I'm reading the structural design of the WTO. It had masonry i.e concrete.

May also wish to view.
http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

Also see
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

Note: Edited to add 2nd link

@Denex,

I'm reading the structural design of the WTO. It had masonry i.e concrete.

Of course it has concrete. The floors are made of concrete slabs which are suspended by trusses that span across from the inner core to the outer columns.

Sheetrock may have being used for some partitioning as well but that does not make them structural members. To understand a building's collapse, you have to look at its structural members.

Hmmm, so building 7 is the jackpot?

I don't know about building 7 and I've not been so busy looking at the structural damage over and over again. But just by looking at the collapse of the twin towers, I just tire.

I was watching the return of the Shuttle Columbia when it superheated and exploded. Yet NASA kept claiming everything was alright and that the Shuttle had landed safely. It was when people started reporting Shuttle debris across 3 states that it was finally admitted.

If the Shuttle had exploded on one spot and NASA had it secured, those of us saying the Shuttle exploded would be seen today as conspiracy theorists.

For God sake, after teaching us physics for centuries they want to bend it to fit just one event.

If buildings as tall as the twin towers, more than 400 meters each, can collapse almost straight on their own foundations, then how come there are millions of demolitions experts, how come they still have a job? Je ne crois pas!

I'm reading the WTC7 structural damage. So far, they're basing it on possible debris contact from WTC1 and WTC2. There's also suspicion of the level of shock vibrations and resonance.

All na arrangee.

Over the years, I've refused to read any information on the WTC collapse. But now Nairaland people don involve me.

denex:

Hmmm, so building 7 is the jackpot?

No it isn't. It really has no direct bearing on the twin towers themselves.

denex:

If buildings as tall as the twin towers, more than 400 meters each, can collapse almost straight on their own foundations, then how come there are millions of demolitions experts, how come they still have a job? Je ne crois pas!

I don't think it would be wise to fly planes into abandoned buildings that are due to be demolished.

@Denex,

Hmmm, so building 7 is the jackpot?

I expect that to be the focus of conspiracy theorists once they realise their arguments don't hold water with the twin tower collapse.

I don't know about building 7 and I've not been so busy looking at the structural damage over and over again. But just by looking at the collapse of the twin towers, I just tire.

I don't have that much info about WTC 7 as well. However, I am not surprsied by the collpase of the WTC. It is so consistent with science and engineering behind the whole event.

I was watching the return of the Shuttle Columbia when it superheated and exploded. Yet NASA kept claiming everything was alright and that the Shuttle had landed safely. It was when people started reporting Shuttle debris across 3 states that it was finally admitted.

I don't know about NASA's claim the shutle landed safely when the explosion took place on live TV for all to see.

If the Shuttle had exploded on one spot and NASA had it secured, those of us saying the Shuttle exploded would be seen today as conspiracy theorists.

Well, the whole nation, infact the world saw the tragedy live as they did 911.

For God sake, after teaching us physics for centuries they want to bend it to fit just one event.

What laws of Physics are violated if I may ask? It is the conspiracy theorists that are stretching everything to fit into physics. So far, I see nothing amiss.

If buildings as tall as the twin towers, more than 400 meters each, can collapse almost straight on their own foundations, then how come there are millions of demolitions experts, how come they still have a job? Je ne crois pas!

I don't get what you are saying here. The buildings collapse on itself is to be expected. The mass we call WTC is what is called an egg-crate construction. It is made up of about 95% air which explains why the rubble from the collapse was only a few stories high.

I'm reading the WTC7 structural damage. So far, they're basing it on possible debris contact from WTC1 and WTC2. There's also suspicion of the level of shock vibrations and resonance.

These are consistent with structural statics and dynamics.

All na arrangee.

Your opinion with no scientific backing.

Over the years, I've refused to read any information on the WTC collapse. But now Nairaland people don involve me.

Well, it is good to deal with the rumors and disabuse the minds of those who may have believed the conspiracies into seeing the truth.

And why did they have to ship the debris to CHINA? In order to give independent forensics investigators easy access to the debris in "nearby" China?

Buildings collapse everyday. You don't just export the debris.

*Sigh* *shrugs*

@denex,

And why did they have to ship the debris to CHINA? In order to give independent forensics investigators easy access to the debris in "nearby" China?

Buildings collapse everyday. You don't just export the debris.

You don't need all the materials in a fornsic investigation. Which lab will you trasnport all that debris to? You need enough samples to carry out your research. That is consistent with forensic and every other area of science and engineering.

