recent release from the Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. It is feature length and quite informative. Whether you want to watch it or not is an individual choice. I think the phrase used by the OP " retreated to a point where they discuss only the "physics" of the collapse of the WTC towers." is funny because it seems that phrases like that are usually used by those that don't understand the physics.
Anyway, it is the physics that tells us that the twins did not fall on their own. The video that I've posted the link to pretty much explains that. I'd suggest that those, including the OP, that don't understand the physics watch the vid and if you still don't understand then proceed with your disinfo blindly or just find a topic you do understand.
As far as I'm concerned the towers were brought down by explosives. Anybody trying to discredit that in my mind has, to date, not provided sufficient science to support the claim. Those that come here to debunk the truth movement have an agenda. What that agenda is escapes me.
This still is a free country, though it seems to be metamorphosing into a less-free nation than in the past I have faith that the truth of 911 will come out. I see movement in that direction on a regular basis.



www.youtube.com...

It is impossible to have steel beams cut at 45 degree angles with molten metal slag dripping off them without the use of demolition explosives. The pools of molten metal found in the rumble are the results of the steel beams being cut with explosive charges.



The rate of speed that the towers fell also indicate that explosives were used.

How many of you know about building construction? How many of you are aware of the technique used to build the WTC? Obviously, not many of you. Look, these buildings were built with a modular egg crate technique. This means the the buildings were extremely lightweight for their size and were nearly 95% air in comparison to area. It is easy to see that these building survived the impact of the planes. It is also easy to understand that the heat produced from 90,000 pounds of fuel did not melt the steel columns. When the planes impacted the buildings, the outside columns were severely damaged, the egg crate design allowed the interior beams to take up weight the perimeter beams lost. This produced an unbelievable stress on the inside columns. After a period of time, the retaining beams expanded a little by the heat ,and the concrete was pulled away slightly from the beams. When the weight of the top 10 or 12 floors finally gave way, due to the lower damaged area, gravity took over. Now let's get to the so called explosions discussed. In the evening, place a square piece of plywood on the ground and pour a flammable liquid on it, light it, then drop another piece of plywood on top of it. You will see that the flames will shoot out from all sides of the plywood. Now, with 90,000 pounds of fuel pouring down the elevator shafts, and the buildings giving way, you will see flames shooting out each floor as it collapses. It is simple to understand with a little common sense. I am not a scientist but I am smart enough to understand cause and effect. When I studied martial arts, I used to break layers of wood, 12 to be exact. This is the same concept. It is impossible to break 12 inches of wood if they are laying directly on top of each other. The secret to breaking boards? You have to have empty space, egg crate science, where they are separated by smaller pieces of wood on the outside. Once you strike down, your weight and gravity take over and the impact follows though each board until you reach the bottom. To all you conspiracy theorists, you are all correct...there absolutely a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy masterminded by Bin Ladin, who really is dead and the conspirators who died while taking thousands of innocent lives with them! Have a great night, do the homework I gave you and get back to me later. If I do not reply, do not take it as my failure. I would rather refrain from replying to my fellow ATS friends remarks because I do not like embarrassing them.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Where did you find that picture? I want to print it out and hand to my friends that are still OS'ers.
2nd

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Does your Python program re-accelerate - due to gravity - the falling mass during the 12' of air space between floors?

AIR SPACE between floors? There were no walls or support columns to hold these floors? They were floating in the air? C'mon... don't be ridiculous.. Yeah.

Thank you for your enlightening posts man! Keep it on!

Peace out.

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
WTC 1 and 2 were built in a fashion that put the load of the buildings around the "shell" of the buildings correct?
Well think of them like a Coca Cola can. Take a knife and jab it all the way through the can (not totally cutting it in half ofcourse). Then stuff some paper towels in the can and light them on fire ( to "weaken" the metal :@@

then wait to see when the top section of the can completely demolishes the bottom section of the can.

What?.....That didnt work?.... damn physics....always working against me.

oh yeah....I dont know what started the collapse of WTC 1 & 2
But I know why they collapsed.......gravity....its a bioch.

edit on 27-9-2011 by Talltexxxan because: (no reason given)

No, the shell did not carry the load of the buildings. The 47 central columns did that. Watch the following interview months prior to 911...


www.youtube.com...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Umm...I watched a video sometime later showing some of these beams being cut by welders to help remove debris and search for victims. This made the firefighters angry because they felt their fellow firefighters may still be alive and cutting them would potentially cause their demise.

reply to post by Talltexxxan


I googled steel beams wtc

Then clicked image search

WTC steel beams

reply to post by malachi777


umm.... that's easy to claim that welders did after the collapse. Where's the pictures of the welders at work?

