Why The Towers Fell

[quandary121]

Okay, that's reasonable..............that does away with the need for several times the 36,000 feet of det cord required to drop the Hudson Store......

It DOES NOT address the need for months of preparation by dozens of men moving away insulation and walls, cutting steel, and other prepatory work........

Then placing at least 5 TONS of explosives in strategic locations (we are talking three buildings here, right?)

All without anyone noticing..........

And you still haven't explained why the WTC collapsed from the top down, while CD collapses structures from the bottom up.

Face it, the whole idea of CD of the WTC is so ludicrous, so out there, and so easily debunked...........it is simply silly to think this is possible.

oh, and BTW, the number of people capable of planning and carrying out a cd like this is miniscule.....................absolutely tiny.

the concept is ludicrous.

Just ridiculous.

And you still haven't explained why the WTC collapsed from the top down, while CD collapses structures from the bottom up.

i point you to this http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/index.html

It DOES NOT address the need for months of preparation by dozens of men moving away insulation and walls, cutting steel, and other prepatory work........

Then placing at least 5 TONS of explosives in strategic locations (we are talking three buildings here, right?)

i have seen a documentary where people who worked in the towers explained that entire floors were cleared months before hand and that workmen could be heard from floors below ,by the employees and that they were told it was to do with redecorating or something like that , employees came to work on later days to find dust partials all over the floors work tops window everywhere when they asked about it they were told not to get involved these operations went on for months ample time for explosives to be planted.?

Face it, the whole idea of CD of the WTC is so ludicrous, so out there, and so easily debunked...........it is simply silly to think this is possible.

oh, and BTW, the number of people capable of planning and carrying out a cd like this is miniscule.....................absolutely tiny.

the concept is ludicrous.

not so when you consider the financial profit made by the guy who owned the building he uses a cd term in an interview about the collapse that being the word "PULL IT"

oh, and BTW, the number of people capable of planning and carrying out a cd like this is miniscule.....................absolutely tiny.

Not when big moneys is at stake.! it would only take one or two such men!!!

 

[quandary121]

A full and convincing answer to this question involves several aspects, such as a consideration of the personnel requirements and a number of observations in the Conspiracy FAQ. The most complete examination of this question that we are aware of is the essay by 9-11 Research Associate Editor Gregg Roberts, Where Are the 9-11 Whistleblowers?. Roberts' essay first builds a case for official complicity in 9/11 and then examines the key aspects of the whistleblowers question, including:

• The likely number of "insider" conspirators in a position to blow the whistle and their relevant personal characteristics
• How the government and media have treated whistleblowers who have revealed weaknesses in the handling of national security threats, without claiming any inside knowledge of how 9/11 was carried out (or even challenging the official story)
• The motivations and concerns of whistleblowers
• Attitudes and other filtering mechanisms evident in the major media

Roberts concludes that the probability of an insider coming forward and being offered widespread media coverage is quite low because of their small numbers, risk/opportunity balance considerations, and media filtering mechanisms.

 

[quandary121]

The Pentagon Strike attacks false
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zdNauDhMmiI

 

[quandary121]

[SIZE=+2]The World Trade Center Demolition

Exposing the fraud of the government's story

[/SIZE]
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/

 

[quandary121]

Misinformation and Disinformation Marginalizes Skeptics

• More obvious
  • The North Tower plane was a small plane or hologram
    
  • The South Tower plane had a pod
    
  • The planes fired missiles at the towers before impact
    
  • The South Tower plane had no windows
    
• Less obvious
  • Building 6 Exploded before the towers fell
    
  • No 757 crashed at the Pentagon

 

[lone wolf]

if this is what you meant when you say you added something this is hardly sound observations as the towers had an inner core of around 24 steel framed girders in the centre to prevent movement of high winds such as hurricanes


.

Hang a Slinky so a yardstick is its central core then laterally strike the slinky and you'll have an exaggerated effect similar to an aircraft striking WTC's outer outer shell.

I won't say there weren't explosives placed as a failsafe mechanism. I do know of skyscrapers where they are placed for just such circumstances. That, too, has been debated in here.

 

[I think not]

Well this thread went nowhere pretty fast.

