It doesn't look like a controlled demolition to me

[boolean]

All the talk about the towers falling by a controlled demolition made me think about it.

Look at how the towers fell. The first one to fall bent forward at the middle and awkwardly collapsed upon itself. The second one looked more like an EXplosion as opposed to an IMplosion.

I think all you who say it looks like a controlled demolition are seeing what you want to see. Watch actual demolitions and compare them to the WTC towers. They look NOTHING alike.

[FoxOnTheRun]

1. So the first bent forward..

and why didn't the top fall of and the collapse halted at some point?

Why was the collapse in about 10 sec "free fall" speed?

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Why did two 110 story tall buildings fall faster

then a 47 story tall building?

Clue: The first two were blow up and the WTC 7 was a CD.

[boolean]

4. Because it WASN'T a controlled demolition (nt)

[FoxOnTheRun]

7. calls himself boolean and applies no logic

;)

[Sinti]

8. Only Yes or No answers please. ;) n/t

[Carefulplease]

9. The top section of the WTC Towers did not fall freely...

Videos of the collapse show debris that are ejected sideways and that follow parabolic trajectories. Those debris are free falling. They are seen to fall some significant distance ahead of the collapse front. Thus, it is clear that transfer of momentum to the floors being impacted and the resistive force of the structural elements being crushed slow down the collapse.

[FoxOnTheRun]

10. yes because the core colums have been blown,

if the building hadn't been rigged at most the top should have fallen off into the direction it was falling.

[Carefulplease]

11. And if the core had been overloaded...

And if the core had been overloaded soon after the top had begun rotating, why wouldn't the upper section come straight down with very little angular momentum and very little lateral momentum?

If you picture the top "falling off", what keeps it from falling straight down once a majority of columns are disconnected? (As soon at it starts moving down, there does not seem to exist a hinge anymore such that gravity acting on the center of mass could produce a significant torque.)

[FoxOnTheRun]

15. Couldn't it slide down without a hinge?

Once it rotates from the center it falls to the border, breaks it down and creates a slope and accelerates the fall of the top.

If the core was the main load bearing element, why should something from the top keep hammering it to dust instead of gliding to the side?

[Carefulplease]

17. I can't picture a slope...

Those structures were assemblies of vertical and horizontal structural elements. There were horizontal beams and trusses and vertical columns. There were no diagonal bracings except maybe in some shafts in the core. The only slope that I can picture is a truss floor assembly that is disconnected from the wall and leaning on that side. The falling upper block wouldn't slide on this. It would just fully disconnect it on impact. (Unless the conspirators who filled the core columns with thermite had put banana peels on one unoccupied floor.)

[FoxOnTheRun]

21. I'm talking about an event without explosives,

what would happen if there were no explosives, why should the whole structure pulverize?

[vincent_vega_lives]

22. Physics

Release of stored potential energy. Mass & acelleration due to gravity = a MASSIVE amount of force. Once the building above the event zone started moving the energy released equaled tons of high explosive.

Explosives are not magic, they just release stored chemical energy. We use explosives because they are very efficent...a LOT of energy in a very small package, they trade mass for high velocity. The buildings are the opposite, plenty of MASS, much less velocity, the amount of force released is comperable.

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. In other words

all you needed was explosives in the impact area to take down the building. Thanks for the tip.

I bet they had something in the basement too. But since that are no videos that show the entire building from top to bottom, we don't really know what was going on on the lower floors and sublevels.

Too bad no one has produced any of the failed columns. It would have been so easy to figure out what parts of the building failed due to fire if the steel hadn't all been recycled in such a hurry.

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. Yes or some other form of energy

A lot of people have claimed EVERY floor would require explosives to produce "free fall", "pulverization", and so forth.

As for NEEDING explosives in the impact area. The kinetic energy of the 767 hitting the building at 500 kts (compromising fireproofing, and damaging structural components) and thermal energy of a multi floor fire started by thousands of gallons of JP8 would equal the explosive energy released in a few microseconds, over the coures of an hour.

Conservation of energy.

Anyone catch the NOVA special last night "Building on Ground Zero."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. Most of the jet fuel burnt off in the fire ball

the floors that failed in the impact zone, the 92nd floor in WTC1 and the 81st floor in WTC2 were, from as far as I can tell, pretty much unoccupied floors. What combustibles were on those floors to sustain a fire?