I remember my first lab test in the engineering lab at U.I. The test was to verify Hooke's law and we had just a litle piece of steel to confirm that the law holds true for any stell, anywhere in the world. that is the same thing here.

I mean it was in some kind of scrap yard initially not a lab. Why export the whole of it to China. Is that not even kind of expensive?

Anyway, I was concentrating on discovery of explosive materials on ground zero. Well they did find traces of thermite and thermate. These are specialized explosives for solid metals. I'm still reading the report sha so y'all join me.


www.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Hmmm!! I'm still not convinced.

1. The collaspe; The buildings were impacted at an angle. let us believe that the entire pillars, beams and other supporting features on the impacted side were totally destroyed, then the collaspe should have tilted in one direction rather cave into itself.
2. The speed of collaspe; The buildings both crumbled at an alarming speed. It looked as if there was no resistance whatsoever by the pillars or beams (weakened or not). Those buildings were designed to withstand earth tremors/earthquakes of about magnetude 6 - 8 ricther scale. Sesmic reports have shown some strange waves were emitted proir to the collaspe of the buildings. The impact of the plane was not enough to totally compromise the structure of that building.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

3. The steel; I think we should all remove the idea of "heat melting the steel" from our arguements, because it holds no water. Most of the jet fuel burnt out on impact which eliminates it as the source of the heat. So were is the origin of this heat?? Abi na ozone layer??

4. Building 7; Please explain that one?

@denex,

Your link does not lead to any particular paper. I notice however that you are on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's page. Here is a link to their FAQ's on 911. It should shed more light for some - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

@Esss,

Hmmm!! I'm still not convinced.

That's okay. But it will take a violation of science and engineering to explain the collapse by controlled implosion.

1. The collaspe; The buildings were impacted at an angle. let us believe that the entire pillars, beams and other supporting features on the impacted side were totally destroyed, then the collaspe should have tilted in one direction rather cave into itself.

True the impact was to the side of the tower and the border columns were destroyed due to the impact. The reason why the building still stood is because of load redistribution which is designed into the structure. When one element fails, others takes up the load it was carrying. That should tell you that already, the other structural members are stressed more than expected. Falling into intself is due to gravity and nothing else. Besides, the height to width ration of the structure was 6.8 and it is almost impossible to apply a force to that structure that will tip it over its side. This I can explain more if you so desire.

2. The speed of collaspe; The buildings both crumbled at an alarming speed. It looked as if there was no resistance whatsoever by the pillars or beams (weakened or not). Those buildings were designed to withstand earth tremors/earthquakes of about magnetude 6 - 8 ricther scale. Sesmic reports have shown some strange waves were emitted proir to the collaspe of the buildings. The impact of the plane was not enough to totally compromise the structure of that building. http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

I have explained the speed of collapse earlier if you will care to read it. There is nothing out of place about it.

3. The steel; I think we should all remove the idea of "heat melting the steel" from our arguements, because it holds no water. Most of the jet fuel burnt out on impact which eliminates it as the source of the heat. So were is the origin of this heat?? Abi na ozone layer??

True. The heat never melted the steel, but it weakened it severely. And remeber that the structural members were already stressed out again due to load redistribution. All this combined factors made the tower collapse.

4. Building 7; Please explain that one?

I do not have enoguh information to speak one way or the other on WTC7. Do you?

denex:

Anyway, I was concentrating on discovery of explosive materials on ground zero. Well they did find traces of thermite and thermate. These are specialized explosives for solid metals. I'm still reading the report sha so y'all join me.

Really? I haven't seen any record of that in the investigations carried out. I shall have another read through when I have time.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

@Esss

It even gets worse when you find out that they shipped the debris to China and when you go through the official explanations.

www.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

@denex,

It even gets worse when you find out that they shipped the debris to China and when you go through the official explanations.

What as that got to do with the way the tower collapsed? Besides, how does that impede the forensic investigations?

@Esss
As TayoD has said. It is not one factor that caused the building to collapse. It is a combination of factors.

@TayoD

How does this impede the forensic investigation? The fact that the site of the event was shipped to a different Continent?

How would you like one of those crashed planes in Nigeria to be shipped to the South America?
Would that aid independent investigators?

@Mariory

they found traces of thermite.

@denex,

How does this impede the forensic investigation? The fact that the site of the event was shipped to a different Continent?

The sit wasn't shipped. Ground Zero is still there. Are you aware that forensic investigations have been done and there is no one claiming they had inadequate materials to work with. As I said before, forensic investigations do not require having all the materials there. You only need samples.

