Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

Do you accept the official explanation that fire caused the collapse?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 44.6%
  • No

    Votes: 35 47.3%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 6 8.1%

  • Total voters
    74
crazy151drinker said:
And once again, this whole explosives thing is really retarded. They could have just wired the entire ground floor with explosives and toppled them. Why complicate it with planes?? Doesnt anyone here know of the KISS principle?? And like the Pentagon is going to bomb itself. Lame lame lame.
Have you ever heard of the Reischstag Feuer?

Geistkiesel​
?
 
leopold99 said:

It was a fire in the German Capitol building started the eve of Hitler's taking power in Germany in the 30s. This was used as a justification for a brutal crack down on communists and Jews.

Here are some figures indicating structural integrity losses of 50% at the indicated temperatures. The tests results do not prove one way or the other about the failure mode of the WTC collapse. Without more information regarding temperatures levels and times of exposure the analysis is doomed, mor eor less.

Steel Critical Temperature
Columns 538° C (1,000° F)
Beams 593° C (1,100° F)
Open Web Steel Joists 593° C (1,100° F)
Reinforcing Steel 593° C (1,100° F)
Prestressed Steel 426° C (800° F)

In any event my previous emphasis on the necessity of uniform distribution of heat over the surface of the floor was misplaced as some have pointed out. I was notaware of the central load bearing column of the WTC towers.

However, there is still the ambiguous effect of heat as the cause of the collapse.

There are the observation of some that the collapse was controlled by a series of explosive charges.

Hee is a link to a detailed description of any of the possibile failure modes and will take you to the FEMA reports.

More of the same report which is rather large and detailed. This contains discussion of NIST report.
This contains witness accounts including firemen discussing "explosions".

Geistkiesel​
 
Facial said:
Did you see what I had to say on page 6?



Let me see your reply before I continue.

Here are some figures indicating structural integrity losses of 50% at the indicated temperatures. The tests results do not prove one way or the other about the failure mode of the WTC collapse. Without more information regarding temperatures levels and times of exposure the analysis is doomed, mor eor less.

Steel Critical Temperature
Columns 538° C (1,000° F)
Beams 593° C (1,100° F)
Open Web Steel Joists 593° C (1,100° F)
Reinforcing Steel 593° C (1,100° F)
Prestressed Steel 426° C (800° F)

In any event my previous emphasis on the necessity of uniform distribution of heat over the surface of the floor was misplaced as some have pointed out, including yourself. I was not aware of the central load bearing column of the WTC towers.

However, there is still the ambiguous effect of heat as the cause of the collapse.

There are the observation of some that the collapse was controlled by a series of explosive charges.

Hee is a link to a detailed description of any of the possibile failure modes and will take you to the FEMA reports.

More of the same report which is rather large and detailed. This contains discussion of NIST report.
This contains witness accounts including firemen discussing "explosions".

Geistkiesel​
 
spidergoat said:
You are incorrect. As soon as the steel outer structure lost the integrity to support the floors above, or the steel floor structures lost the integrity to keep the sides verticle, the whole floor would have collaped catastrophically. A small portion of the outer wall could not have survived long enough to induce tilting in the building above.

It's not improbable at all. And once this started, it was impossible for the whole thing not to go down uniformly. After all, the structure is identical from floor to floor and would thus collapse uniformly.

The fact that popping sounds sounded like explosive charges is interesting, but hardly proof that they were due to charges and not just snapping steel. I imagine that they would sound similar.
Here are some figures indicating structural integrity losses of 50% at the indicated temperatures. The tests results do not prove one way or the other about the failure mode of the WTC collapse. Without more information regarding temperatures levels and times of exposure the analysis is doomed, mor eor less.

Steel Critical Temperature
Columns 538° C (1,000° F)
Beams 593° C (1,100° F)
Open Web Steel Joists 593° C (1,100° F)
Reinforcing Steel 593° C (1,100° F)
Prestressed Steel 426° C (800° F)

In any event my previous emphasis on the necessity of uniform distribution of heat over the surface of the floor was misplaced as some have pointed out, including yourself. I was not aware of the central load bearing column of the WTC towers.

However, there is still the ambiguous effect of heat as the cause of the collapse.

There are the observation of some that the collapse was controlled by a series of explosive charges.

Hee is a link to a detailed description of any of the possibile failure modes and will take you to the FEMA reports.

More of the same report which is rather large and detailed. This contains discussion of NIST report.
This contains witness accounts including firemen discussing "explosions".
Geistkiesel​
 
spidergoat said:
geistkiesel,

Bullshit.
You rightly suspect the Bush administration of a cover up, but then you go way off in left field someplace and make totally unsubstantiated conclusions from incomplete evidence. Just one look at GWB's face after he was told, and it's clear, they were arrogant in their complacence and caught off-guard by the attack.