 

[quandary121]

Hang a Slinky so a yardstick is its central core then laterally strike the slinky and you'll have an exaggerated effect similar to an aircraft striking WTC's outer outer shell.

In any of the footage taken on the day of the attacks when the plane hits does it rock the building ? can the building be seen to rock ? no i think not and a slinky is hardly a good representation of a concrete building is it ? you with have to come up with a better example then that lone-wolf

I won't say there weren't explosives placed as a failsafe mechanism. I do know of skyscrapers where they are placed for just such circumstances. That, too, has been debated in here.

debate does not prove anything as i could debate the world is flat and you could say its round and the debate would not change the facts would it ?

 

[quandary121]

Well this thread went nowhere pretty fast.

meaning what exactly you ducked out pretty quick i don't see your comments proliferation's any where do you so why you added this comment god knows

 

[I think not]

meaning what exactly you ducked out pretty quick i don't see your comments proliferation's any where do you so why you added this comment god knows

My apologies I had no idea I had to be pinned to the computer to keep up with your endless copying and pasting.

It seems pretty evident to me that you only repeat what you read, you haven't deviated from the conspiracy thoery line nor have you offered any rational explanation to the events.

You cut and paste and that is the extent of your knowledge and critical thought.

Whatever you have copied and pasted, I have already read dozens of times, i was hoping you were going to offer your personal opinion, but I have realized you don't have a personal opinion. My mistake.

Let's just agree to disagree and that will be that.

 

[quandary121]

My apologies I had no idea I had to be pinned to the computer to keep up with your endless copying and pasting.

It seems pretty evident to me that you only repeat what you read, you haven't deviated from the conspiracy thoery line nor have you offered any rational explanation to the events.

You cut and paste and that is the extent of your knowledge and critical thought.

Whatever you have copied and pasted, I have already read dozens of times, i was hoping you were going to offer your personal opinion, but I have realized you don't have a personal opinion. My mistake.

Let's just agree to disagree and that will be that.

look m8 you asked me to give proof this i have done lone-wolf was kind enough to explain that links were enough ,and as im new here i realise my mistake, you on the other hand would rather use your experience in explosives against me knowing full well that i do not know the ins and outs of such matters , i therefore have begun to give links substantial links i might add to collaborate what im saying you on the other hand have only, have continually asked for proofs from me yet offer flimsy evedence to the contary now that i have shown the proofs needed to convince you and others that this was indeed a inside job you come up with you answer which is so lame i cant believe it that being

Let's just agree to disagree and that will be that

lame answer pal very lame

 

[quandary121]

My apologies I had no idea I had to be pinned to the computer to keep up with your endless copying and pasting.

It seems pretty evident to me that you only repeat what you read, you haven't deviated from the conspiracy thoery line nor have you offered any rational explanation to the events.

You cut and paste and that is the extent of your knowledge and critical thought.

Whatever you have copied and pasted, I have already read dozens of times, i was hoping you were going to offer your personal opinion, but I have realized you don't have a personal opinion. My mistake.

Let's just agree to disagree and that will be that.

look m8 you asked me to give proof this i have done lone-wolf was kind enough to explain that links were enough ,and as im new here i realise my mistake, you on the other hand would rather use your experience in explosives against me knowing full well that i do not know the ins and outs of such matters , i therefore have begun to give links substantial links i might add to collaborate what im saying you on the other hand have only, have continually asked for proofs from me yet offer flimsy evidence to the contrary now that i have shown the proofs needed to convince you and others that this was indeed a inside job you come up with you answer which is so lame i cant believe it that being

Let's just agree to disagree and that will be that

lame answer pal very lame

 

[quandary121]

Quandary you've brought some strong arguments to this topic that can't be put down without equally strong arguments from the other side which have not been forthcoming. I have always hovered a bit ....I mean I watched the aircraft hit the towers on 9/11 maybe fifty seven times. Building 7 went down so smooth it always looked like a professional job to me but I couldn't get my head around the sheer size if the conspiracy required to pull it off. To me, this is the strongest argument against any kind of conspiracy. By now half the conspirators would have written a book about the damn thing.

sorry i missed you comment juan my answer to you is this link if you would care to look
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/whistleblowers.html

 

[lone wolf]

In any of the footage taken on the day of the attacks when the plane hits does it rock the building ? can the building be seen to rock ? no i think not and a slinky is hardly a good representation of a concrete building is it ? you with have to come up with a better example then that lone-wolf
debate does not prove anything as i could debate the world is flat and you could say its round and the debate would not change the facts would it ?