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. No, about 10-20% was consumed in the fireball

The rest contributed to the widespread fire, and burned off in the next few minutes.

Not sure if the floors were unocupied or not, regardless it would only take a few key points on one floor to be compromised by the fire, as the structure was already damaged by the plane.

[FoxOnTheRun]

29. 80% in wtc 2

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. That would still leave 2,000 gallons

Enough to fill the gas tanks of 100 SUVs (If they ran on JP8).

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. Oh, another one of those coincidences I suppose?

That the planes and debris all landed or fell in just the right spots to take down three buildings. Amazing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

31. No every floor had key structural components

Consisting of a system of steel core columns, trusses, and facade girders. The aircraft strike and then the fire compromised parts of all three.

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. Not all floors were the same

The upper floors of the tower also contained the hat trusses.

Other floors in the Towers had additional reinforcement and in some places beams instead of trusses for additional strength to hold up extra weight like the multi-ton elevator hoists that were on the 81st Floor of WTC2. (I still haven't looked at WTC1 to see if that building had the same set up.)


WTC 7 is another matter entirely, with the 5th through 7th floors housing the trusses that held up the rest of the building. The 5th floor had additional reinforcements added later when they installed the system for the generators.

[vincent_vega_lives]

34. irrelevant to the discussion.

as you were claiming that the aircraft conveniently knocked out THE key structural pieces. I am stating that EVERY floor had key structural pieces.

I agree regarding WTC 7. Completely different design.

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. I didn't say the aircraft knocked out anything

I'm saying that the floors where the collapses initiated, contained key structural elements there were different from much of the rest of those buildings.

(So far I can only claim this for WTC 2 and WTC 7, since I still have finished studying WTC 1 to make a call.)

[screembloodymurder]

24. After 30 years in the business, I think I know demolition when I see it.

Building #7 was demolished.

[vincent_vega_lives]

36. 30 Years in the demolition buisiness?

When would the charges have had to have been placed?

How many would have had to have been placed and where to have the effect witnessed?

What method of initiation would have been used?

Why no firefighters report demolition?

Would the fire have effected the charges and detonators?

[FoxOnTheRun]

37. hm

4. Because they have gag orders

Here is what Fire Engineering Magazine had to say about the investigation

Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is
summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's
Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown
investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World
Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated
hypotheticals."

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed
by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that
may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to
put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from
a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation
committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking
the evidence for anything.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/FireEngineering-1-4-02-BurningQuestionsNeedAnswers.pdf#search=%22Fire%20Engineering%20magazine%20half%20baked%20farce%22

[screembloodymurder]

38. No, 30 years as a bullshit sniffer.

But I slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

[vincent_vega_lives]

40. Darn

The title of your post seemed to imply it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. They didn't have to set explosives or charges

All they had to do was turn on the diesel fuel and light it at key points on the 5th floor. Gee, those lines just happened to break right next to the key trusses, ignited, and soon enough the building fell down. Oops.

[Nozebro]

3. Don't be such a whiner. Lots of people were fooled. Most still are.

nt

[Sinti]

5. How about explosion and destruction

by means of well placed RDX (or similar temperature stable explosive)? That's what it looks like to me, but my view is admittedly biased. I don't watch enough TV for buildings exploding like that to seem normal. IRL things rarely blow up without explosives.

[truthmover]

6. Partly true...

You are correct. The destruction of WTC 1&2 do not look like a controlled implosion. A controlled explosion possibly. What do you make of WTC7? You appear to make the mistake of assuming that the movement is unified around specific theories, or even ways of viewing the same evidence. There certainly are some in the movement who are seeing what they want. But if you explore a broad cross-section of 9/11 truth media, you will find many keen intellects who question what happend at the WTC that day.

Oh, and I would suggest not rely upon people in here to answer your questions. Its not the most reliable way to get educated about 9/11.

[pauldp]

12. could you point out something about the collapse of 7 that doesn't ? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

13. I agree boolean, the towers looked like

a planned demolition, (but not controlled in the classic sense) and #7 looked like a planned demolition also, but also much closer to a classic controlled demolition in that it started at the bottom.

