The top of the North Tower DID tip over and fall

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Varemia

 

What fires?

2nd.... you know the drill....

Well, my logic is that fire=production of smoke. Not sure if there's any other way to think about it.

reply to post by Varemia


No, the fires post collapse that burnt for days.

I googled it. So there was molten steel under the rubble? WTF?

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Varemia

 

No, the fires post collapse that burnt for days.

I googled it. So there was molten steel under the rubble? WTF?

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. The fires continued to rage underground. According to others that have posted on this site, underground fires can get much hotter than open-air fires.

But I was just curious about what fire survived, or if there was some molten material that stayed molten during the collapse and instigated many underground fires.

reply to post by Varemia


Ok... So we got torsional forces, a pancaked collapse, and fires that burned for days underground....

If someone popped the bottom support beams would it leave molten steel?

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Varemia

 

Ok... So we got torsional forces, a pancaked collapse, and fires that burned for days underground....

If someone popped the bottom support beams would it leave molten steel?

edit on 9-10-2010 by AdAbsurdum because: (no reason given)

The fact that the core remained standing after the collapse seems to take out the theory of a bottom implosion of the supports, unless collapsing floors from the bottom up would do it, but then an incendiary force wouldn't be needed, I would think. But again, I'm not an expert on this.

I just thought about factoring in some of the firefighter testimony of blasts going around in a ring on the 7th or so floor. If the firefighter was indeed right about the explosions there prior to the top collapsing, then the floors would have broken away from the trusses and collapsed upward to the damaged section, taking away its support and causing the damaged area to fall away as the rest of the building comes down with little resistance due to most the floors already being collapsed or heavily damaged.

reply to post by Varemia


But I thought the Twin Towers distributed the load outwards across the scaffolding and didn't rely on the core?

At least that is my understanding of what was explained to me.

reply to post by Varemia


I see what you're saying! The breaking portions would look like a pyramid. If the explosions were moving in a cicular motion, we would see a spinning motion at the top as it came down.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Varemia

 

But I thought the Twin Towers distributed the load outwards across the scaffolding and didn't rely on the core?

At least that is my understanding of what was explained to me.

Well, the load is mostly on the outside, but the floors are held together by a combined strength of the core and scaffolding, connected by a series of horizontal trusses. It is theoretical that the outside would hold without the support from the core, and the strength of the windows (designed to withstand serious winds) would hide a lot of inner collapse. Then the top losing hold from the lower floor support taken out would make the building begin to fall on itself, ejecting out the "shell" of the building.

reply to post by Varemia


So these horizontal trusses had to have been damaged well below the impact point?

If the collapse started at the impact point that spin should have carried all the way through the building, no?

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Varemia

 

So these horizontal trusses had to have been damaged well below the impact point?

If the collapse started at the impact point that spin should have carried all the way through the building, no?

The horizontal trusses had to have failed at the impact point. It is debatable whether they collapsed first at the impact point or below. I found this site that details a perspective about the collapse of the towers. OS, so I know many won't like it, but I like its concise, scientific descriptions:
science.howstuffworks.com...

reply to post by Varemia


I didn't see anything explaining the spin, though.

So, I'm still baffled... If the freaking thing just would have corkscrewed into it's foot print I'd prolly be an OS believer.

Here, I found an image from an NIST report (page 96) of the design of the trusses in relation to the core and such:

wtc.nist.gov...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e41f94285cbc.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Varemia

 

I didn't see anything explaining the spin, though.

So, I'm still baffled... If the freaking thing just would have corkscrewed into it's foot print I'd prolly be an OS believer.

I think it's related to the structure as to why it wouldn't spin on the way down. The plan really looks quite stable.

reply to post by Varemia


But looks can be deceiving, considering a plane brought it down...

A whole portion of the building spinning free and the trusses can resit torsional forces but not partial collapsing debris? I dunno, man.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Varemia

 

But looks can be deceiving, considering a plane brought it down...

A whole portion of the building spinning free and the trusses can resit torsional forces but not partial collapsing debris? I dunno, man.

I dunno either, but it would appear to make more sense that a momentum and gravity powered downward thrust would be more logical than a heavily resisted twisting motion. Once the top broke loose, it ripped a large chunk of the core away with it from what I can tell. The trusses were designed to take forces from the sides, but it was the vertical ones meant to protect from upward force. If the vertical columns fail, then I doubt the horizontal ones would hold up from the incoming weight.

reply to post by Varemia


But where is this downward thrust coming from? It looks as is the top portion is sliding off. Partial collapse, sure, but systemic?

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Varemia

 

But where is this downward thrust coming from? It looks as is the top portion is sliding off. Partial collapse, sure, but systemic?

Well, in order for it to tip, it had to have a base to tip off of. That means it must have applied a lot of downward force as it initially began to fall, actually putting a ton more weight when the whole top section was weighing down on fewer points of the lower structure before falling away.

reply to post by Varemia


That's exactly why partial makes sense to me but not systemic. Haha, I'm prolly just too ignorant to know either way.

Originally posted by American_Soviets
Well, well, well, some enemy combatants/terrorists questioning the official goobermint story, eh? Guess dhs, fbi, cia, nhs, need to send some gestapo over so you terrorists can learn to respect a boot to the face. If you don't believe the muslims hijacked 3 planes and rammed them into the buildings all on their first attempt and that Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and yemen funded these terrorists, you're anti-american and hate our freedom.

they didnt. your tax dollars did... be proud