That's twice now you have informed us of a concrete building yet C&P'd data for a steel construction. Do you even have a clue about what you front? Do you understand what exaggerated movement is? Do you want to debate or to preach. It's not facts you seek ... it's agreement. Sorry. Among the honest, you will not find yes people. I have been patient with you until that became work. Then, I tried to be kind and explain as I would have to a child. Still you want to go on with your belligerence. All I can say now is screw off space man.

 

[quandary121]

That's twice now you have informed us of a concrete building yet C&P'd data for a steel construction. Do you even have a clue about what you front? Do you understand what exaggerated movement is? Do you want to debate or to preach. It's not facts you seek ... it's agreement. Sorry. Among the honest, you will not find yes people. I have been patient with you until that became work. Then, I tried to be kind and explain as I would have to a child. Still you want to go on with your belligerence. All I can say now is screw off space man.

That's twice now you have informed us of a concrete building yet C&P'd data for a steel construction. Do you even have a clue about what you front

yes the truth that this was and still is a inside job

Do you understand what exaggerated movement is

explain this then o wise one

Do you want to debate or to preach. It's not facts you seek ... it's agreement

Is that so how come im the only dissenter saying that this is not so, and i have provide facts, i don't need yes men like you might, as you applauded every comment posted apart from mine, even though i have proved to others that there facts were wrong eg; the planes and the detonation cord issues.?

belligerence

meaning what exactly by not agreeing with the answers given in reply like you slinky example lol

All I can say now is screw off

you to D**KWAD

 

[lone wolf]

You haven't proven shyte.... You have raised disputable issues. Hell ... I've done that too - many times - on the same issue. Check the archives. I, too, viewed WTC as if it was a conventional steel structure. The fact is, it's not. There are NO structural steel links between the outside frame and the central core. Poured concrete floors rest in steel pan laid upon open web steel joists. These are the ONLY members which span the void between outer spandrel and inner core (see pic)

So... I ate a bit of crow

Though the towers were designed to withstand hurricane winds, they were not designed to withstand the pointal impact of a jetliner doing in execess of 400 mph. A video taken from the ground would not reveal a reactionary movement at moment of impact owing to distance. Bear in mind, a movement of just one inch would be more than enough to shear or seriously damage connections between those OWSJ and their vertical supports.

 

[quandary121]

You haven't proven shyte.... You have raised disputable issues. Hell ... I've done that too - many times - on the same issue. Check the archives. I, too, viewed WTC as if it was a conventional steel structure. The fact is, it's not. There are NO structural steel links between the outside frame and the central core. Poured concrete floors rest in steel pan laid upon open web steel joists. These are the ONLY members which span the void between outer spandrel and inner core (see pic)

So... I ate a bit of crow

Though the towers were designed to withstand hurricane winds, they were not designed to withstand the pointal impact of a jetliner doing in execess of 400 mph. A video taken from the ground would not reveal a reactionary movement at moment of impact owing to distance. Bear in mind, a movement of just one inch would be more than enough to shear or seriously damage connections between those OWSJ and their vertical supports.

Though the towers were designed to withstand hurricane winds, they were not designed to withstand the pointal impact of a jetliner doing in execess of 400 mph.

Not so The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.
Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. [SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE] A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

 

[quandary121]

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

 

[lone wolf]

I recall those tests too - and if I remember my college days right, their flaw was they used conventional steel (column/beam/girder) construction as a model.

 

[quandary121]

I recall those tests too - and if I remember my college days right, their flaw was they used conventional steel (column/beam/girder) construction as a model.

The Structural System of the Twin Towers

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

The Core Structures

The Structural System of the Twin Towers

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

[SIZE=-1]This photograph from Ground Zero is apparently of one of the smaller core columns connected to a set of I-beams. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]This image from the documentary Up From Zero shows the base of a core column, whose dimensions, minus the four flanges, are apparently 52 by 22 inches, with walls at least 5 inches thick.[/SIZE]