[Nozebro]

14. The "actual demolitions" I've seen look like the WTC collapses. EOM

nt

[John Q. Citizen]

16. "Actual demolitions" is an intersting term.

I prefer to call the the towers "planned demolitions."

The 9/11 truth movement needs to quit using the term "controlled demolition" at any rate.

The point wasn't public safety and perfection in a foot print, the point was dropping the towers all at once. Controlled demolitions usually don't use thermate or super thermate in conjuction with high explosives, instead they may cut key support columns with torches. No controlled demolition company wants pools of molten metal lingering around for weeks after the collapse.

"Actual demolition" seems perhaps a little too broad, although it's descriptive.

Certainly though, as long as skeptics try to use the term "controlled demolition" the OCTs will always try to discredit based primarily on a semantic basis.

We need a term that describes what we mean and not a term that can be used as a distraction from the issue.




-edited severly to actually respond to the post you made instead of the post I thought you made. :)

[vincent_vega_lives]

23. Misnomers

"Controlled Demolition" is most used as a term for mechanical destruction of a structure. Typically with a wrecking ball or heavy equipment. It is the safest, but slowest form of Demolition. Some demolition firms do only this type. Controlled explosive demolition is the type you are refering to and while much quicker, requires a lot more expertise an planning.

"Implosion" is an improper term to describe the demolition of a building. CED looks like an implosion, but it as not.

[mhatrw]

18. How about the third one?

The first two were explosive demolitions.

The last one was the only classic CD implosion.

[rman]

19. Sure doesn't look like 'natural' collapse

Generally speaking the collapse of both towers look similar; indeed quite "explosive" rather than implosive, in spite of the fact that part of one of the towers tilted at the start of the collapse. How would collapse caused by damage come to look like so explosive?

Perhaps more importantly, if the collapses were caused by bombs/demo charges as part of an inside job, the preps would naturally not want it to look like 'normal'/standard controlled demolition - that would be to obvious. So unlike standard CD there was no concern for debris ending up in places where you wouldn't want it to end up if it were standard CD - the collapses were made to look 'dirty' as to somewhat resemble a natural collapse.

Of course no-one has ever seen buildings that tall collapse either naturally or due to CD - but that argument goes both ways; no-one knows if that kind of building would collapse naturally due to damage in the way that it did collapse.

WTC7 otoh looks very much like standard CD; the collapse very clearly starts at ground level and the building just sinks into the ground, with the vast majority of the debris ending up in the footprint of the building.

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Actually in WTC 7 the collapse starts on the 5th Floor

Where the trusses were that held up the building because WTC 7 was build over an existing building, the Con Ed substation.

The 5th Floor is also where they installed most of the generators and pressurized fuel lines for Rudy's OEM bunker and others. This system was installed after 1993 and was not part of the original design of the building. FDNY warned the owners that this was a dangerous system that could fuel a fire that could threaten the whole building.

It seems it wouldn't be very hard for someone to cut the lines in just the right places and turning them into blow torches directed at the base of two or three main trusses. One, two, three - down goes the building.

There was no need to wire the building or set explosives. Rudy & CO already had done a great job installing the fuel system that could be used to bring the building down.

Makes you wonder why they decided to evacuate the OEM bunker at 9:30 AM before even the first tower fell.

[JackRiddler]

39. Strawman...

Who cares if it was an explosion or an implosion? The question is whether bombs, explosives, artificial pre-planted means were used to bring down the towers.

9/11 skeptics have set themselves up for this strawman attack by constantly speaking of "controlled" demolition of the towers. If you believe bombs were used, what the hell was "controlled" about what happened, and why would this have been any consideration? Controlled demolition is a particular procedure designed for safety, efficiency and economy. Whereas anyone planning to blowing up the Towers, knowing they'd kill thousands, would not care about the usual way this procedure is done: they could do it from the impact zone down, instead of the bottom up. They wouldn't have to gut the building first, they wouldn't care if the debris fell out of the footprint (as at least 1/3 of it did), it wouldn't have to be perfect. And how the hell is it even possible for a 110 story building demolition to be "controlled", or to fall into footprint?

Whereas if you put footage of the collapse of Seven up at implosion world, no one viewing it would see anything to imply that it was not yet another in a series of well-executed, classic controlled demolitions done by the usual rules.

Curious, is it not?