So how did the Towers Fall?

pushmepullme

I got passed a really good essay today, written by a bunch of engineer teachers, all with PHds and what not, on why they can't believe that the towers fell like they did. They made some interesting points:

1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees.

2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.

3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7.

4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires.

Any comments, other than the 'you're talking shit!' kind?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

pushmepullme wrote:

I got passed a really good essay today, written by a bunch of engineer teachers, all with PHds and what not, on why they can't believe that the towers fell like they did. They made some interesting points:

1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees.

2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.

3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7.

4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires.

Any comments, other than the 'you're talking shit!' kind?

Well, my first reaction would definitely be to comment #4 because anyone with half a brain and eyes can see the wtc 7 collapse was completely different from the other 2 towers. Towers 1 and 2 started collapsing from the areas where the planes hit, and continued to crumble floor-by-floor all the way down. WTC 7 started collapsing near the base of the building where the fire and damage was, and collapsed all at once (not floor-by-floor).

So without getting into too many details, I'd say I hope these engineering teachers never attempt to apply their skills in the real world, because they're obviously not too bright.

Also, I don't believe steel needs to melt in order for it to lose strength and bend.

farfromglorified

pushmepullme wrote:

1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees.

No one is claiming that steel "melted". The claim is that the steal weakened, and temperatures do not have to be 2800 degrees F to weaken steel. Furthermore, the 650 degree number you quote is ridiculously low. NIST estimates put the temperature in some areas closer to 1800 degrees.

2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.

So? No one disagrees with that (except 10 minutes is the estimate, not the maximum), but obviously fires were raging in the building for much longer than 10 minutes. A match can't stay lit for more than 60 seconds, but that doesn't mean it can't ignite a fire that lasts for days.

3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7.

And there have only been 2 buildings, ever, ever, ever where packed jetliners have crashed into them. Why would you seek precedent from the unprecedented?

4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires.

The actual conditions of WTC7 following the collapse of the towers is largely unknown, as is the cause of its collapse.

EDIT: One other thing on this. Your above statement is not true. WTC7 did not fall "in exactly the same way". Each building that collapsed that day collapsed in a unique fashion. Research it.

pushmepullme

farfromglorified wrote:

No one is claiming that steel "melted". The claim is that the steal weakened, and temperatures do not have to be 2800 degrees F to weaken steel. Furthermore, the 650 degree number you quote is ridiculously low. NIST estimates put the temperature in some areas closer to 1800 degrees.

Fair enough, but if the steel just weakened, would both towers fall down in exactly the same way, straight down? To have them fall straight down, would imply that each support gave way at precisely the same time, in precisely the same place, or they'd have toppled, surely?

pushmepullme

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_Xs0Lb-Wqc

farfromglorified

pushmepullme wrote:

Fair enough, but if the steel just weakened, would both towers fall down in exactly the same way, straight down? To have them fall straight down, would imply that each support gave way at precisely the same time, in precisely the same place, or they'd have toppled, surely?

How else are they going to fall? For a building to "topple", something must continue to hold part of the building up. Skyscrapers are not designed such that half of the building support system can sustain the entire structure.

Look, if you chop three legs off of a chair, the chair topples because the 4th leg is strong enough to maintain part of the structure. A skyscraper isn't built this way.

aNiMaL

pushmepullme wrote:

I got passed a really good essay today, written by a bunch of engineer teachers, all with PHds and what not, on why they can't believe that the towers fell like they did. They made some interesting points:

1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees.

2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.

3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7.

4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires.

Any comments, other than the 'you're talking shit!' kind?

Dude, seriously, did you (or any of the other people who are still claiming inside job) not see the jet airliners crash into the buildings??? Did our government fly the planes?

Also, if the government used dynamite explosives to detonate the buildings.....when exactly did they come though the buildings and strategically place the dynamite? Do you really think they could have pulled that precise of a tower drop off....without anyone seeing them set shit up? BULL SHIT!!

I live near Seattle where they imploded and dropped the King Dome 6 years ago…..they had to do so much prep work to get that to go off without a hitch….there is no way ANYONE could have “secretly” set the World Trade Towers up for implosion without being detected.

rebornFixer

aNiMaL wrote:

Dude, seriously, did you (or any of the other people who are still claiming inside job) not see the jet airliners crash into the buildings??? Did our government fly the planes?