How would you like one of those crashed planes in Nigeria to be shipped to the South America? Would that aid independent investigators?

The steel was not shipped to China for investigation.

@TayoD

I know it wasn't shipped to China for investigation. The steel was shipped to China for concealment. It was in a land fill or scrapyard in the US. Why export it to another landfill in Asia? I mean how does it help independent investigators in the US who want to carry out their own private investigations? People like you and me.

@denex,

The steel were sold to a willing buyer. What sort of investigation do you want to carry out? There is nothing that that one could be looking for on that site that was not present one way or another several blocks away. The air was filled with debris on properties and people. Anyone with a genuine desire could have gotten some samples then to conduct their independent investigation.

Besides, the results of the investigation are made public. What you plan to add or subtract, i do not know. In the mean time, everything I see, combinesd with the results I have read are consistent with what I have said so far.

And if I may ask. If you think the government was behind this event, don't you think it would have been much easier for them to find WMDs in Iraq to justify the invasion? Abi how can you have the sophistication to carry out this massive attack undetected and yet can't concote a few WMDs to implicate Saddam and justify Bush?!

Even the presence of thermite and specialized explosive thermate on the debris has been explained away.

If to say undetonated bomb was found there, them for still talk say e fall from one of the rescue workers pocket.

Abeg na dem get their country. Make them continue.

@denex,

Even the presence of thermite and specialized explosive thermate on the debris has been explained away.

If to say undetonated bomb was found there, them for still talk say e fall from one of the rescue workers pocket.

Thermite is simply a tool for welding and I see no reason why its presence should raise any concerns at the WTC. also, explosive thermates could wel have been used to cut some of the steel at the time it was been relocated.

The bottom line is that the issue of implosion does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Only those who do not know otherwise or are better served by the rumours and conspiracies keep holding on to it.

the heat weakened strong steel, all the way from top to bottom. even if heat generated by the impact of the airplane (which is still considerably low) caused the melting of the steel, how did it completely weaken the bottom floors to the extent that they couldn't resist the top floors that came crashing down? everything just flew off very fast and completely.

how do you explain everything in shattered ruins as they came splashing down like things flying as a result of detonated bombs.

Again how do you explain the collaps of WTC 7?
was the heat generated from the airplane also used in collapsing wtc 7? if so do you still believe that there would be sufficient amount of energy to cause th building to fall that quickly - How did they know to evacuate people from WTC 7 - did somebody tip them off that the building would be imploded?

@k0be,

the heat weakened strong steel, all the way from top to bottom. even if heat generated by the impact of the airplane (which is still considerably low) caused the melting of the steel, how did it completely weaken the bottom floors to the extent that they couldn't resist the top floors that came crashing down? everything just flew off very fast and completely.
how do you explain everything in shattered ruins as they came splashing down like things flying as a result of detonated bombs.

The heat did not weaken the steel from the top to the bottom. Please follow my arguments closely. The heat weakened the steel on several floors close to the point of impact. The cascading floors cannot be held by the "clips" sustaining each floor so that they all come crashing down. The columns on the other hand become "slender" and cannot be self-supporting. In addition, the torsional forces experienced by the columns were not anticipated. All these factors are so easily verifiable. They are within the ambit of science and engineering.

Again how do you explain the collaps of WTC 7?
was the heat generated from the airplane also used in collapsing wtc 7? if so do you still believe that there would be sufficient amount of energy to cause th building to fall that quickly - How did they know to evacuate people from WTC 7 - did somebody tip them off that the building would be imploded?

Like I said, I do not have that much information about WTC 7 and it appears all you've got are speculations as well. Did you go through the links I provided. There are answers there if you are really seeking for it.

These aren't speculations, and you still haven't addressed the entire question fully.
take for example a burning house. when it starts to fail and fall apart, you can see it just wailing away and giving way, you can even see the chunks of materials used in building the house. The WTC came apart as if a firework was launched from a particular floor.

WTC7 is not speculation, that is what happened, and WTC7 information wasn't well publicized in the news because of the scrutiny the government will receive as a result of it. There might be some speculation from what I've reported/asked, but they're surely vaid.

Oakaldn A's pitcher cory lidle crashed his plane earlier this year I believe. bless his soul but check this image out.

can you shed some light into this image and how it might relate to 911? afterall it is a tall building.
the plane is smaller than the plane that hit the WTC sure but imagine how long it would take the heat to circulate evenly to cause all the concrete to just collapse.

it is impossible for that whole building to give way like that without some shred of concrete or a particular chunk still standing high. The whole thing was below ground in a matter of seconds, that's like lightning speed.

there have been steel column buildings that caught fire and stood for days. If we say ok, the impact of the planes caused the structural members of wtc 1 and 2 to weaken then fine.

