9/11

[Risasi]

<snip>
The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

Agreed, generally speaking. The odds of all three buildings falling within their own footprint, not deviating in any direction except straight down? What are the odds? I mean all it would take is one set of bolts in those girders to not fail and the path of least resistance has now shifted to a topple.

All one has to do is view some videos of demolition jobs of large buildings to realize that the WTC buildings coming down are pretty eerie.

You'd think at least one of them would look more like one of these: https://youtu.be/DDuUR7l3bgc

[Husar]

Agreed, generally speaking. The odds of all three buildings falling within their own footprint, not deviating in any direction except straight down?

Three? I saw two towers that planes flew into, but then again I never bothered to read all the detailed reports and stuff.

As for the falling, if I am not mistaken such towers are built with the strongest steel construction/steel columns in the four outside corners, with maybe some weaker supports closer to the center. However, the center is more like reinforced concrete. While reinforced concrete is quite strong, the steel in it is rather bendable without the concrete. So once you get some 10 or 20 stories tumbling down, the will most likely shatter the concrete of the lower floors first, the steel in the concrete will not put up much of a resistance and it crashes through the center first because the center has less of a resistance than the strong steel columns on the outside. These columns can be bent downward due to the immense force of all the material falling down on the inside. Remember that it pretty much hits each of the lower floors as one big ball of rubble and no single floor can hold this, it collapses, joins the big pile of rubble and together they hit the next lower floor. This pile of rubble picks up more energy with each floor that collapses so as long as the top floor concrete cannot hold out the floors falling onto it, the building is done for. A single joint or whatever becomes irrelevant as the chance of it holding a microsecond longer becomes irrelevant. It's like trying to stop a meteor by firing a needle at it.

I really don't quite see the problem given that the outside of the towers was stronger and the inside parts basically became dead weight once a few levels collapsed onto the rest. It would much rather seem unlikely that the mass would break through the harder "outer shell" to collapse into either direction. Especially given that changing the direction of a larger and larger mass requires more and more energy. The comparison with buildings that are constructed in a completely different way is not helpful in this regard.

[Risasi]

Well, there you go. The official story is two planes knocked down three buildings.

[Husar]

Well, there you go. The official story is two planes knocked down three buildings.

I thought we were talking about the twin towers? How many more buildings were there and how tall were they? Why would someone blow up the generator building or whatever else there was? And have you taken into consideration that the shockwave of the two towers collapsing could also affect the integrity of nearby smaller buildings?

And while I'm at it, if that is all you took away from my post, I'm sorry for you.

[Risasi]

@Husar:
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/inde...nter_Site_Maps

This map should help a little.


Also, here is video of building 7's demise:
https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

And no, it was not the only thing I took from your post. However I have always been doubtful of what to believe about the twin towers. This is why I focus on building 7. It is the most blatant example of something that doesn't add up. I lies roughly 100m from the plaza. It is separated from the other two buildings. Yet it fell down also.

By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.

[Hooahguy]

By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.

Simple google search

[Husar]

@Husar:
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/inde...nter_Site_Maps

This map should help a little.


Also, here is video of building 7's demise:
https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

And no, it was not the only thing I took from your post. However I have always been doubtful of what to believe about the twin towers. This is why I focus on building 7. It is the most blatant example of something that doesn't add up. I lies roughly 100m from the plaza. It is separated from the other two buildings. Yet it fell down also.

And why would someone blow up a comparatively insignificant building to start a war or whatever the point was? You make it sound like the whole affair was an elaborate insurance scam of the owner...

And this is why the focus should be on the twin towers, because they were the important part. collateral damage happens and whether you can understand it is irrelevant. It's hard to say why building 7 dropped that way without knowing how exactly it was damaged. How many people died in building 7 anyway and would that number "justify" an evil cabal blowing it up to start a war?

By the way. Can anyone else name the other buildings in the entire world which have "fallen down". Think big. Like skyscrapers in Japan during the earthquakes. Pripyat. Over the past 200 years.

How would any of these comparisons help?

[Greyblades]

This thread.

[Risasi]

comparatively insignificant building

That's your opinion. Look at the tenants, follow the money. I think you missed earlier where I mentioned just one of many small financial aspects affected by building 7 being taken down.

---

@Hooahguy Thanks for proving my point. Did you even read the contents of your own link?

St. Mark's Campanile - Not a skyscraper

Aberdeen Department building - suffered a total collapse while under construction

Ronan Point - suffered a fatal collapse of one of its corners. Still upright after collapse

Skyline Towers Fairfax, VA - "blamed the accident on insufficient wooden shoring to hold up concrete being poured to form the floor above it." Large section still standing after collapse

Wedbush building - partial collapse, under construction

L'Ambiance Plaza collapse - under construction

Sampoong Dept Store - another partial, also was due to the removal of several support columns on the lower floors in order to make room for escalators.

Winsdor Tower - My favorite. "suffered the collapse of the upper 11 floors of the building" They even have a picture of the building post collapse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid) There are like ten stories still standing.

Okay, there are a few I skipped. Like 700 year old churches and stuff. Most aren't skyscrapers, of course the WTC buildings are also listed on that site. Your link was a red herring. No other skyscrapers have collapsed exactly like the three at the 9/11 incident, not into their own footprint like the WTC buildings. Not without help.

[Hooahguy]

Three? I saw two towers that planes flew into, but then again I never bothered to read all the detailed reports and stuff.

Hes referring to Building 7 of the WTC. It burned all day and then collapsed, leading some to believe that it was rigged to blow since no plane hit it. Which is silly because obviously no building ever has fallen due to a fire before.

[Risasi]

Hes referring to Building 7 of the WTC. It burned all day and then collapsed, leading some to believe that it was rigged to blow since no plane hit it. Which is silly because obviously no building ever has fallen due to a fire before.

Like building 6? Which sat between building 7 and one of the twin towers. Building 6 did suffer severe fire damage and was still standing until they demo'ed it. Of course it's a lot smaller so that one can be explained.

Likewise building 7 was hit with debris, but no fuel deposit into the building. There were a few small fires, but most of the windows were still intact. None of these fires were even close to the extent as the other two buildings. Even if they were, where did the fuel come from?
Because this building also collapsed upon itself.
It still hasn't been explained. In fact it was never addressed in the original report. It also housed many cases being investigaed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Over 10,000 were lost in the fire. Among other numerous financials.

[Hooahguy]

Conspiracy theories aside, you do realize that not all fires are the same nor do they have the same affect on buildings right?