Also, if the government used dynamite explosives to detonate the buildings.....when exactly did they come though the buildings and strategically place the dynamite? Do you really think they could have pulled that precise of a tower drop off....without anyone seeing them set shit up? BULL SHIT!!

I live near Seattle where they imploded and dropped the King Dome 6 years ago…..they had to do so much prep work to get that to go off without a hitch….there is no way ANYONE could have “secretly” set the World Trade Towers up for implosion without being detected.

Indeed ... I'd also add that anyone can attach a "Ph.D." to something they've written.

Affroman

reborncareerist wrote:

Indeed ... I'd also add that anyone can attach a "Ph.D." to something they've written.

I can also make up the name Ashmir Muhammad Halim, connect him to Al 'Queda and 95% of the general American population would believe me. On that note, I am going to make an "official" website that lists known terrorists.

Not trying to downplay your point, but i think we can both agree theres a shitload of misinformation out there.

rebornFixer

Affroman wrote:

I can also make up the name Ashmir Muhammad Halim, connect him to Al 'Queda and 95% of the general American population would believe me. On that note, I am going to make an "official" website that lists known terrorists.

Not trying to downplay your point, but i think we can both agree theres a shitload of misinformation out there.

For sure ... Of course, at some point, you've got to believe something. I've listened to both sides, and so far, the non-conspiracy theorists are making more sense on this particular issue. Does that mean that Bush hasn't abused 9-11 for political capital? No. I think people get these issues confused. Bush using 9-11 to push a certain agenda does not mean that the event itself is an inside job.

aNiMaL

reborncareerist wrote:

For sure ... Of course, at some point, you've got to believe something. I've listened to both sides, and so far, the non-conspiracy theorists are making more sense on this particular issue. Does that mean that Bush hasn't abused 9-11 for political capital? No. I think people get these issues confused. Bush using 9-11 to push a certain agenda does not mean that the event itself is an inside job.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Tell me, what would have been the political gain to secretly dropping the twin towers???

rebornFixer

aNiMaL wrote:

Tell me, what would have been the political gain to secretly dropping the twin towers???

Honestly, I cannot think of any. There would have been myriad other ways in which the government could have made a secret agenda to invade Iraq (for example) palatable to the public, including what Bush actually tried (the "WMD" card). Heck, the U.S. has been clandestinely undermining foreign governments for decades ... Now they needed to engineer a terrorist attack to do what?

sonicreducer

aNiMaL wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more.

Tell me, what would have been the political gain to secretly dropping the twin towers???

larry silverstein made 7.2 billion dollars off of insurance money.

Derrick

some skyscrapers are designed to implode after a certain damage threashold is met so they may be destroyed without causing damage to surrounding buildings and area.

I do not know if WTC1 and 2 were designed in such a way, but I do know this is a very strong engineering consideration for tall buildings. This is common, and all said, for the greater good.

T-Bone 82

aNiMaL wrote:

Dude, seriously, did you (or any of the other people who are still claiming inside job) not see the jet airliners crash into the buildings??? Did our government fly the planes?

Also, if the government used dynamite explosives to detonate the buildings.....when exactly did they come though the buildings and strategically place the dynamite? Do you really think they could have pulled that precise of a tower drop off....without anyone seeing them set shit up? BULL SHIT!!

I live near Seattle where they imploded and dropped the King Dome 6 years ago…..they had to do so much prep work to get that to go off without a hitch….there is no way ANYONE could have “secretly” set the World Trade Towers up for implosion without being detected.

Thank you for writing this. It makes me sick to hear all of these conspiracy theories. I am sure there has been a conspiracy or two in american history, however, there is absolutely no reason to discuss these ridiculous claims. Do you really believe that our government is sick and twisted enough to develop a plan to sacrifice three jets, two skyscrapers, and one pentagon full of thousands of innocent american civilians?

Lets argue for a second that they are sick enough. Do you not believe that one person somewhere in Washington would not catch wind of this and have a little bit of a problem with it? If hell froze over and it was possible that our government orchestrated this gruesome attack, do you really believe they'd be able to keep a lid on it?

Let it go people. We were attacked on our own soil by Al Queda terrorists, not our own government. Bush may be incompetent, naive, and misguided in his approach to foreign policy but he (or his administration) is not a terrorist.

Today is about remembering the fallen. I know this is the land of free speech, but for everyone else's benefit, discuss your conspiracy theories with your conspiracy buddies tomorrow.