Your amature analysis of the WTC collapse is incorrect. The fireproofing on the steel girders broke off due to the airplane's impact. The fire was enough to weaken the steel, and cause a catastrophic collapse, which, due to gravity and the huge mass involved, fell almost straight down. Period.

Yes, the Bush administration took advantage of the attack to further their pre-determined goals, but they didn't plan 9/11. Maybe they just ignored the warning signs because they wanted something like this to happen.

If they ignored the warning signs then criminal accounting is not necessarily excused.I posted some links that should be enough to maintain that there is a probable cause to believe in some criminal activity.

If they had pre-determined goals to invade Iraq and Afghanistan are you just going to shrug off any conspiracy theory? You do not have direct and specific information that the Bush gang was not involved in the mess.

I must retreat on my insistance that the uniform collapse required a uniform distributionm over the entire floor. I was not aware of the unique construction of the WTC as some have pointed out to me, including your self.
However, you cannot simply ignore the eyewitness accounts especially those of the firemen who were universally consistent in their suspicions that the collapse was a controlled demolition. The matter is too crucial to shrug off the worst case scenario for if you err the conlcusions would be catastrophic beyond imagination.

You are aware of conditions and events that smell to high heaven. This thread being focussed on the WTC the reference to the Pentagon and Shankesville crash might help you. The total absence of evidence of aircraft crash debris ought to make you sit upright and begin screaming or something else appropriate. You must have been aware of this link before now, but take another look.

No aluminum debris that should have been visible all over the place, no fan jet engines (9 feet in diameter), no landing gear, no tail or wing assemblies, no fires expected when the 8000 gallons of jet fuel spewed on the Pentagon from the supposed impact, no body parts or remains of passenger, crew or Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists. Ditto for the Shankesville, Pa., crash
Shanksville pictures=No Boeing 757 crash debris
"FB I agents" confiscated a security tape from commercial gas station minutes after the Pentagon event. How did they know the tape was there unless they had scoped out the possibility of incriminating evidence before the attack.

Pentagon attack where less is more
Look at the holes in the building. Where is the fucking crash debris? This attack could not have been perpetrated without aid and comfort from the highest levels of government. The WTC is more complex to analyze, but the contradictions of witnesses, the failure of full disclosure by FEMA, the rapid disappearance of the tower metal fragments, are telling us to sit up and take notice.

One FBI agent stated (pre-911) that he thought his group was being sabotaged by FBI hierarchy when denying his anti-terrorist group permission to get a search warrant of suspected terrorists' laptop. He wsas in Colleen Crowley FBI team -Crowley was legal director. Here is her letter to the Director of the FBI. This isn't some lefty government hating street fighter, this is from a veteran FBI agent.
Here is Colleen Crowley ex-FBI agent who got blindsided by FBI eadership prior to 911

Geistkiesel​
 
They didn't collapse. The Israelis blew them up. Everything else is lies.


Pre-Sept. 11 intelligence conducted by a secret military unit identified terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta 13 different times, a congressman said Tuesday.

During a Capitol Hill news conference, Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said the unit — code-named "Able Danger" — also identified "a problem" in Yemen two weeks before the attack on the USS Cole. It knew the problem was tied into the port of Aden and involved a U.S. platform, but the ship commander was not made aware of it, Weldon said.

The suicide bombing of the Cole killed 17 sailors on Oct. 12, 2000.

If anyone had told the Cole's commander that there was any indication of a problem in Aden, "he would not have gone there," Weldon told reporters. "He had no clue."

Weldon would not say who provided evidence of such intelligence to him.
 
geistkisel,
Can you prove there was a "...total absence of any Boeing 757 aircraft crash debris" at the pentagon and PA? Because there sure was debris at WTC. I tend to think it was just highly concentrated due to the speed of the airplanes, and the massiveness of the pentagon in the first place, and the ground in the second. If there was no plane in PA, why would they blow up a crater in the ground, and not the White House, since that would have been more sensational?