Where's the people in charge of the clean up making public statements that debunk the photo?

Shouldn't the piece of steel that the welders supposedly cut be near by ? Where's the piece they cut off?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Do you think they could have precut these beams and the building held up. If I find the video showing the "post collapse" cutting of the beams, will you log off and dream up another conspiracy I can debunk for you? I just explained how the collapse happened above. Did you read it?

reply to post by malachi777


First off thank you.
You are the FIRST person I have ever heard actually give a plausable reason for the collapse.
I still think that the US had their hand in it somewhere though.
Well seeing as you so elequently explained WTC 1 & 2 mister construction knowledge man, please enlighten us on your thoughts of WTC 7. That one to me is the smoking gun and what continues to fuel the fire of my truther campagin.

Originally posted by malachi777
How many of you know about building construction? How many of you are aware of the technique used to build the WTC? Obviously, not many of you. Look, these buildings were built with a modular egg crate technique. This means the the buildings were extremely lightweight for their size and were nearly 95% air in comparison to area. It is easy to see that these building survived the impact of the planes. It is also easy to understand that the heat produced from 90,000 pounds of fuel did not melt the steel columns. When the planes impacted the buildings, the outside columns were severely damaged, the egg crate design allowed the interior beams to take up weight the perimeter beams lost. This produced an unbelievable stress on the inside columns. After a period of time, the retaining beams expanded a little by the heat ,and the concrete was pulled away slightly from the beams. When the weight of the top 10 or 12 floors finally gave way, due to the lower damaged area, gravity took over. Now let's get to the so called explosions discussed. In the evening, place a square piece of plywood on the ground and pour a flammable liquid on it, light it, then drop another piece of plywood on top of it. You will see that the flames will shoot out from all sides of the plywood. Now, with 90,000 pounds of fuel pouring down the elevator shafts, and the buildings giving way, you will see flames shooting out each floor as it collapses. It is simple to understand with a little common sense. I am not a scientist but I am smart enough to understand cause and effect. When I studied martial arts, I used to break layers of wood, 12 to be exact. This is the same concept. It is impossible to break 12 inches of wood if they are laying directly on top of each other. The secret to breaking boards? You have to have empty space, egg crate science, where they are separated by smaller pieces of wood on the outside. Once you strike down, your weight and gravity take over and the impact follows though each board until you reach the bottom. To all you conspiracy theorists, you are all correct...there absolutely a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy masterminded by Bin Ladin, who really is dead and the conspirators who died while taking thousands of innocent lives with them! Have a great night, do the homework I gave you and get back to me later. If I do not reply, do not take it as my failure. I would rather refrain from replying to my fellow ATS friends remarks because I do not like embarrassing them.

Apparently you are not as well-versed in architectural design as you think. First, most of the fuel was burned on impact. Any residue was gone shortly thereafter. The analogy " pour out a bucket of fuel and try to light part of it" has been used to explain that the fuel was gone shortly after the explosion. I don't know what 'modular egg-crate design' is. If you look at the interview I posted a few posts back you'll hear Frank DeMartini, Manager of Design and Construction on the WTC, say that he believed it could have withstood multiple impacts of the 707 variety. Let's theorize that after the impacts that heat did weaken the steel at the point of impact and the top section of the building started to fall on the floors below. Let's say there were 80 floors below it. As it fell it took, say, 1/2 second to weaken the floor below it a so that it could continue falling. That means if it continued at 1/2 second per floor then the building would have taken 40 seconds to collapse. No. let's say it took half that. Say it took 20 seconds to collapse. Well, it actually took like 12 seconds. Can't happen without removing the resistance as it fell. The building was shot.

Originally posted by Talltexxxan
reply to post by malachi777

 

First off thank you.

You are the FIRST person I have ever heard actually give a plausable reason for the collapse.
I still think that the US had their hand in it somewhere though.
Well seeing as you so elequently explained WTC 1 & 2 mister construction knowledge man, please enlighten us on your thoughts of WTC 7.
I do not know how or why WTC 7 collapsed but I will give you my opinion on this one. I understand that WTC 7 was somehow connected to the other buildings. If we factor in the earth shaking of a 2.1 on the richter scale, which is very minimal and the weight, and impact of the debris and fires in the building, I can see that some sort of structural failure could occur. Buildings can only withstand a certain amount of weight and stresses before they collapse. All it takes is one weak link. A heavy duty pull chain is only as strong as its weakest link before it fails. That is my opinion, not a fact.

reply to post by malachi777


You didn't explain anything that proves your opinion is correct.

You also didn't state anything I haven't heard before.

Your explanation is just another rehash of the OS.

Something I've heard many times and still doesn't account for the rate of speed at which the towers fell.