Pearl Jam and toast

aNiMaL wrote:

Dude, seriously, did you (or any of the other people who are still claiming inside job) not see the jet airliners crash into the buildings??? Did our government fly the planes?

I don't really believe any of this conspiracy stuff, but our government has a LONGGGGGGGGGGGG history of staging acts of aggression (see the Mexican-American war and the planned Cuban terrorist attacks on Miami that didn't go through) and taking human life with a grain of sand. I wouldn't be surprised if our government staged this one.

but again..

I haven't seen any evidence of it that hasn't been turned over backwards by counter arguments.

spiral out

So what were all the explosions that can be heard going of before each tower fell be then if not explosives?

And the towers both fell clearly from the bottom upwards not from the top down, so how does this fit in with this so called pancake effect?

Vedderlution_Baby

The government actions are the main reason people believe conspriracy theories. Why should the people believe what the government tells them? Because they are so truthful? Because they have such a good history of sharing their findings with their own people? No. People are not trusting the government right now. While there are some who will never not believe anything slanderous thrown at their government, there are plenty who would rather not have these feelings of mistrust and disbelief. A major part of this is the government's fault.

SweetHarmonics

The firefighters' first-hand observations seem to contradict the official story and were conveniently omitted from the testimony conducted by the commission. Also, there were pools of melted steel visible in the wreckage. That pretty much dismisses the theory that the beams were merely "weakened not melted". I guess we'll never really know what condition the towers' beams were in due to the fact they were shipped off to China in quite a hurry.

Vedderlution_Baby

By the way, while I do believe that their are times people can not just let an issue go, if people do not question things, how will we ever know the truth? If you never questioned Clinton, then how would you have ever gotten him impeached?

Cosmo

pushmepullme wrote:

I got passed a really good essay today, written by a bunch of engineer teachers, all with PHds and what not, on why they can't believe that the towers fell like they did. They made some interesting points:

1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees.

2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.

3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7.

4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires.

Any comments, other than the 'you're talking shit!' kind?

...
1. The steel does not have to melt... just reach the point where it can no longer support the weight of the floors above it. South tower supported 20+ stories, North Tower 10+. How much do you think a 10 or 20 story building weighs? I'm guessing... a whole bunch.

2. I saw a car burning in the desert for about 90 minutes, before the nearest fire truck arrived. That was about 15 gallons of unleaded auto gasoline, if the tank was full. Fuel capacity for a Boeing 767:23,980 U.S. gal
Do a little experiment of your own... take one U.S. Gallon of gasoline and pour it on your bedroom floor. Toss a lit road flare on it and see how long it burns before it extinguishes itself. Multiply that time by 23,980... minus a couple of hundred... factor in that it is aviation fuel.

3. Gravity. Gravity and the weight of a 20 story building (with furniture and the debris of a Boeing 767) crashing down on the floor below it... on the one below that... on the one below that... etc...
Gravity pulls straight down... not at an angle. If these were the leaning World Trade Centers of Pisa, that would have come down on their sides. Gravity pulls straight down. Gravity.

4. WTC7 was pummelled by the tonnage of 1 1/2 110 story skyscrapers. This compromised the supporting structure and lead to the failure.

aNiMaL

spiral out wrote:

So what were all the explosions that can be heard going of before each tower fell be then if not explosives?

And the towers both fell clearly from the bottom upwards not from the top down, so how does this fit in with this so called pancake effect?

That could be numerous things like the tower supports failing...I am sure they wouldn't fail quietly. I am quite certain they would fail with a loud bang.

How do things fall from the bottom upward? What does that even mean? I saw the towers fall from where the air planes hit. The weight of the upper floors (above the plane crashes), combined with the massive heat from the constant fires, was enough to bring both towers down.

Again....nobody has answered my question about how they "supposedly" rigged the buildings with dynamite with no one ever seeing it.

aNiMaL

Vedderlution_Baby! wrote:

The government actions are the main reason people believe conspriracy theories. Why should the people believe what the government tells them? Because they are so truthful? Because they have such a good history of sharing their findings with their own people? No. People are not trusting the government right now. While there are some who will never not believe anything slanderous thrown at their government, there are plenty who would rather not have these feelings of mistrust and disbelief. A major part of this is the government's fault.

Because it is not the government telling us that airplanes crashed into the world trade center towers.....we all saw the shit with our own 2 eyes....not to mention all the thousands of actual witnesses that sad day, 5 years ago.