Crash of C-130 Into Apartment Building Leaves Only Small Debris
Crashes of aircraft into buildings are rare, so it is difficult to find crash photographs from which to draw conclusions about the kind of debris such crashes typically leave. However, a recent crash of a military transport plane is instructive. On December 5, 2005, a C-130 -- a plane similar in size to a Boeing 757 -- crashed into an apartment building in Azari, Iran while attempting to make an emergency landing at a nearby airport. Photographs of the crash scene (see right margin) show no large pieces of aircraft debris. If the absence of large visible debris on the Pentagon's lawn from the crash of a 757 is surprising, then the absence of large debris at the Azari crash scene should be more surprising, because:

The Pentagon crash puctured holes in the facade large enough to admit into the building the entire aircraft except the outermost wing and tail sections. Photographs of the Azari crash show no puctures of similar size in the apartment building.
The Pentagon attack plane was flying at over 500 mph, according to the ASCE's report. That is faster than the top speed of a 757, and much faster than the landing speed of any aircraft. At it's lower crash speed, there was much less energy to break up the C-130.

iranfocus_iran1.jpg

iranfocus_iran2.jpg


The uniformity of the collapse at WTC I think is a non-issue. It certainly wasn't precise, and if you study the video, not all that uniform. As soon as failure started, it would have cascaded rather rapidy due to the forces involved. In fact you are ignoring that the top of one tower did tilt slightly as it went down.

You are basing your opinion on a thought experiment, not real evidence.
 
Last edited:
I'm also not sure why the alleged existence of melted steel at the bottom of the WTC rubble proves the theory of controlled detonation. Explosives are less likely to melt steel, since their energy is discharged much more rapidly than a fire. They would vaporize some of it, leaving the rest not much more than room temperature.
 
okay lets summarize
airplanes hit the wtc 1 and 2, we know this because there is video of it

steel does not need to melt to weaken. as a matter of fact steel weakens well before it melts

what we need to resolve is the "explosions" that were heard

what kind of steel was the interior columns made of? harden steel perhaps?
if that is true then the "explosions" could be the steel snaping as the towers fell
 
leopold99 said:
okay lets summarize
airplanes hit the wtc 1 and 2, we know this because there is video of it

steel does not need to melt to weaken. as a matter of fact steel weakens well before it melts

what we need to resolve is the "explosions" that were heard

what kind of steel was the interior columns made of? harden steel perhaps?
if that is true then the "explosions" could be the steel snaping as the towers fell
Leo, there are always multiple explosions in any high-rise fire. There are pressurized water tanks spaced out up and down the building. (The water is pumped upwards in stages and stored under pressure for use. It would be impractical to force it all the way to the top - or even halfway - with pumps in the basement alone.)

There are also sealed air conditioner evaporator coils on each floor. In a fire, they explode too.

Also, there are several other items found in buildings that explode in fires, they just don't come to mind as I'm writing this. Another thing to remember is that falling and breaking glass - of which there was a lot - can also sound like explosions as well.
 
Light said:
Leo, there are always multiple explosions in any high-rise fire. There are pressurized water tanks spaced out up and down the building. (The water is pumped upwards in stages and stored under pressure for use. It would be impractical to force it all the way to the top - or even halfway - with pumps in the basement alone.)There are also sealed air conditioner evaporator coils on each floor. In a fire, they explode too.
well this would seem to explain the "explosions" that were heard
 
The uniformity of the collapse at WTC I think is a non-issue. It certainly wasn't precise, and if you study the video, not all that uniform. As soon as failure started, it would have cascaded rather rapidy due to the forces involved. In fact you are ignoring that the top of one tower did tilt slightly as it went down.

You are basing your opinion on a thought experiment, not real evidence.

I know why you think it was not uniform, because it mushroomed as it went towards the bottom. While it might appear that way, most of that mushroom shit was just dust. Remember ground zero? It didn't span as many blocks as the video might make you believe.

I think real evidence could be concluded that scientifically fire does not weaken steel because it cannot reach such temperature. I think real evidence can also be considered that other buildings have been on fire for a much longer time (20 hours) and didn't collapse. And entire floors were gone, as in you could see straight through the building and only the steel columns were there.. but I don't think they collapsed.

Also, this is my thought experiment, if you can humour me. If the steel did start to weaken, it would not implode like it did. So what I mean by the steel, is that it would sway and wobble, the building would tilt off into one direction because of the forces caused by the wind (I'm sure you know buildings sway), what you see with the WTC is that it fell on itself, and should have fallen to the side.

Another thing, this "cascade" is also bullshit material. Imagine this, the section of the building above the fire was airlifted aobve the building, and then dropped. Would it fall straight through the building, or have the building cascade in on itself? No, it would hit the top, crash through a couple floors before being stopped, and then fall to the side. Because none of that lower steel was weakened, and the compression strength of steel is ridiculously high. What happened to all the beams (snapping in half) is a shear force, which only happens when something is applying pressure to its side.
 
Back
Top