I do not know how or why WTC 7 collapsed but I will give you my opinion on this one. I understand that WTC 7 was somehow connected to the other buildings. If we factor in the earth shaking of a 2.1 on the richter scale, which is very minimal and the weight, and impact of the debris and fires in the building, I can see that some sort of structural failure could occur. Buildings can only withstand a certain amount of weight and stresses before they collapse. All it takes is one weak link. A heavy duty pull chain is only as strong as its weakest link before it fails. That is my opinion, not a fact.

reply to post by malachi777


If this scenario can cause WTC 7 to collapse at free fall speed. Why didn't the Oklahoma City building collapse?

There was much more damage to this building than building 7

Apparently you are not as well-versed in architectural design as you think. First, most of the fuel was burned on impact. Any residue was gone shortly thereafter. The analogy " pour out a bucket of fuel and try to light part of it" has been used to explain that the fuel was gone shortly after the explosion. I don't know what 'modular egg-crate design' is. If you look at the interview I posted a few posts back you'll hear Frank DeMartini, Manager of Design and Construction on the WTC, say that he believed it could have withstood multiple impacts of the 707 variety. Let's theorize that after the impacts that heat did weaken the steel at the point of impact and the top section of the building started to fall on the floors below. Let's say there were 80 floors below it. As it fell it took, say, 1/2 second to weaken the floor below it a so that it could continue falling. That means if it continued at 1/2 second per floor then the building would have taken 40 seconds to collapse. No. let's say it took half that. Say it took 20 seconds to collapse. Well, it actually took like 12 seconds. Can't happen. The building was shot.

Let's use a little common sense here. Jet fuel does not burn longer than a few minutes, but 90,000 pounds of it does. Have you ever seen a fuel truck burn? We had one here burn for hours and destroyed one of our over passes off 528 just east of Orlando. Second, imagine all the chemicals, paper, chairs, tables, carpet, etc... All of these are flammable. You have to stop being closed minded and look at the whole picture. I believed this was a government event until I stood back, used common sense most of us were born with and really thought it out. In order to get the truth, we all have to look at the evidence, approach it with caution, study it and we will all get the results. I am not here to defame you, I am giving my opinion on the knowledge I have and telling you the only facts I know. I gave my opinion on WTC 7.

If this scenario can cause WTC 7 to collapse at free fall speed. Why didn't the Oklahoma City building collapse?

There was much more damage to this building than building 7

If you look at the columns within the building you posted, you can see the numerous columns maintaining the structure of the building. WTC was built completely different and it was an explosion from the ground the took out the outer columns from the ground. The blast impact zone did not completely follow through to take out the columns seen in the photo.

If "conspiracy theorists" (a label mind you) have to PROVE their "theories" I think it would only be fair if the promoters of the official story actually proved their "theory" which they have not. They simply have more resources to get more people to believe them. They really do not need to do much besides have the corporate media portray their end in a positive light and make conspiracy theorists look a bit crazy (if portray them at all even).

The underlying assumption of most pro-official story theorists is that the government is there to protect them and would never attack them. But let us see here of a few instances of the government "protecting" the people:
1. As George Carlin pointed out...America in the 40s...we essentially imprisoned all Japanese-Americans and gave them no trial/hearing to defend their case. Apparently it was a lot easier to round them all up than to simply look to see which ones were suspiciously devout to their God and Emperor!

2. Kent State shootings - granted it was not some maliciously planned assault by the elite...but Federal troops did murder peaceful student protesters and get away with it.

3. OPERATION NORTHWOODS - These were proposed false-flag terrorist attacks that were to be carried out by the CIA (or other agencies) on the United States and to be blamed on Cuba in order to go to war with Cuba. Yes Kennedy shot it down, but it goes to show that people within the U.S. government were (and are) willing to kill their own people in order to go to war. There were war-hawks then and there are war-hawks now, so don't think for one second that something in history has changed since then...some huge ideological revolution. If the mass media had brought attention to the public Operation Northwoods...I could only imagine the reaction.

I do not bring these incidents up as PROOF of 9/11 but more so proof that the "government" is CAPABLE of an attack such as 9/11. I must make this very clear. In order for someone to actually consider unofficial 9/11 theories they must be capable of rethinking fundamental assumptions they hold.

I will leave you with a quote to think about from Marcuse's One Dimensional Man:

"By virtue of the way it has organized its technological base, contemporary industrial society tends to be totalitarian. For "totalitarian" is not only a terroristic political coordination of society, but also a non-terroristic economic-technical coordination which operates through the manipulation of needs by vested interests." (1964).

I also found this youtube clip to be hilarious (and somewhat true). Its 9/11 in 5 minutes!!!:
www.youtube.com...