Sure, I distrust our current administration as much as the next guy....and I too think GW is a complete moron. I have no issues at all with slamming and ridiculing this current administration....but to say that they (the current administration) secretly planned 9/11 is a complete absurdity!!

Vedderlution_Baby

I get the impression that most of the fuel exploded in a fireball upon impact outside of the building. I'm not calling anyone out. Just explain this to me please.

acutejam

It's quite simple to debunk these 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

Could an adminstration that has messed up so bad in Iraq really have perpetrated this? I was SOOO surprised they didn't plant a few WMDs in Iraq, I mean c'mon!

You can't have this nefarious cabal that can pull this caper off and then turn around and be absolute clowns a year or two later....

Restless Soul

interesting stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPDNPJAr_Ao&mode=related&search=

Don't know if its true though. I do know that I wouldn't trust the Bushites with a bargepole.

Cosmo

You will be hard pressed to find anyone in America angrier at President Bush than me... but, I do not believe he is responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He is way too stupid for that. And his administration... there is no way they could keep it a secret. Get Cheney drunk and he'd let the details fly to the nearest cocktail waitress.
The towers fell because some fucking Islamic Fundamentalists flew a fully laden Boeing 767 into each at about 500 MPH. The ensuing fire from the 20,000 gallons of aviation fuel weakend the steel structure to a point where it failed to support the floors above it. Gravity did the rest.
I can almost say I hate President Bush and would punch him in the face (if he wasn't such a pussy to hide behind those Secret Service Agents) if I ever saw him for leading MY country into this shithole. but, I don't blame him for the events of Setpember 11, 2001. I accuse him of using that tragedy to pursue his pre-concieved desire to get at Saddam Hussein. I feel that is a wanton disreguard of the memory of those who died that day.

Vedderlution_Baby

aNiMaL wrote:

Because it is not the government telling us that airplanes crashed into the world trade center towers.....we all saw the shit with our own 2 eyes....not to mention all the thousands of actual witnesses that sad day, 5 years ago.

Sure, I distrust our current administration as much as the next guy....and I too think GW is a complete moron. I have no issues at all with slamming and ridiculing this current administration....but to say that they (the current administration) secretly planned 9/11 is a complete absurdity!!

I know we all saw that. What some people are disbelieving is that the government had no way of stopping the attack. They are also having trouble believing the official story, especially when things are stowed away and classified for no apparent reason. Just because someone doesn't agree with the official story does not mean that they think the government planned the entire event. What they are not believing is that the government is trying to protect them as well as they are saying and that the government could not have done more to stop the attack. As they question this, they start to question more, such as why video tape of the pentagon attack was confiscated and never to be shown. They are questioning why and how the government failed. Not all are saying the the government did it all.

The Illinoisemakers

aNiMaL wrote:

That could be numerous things like the tower supports failing...I am sure they wouldn't fail quietly. I am quite certain they would fail with a loud bang.

How do things fall from the bottom upward? What does that even mean? I saw the towers fall from where the air planes hit. The weight of the upper floors (above the plane crashes), combined with the massive heat from the constant fires, was enough to bring both towers down.

Again....nobody has answered my question about how they "supposedly" rigged the buildings with dynamite with no one ever seeing it.

aNiMal, No one will answer that question because it absolutely discredits their conspiracy theory that President Bush and his Admin were behind the 9/11 attack. And what fun is it if you can't blame everything on George Bush?

The most likely response your going to get on this is something to do with a power down of floors 50 and above the weekend before 9/11. How that explains how not one camera on floors 49 and lower captured video of people preparing the WTC for demo, or any people in or around the trade center failed to notice the hundreds of people need, miles of blast cord, and tons of explosives that would have to be used, I'm not sure.

Abookamongstthemany

acutejam wrote:

It's quite simple to debunk these 9-11 Conspiracy Theories.

Could an adminstration that has messed up so bad in Iraq really have perpetrated this? I was SOOO surprised they didn't plant a few WMDs in Iraq, I mean c'mon!

You can't have this nefarious cabal that can pull this caper off and then turn around and be absolute clowns a year or two later....

Why would they bother to plant WMDs? They knew they would have the support of the ever-so-leadable american public and would go along with anything they said.

Pearl Jam and toast

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why would they bother to plant WMDs? They knew they would have the support of the ever-so-leadable american public and would go along with anything they said.

don't forget our greeting as liberators.

It was the perfect plan.