But nothing hit WTC 7, it was the furthest away. The closer towers did not come tumbling down yet the furthest building out collapses on its own? How did it catch fire in the first place and how does a simple fire cause a building to come crashing down?

lol it's beyond my comprehension o.

Even if the US admits to playing games with the collapse of the buildings you will still find Nigerians living in the US that will tell you that the US government is talking crap.

When buildings collapse without being hit by anything then one begins to wonder why some of the theories being labeled conspiracy theories will not suffice.

they will suffice if they're dilligent conspiracies which lead to the truth.

k0be:

These aren't speculations, and you still haven't addressed the entire question fully.
take for example a burning house. when it starts to fail and fall apart, you can see it just wailing away and giving way, you can even see the chunks of materials used in building the house. 1.The WTC came apart as if a firework was launched from a particular floor.

WTC7 is not speculation, that is what happened, and WTC7 information wasn't well publicized in the news because of the scrutiny the government will receive as a result of it. There might be some speculation from what I've reported/asked, but they're surely vaid.

2.Oakaldn A's pitcher cory lidle crashed his plane earlier this year I believe. bless his soul but check this image out.

can you shed some light into this image and how it might relate to 911? afterall it is a tall building.
the plane is smaller than the plane that hit the WTC sure but imagine how long it would take the heat to circulate evenly to cause all the concrete to just collapse.

it is impossible for that whole building to give way like that without some shred of concrete or a particular chunk still standing high. The whole thing was below ground in a matter of seconds, that's like lightning speed.

1.That is not true! The floors under the most heat stress ABOVE the impact zone gave way causing the floors beneath them to give way. That is why the collapse started around the impact zone and not from the bottom of the building.

2. A light plane is not the same as a large Commercial liner full of aviation fuel traveling at over 500mph.

Plus a burning house and a block of flats are not built the same way as the WTC buildings. The WTC buildings had a different design. Conspiracy theorists will not tell you this when making such a comparison. You cannot expect both buildings to behave the same way when collapsing forces are exerted on them.
With the WTC, most of the steel structure was on the outside surrounding the core. The core was made of concrete floors supported by trusses. Trusses were connected to the steel outer-frame using bolts. When the trusses sagged due to heat and eventually buckled (because of lateral pressures put on the steel outer-frame) the steel outer-frame, the floors came down pancaking onto lower floors. That is why the steel outer-frames were free to collapse inward.

shango:

But nothing hit WTC 7, it was the furthest away. The closer towers did not come tumbling down yet the furthest building out collapses on its own? How did it catch fire in the first place and how does a simple fire cause a building to come crashing down?

That is also not true. The south side of the building received severe damage from falling debris which came from the collapsing WTC towers.

The picture shows the radius of debris emitted by the collapsing WTC towers.

I was watching the History Channel yesterday, and the documentary was on how the Germans lost the Battle of Stalingrad during WWII. Stalingrad was the old name of the present day Russian city called Volvograd - the administrative center of Volgograd Oblast.

That documentary showed how the stuff - Concrete and Cement mixed together (called reinforced concrete) with which the city was built at the time (way back 1944-1945), helped prevented the total destruction of that city by the invading German armies. German bombers and artillleries rained bombs of up to a100 thousand tonnes on that city, but those bombs, according to the man who went up to view some of the photographs of the ruins of the city in their museum,  did not penetrate deep into the structures   So, with partially destroyed buildings sheltering very determined people, the stage was set for guerilla type warfare against the invading German armies. The city inhabitants, thought to have been exterminated by German bombs, put up one of the greatest resistance to a brutal army in human history. They defeated the Germans, who believed they did everything right to destroy Stalingrad and do not have a clue as to how they were defeated by the inhabitants of the city.

After that documentary, I thought about the incidents at WTC on 9/11. I knew I might be wrong to conclude that there was more to the destruction of those buildings than meet the eye. So, I decided to share the bits and pieces of the documentary as I saw it with our learned audience on Nairaland.

If bombs could not reduce a number of once standing edifices in Stalingrad at the time to rubbles, how on Earth did planes laden with jet-fuel only caused such catastrophic destruction of lives and a well fortified structure as the WTC at New York in 9/1/1/2000 AD?