Remember

[GH2001]

I don't think they should have fallen on their own footprint, but instead, they should have fallen over to one side.

Look I think the theory of they knew it was gonna happen and let it is much more plausible than the inside job theory.

As far as it imploding, it's also very plausible considering there were explosions that happened from the different chemical reactions of elements mixing. You had electricity, water/hydrogen, fuel, fire, aluminum. Firefighters can also tell you this first hand. Explosions happen quite often in fires of that size. And when they do in a building of that size, you get the inward leaning collapse like you saw.

[DnATL]

Yeah, someone definitely planted the charges in the lower portion of the building before the attack, along with the diagonal cabling from low columns up to higher columns.  Oh, and don't forget the smaller charges to weaken key column and beam sections to help once the big mechanism is initiated.

The towers were 225 feet square, if I recall.  You think that gravity acting downwards can tip a block of the top of the tower (which is not actually a solid rigid block) over sideways to spill onto a different lot?  Do you realize the amount of force exerted on the outward line of columns if they were actually acting as a fulcrum for that?

Those towers had clear "lease spans" out from the core to the perimeter "tube" of closely-spaced columns. Lose a few floors of framing, and the exterior columns lose their out-of-plane bracing.  Couple that with the altered load path due to severed columns creating an increase in load in the un-severed columns, along with potential softening of the steel due to heat from the fire, and there is the collapse mechanism.  Initially ductile, possibly inelastic buckling local to the impact.  Once the mass started moving down, there is a continuing cycle of floors getting overloaded due to debris impact / pancaking, resulting in failure of floor framing and the loss of the floor diaphragm removing bracing for those next columns below.

If the planes hit higher, the whole building may not come down.  The second plane with the banked impact took out more levels of structure, which led to that tower collapsing first.


Conspiracy is bullshit

[WiregrassTiger]

Yeah, someone definitely planted the charges in the lower portion of the building before the attack, along with the diagonal cabling from low columns up to higher columns.  Oh, and don't forget the smaller charges to weaken key column and beam sections to help once the big mechanism is initiated.

The towers were 225 feet square, if I recall.  You think that gravity acting downwards can tip a block of the top of the tower (which is not actually a solid rigid block) over sideways to spill onto a different lot?  Do you realize the amount of force exerted on the outward line of columns if they were actually acting as a fulcrum for that?

Those towers had clear "lease spans" out from the core to the perimeter "tube" of closely-spaced columns. Lose a few floors of framing, and the exterior columns lose their out-of-plane bracing.  Couple that with the altered load path due to severed columns creating an increase in load in the un-severed columns, along with potential softening of the steel due to heat from the fire, and there is the collapse mechanism.  Initially ductile, possibly inelastic buckling local to the impact.  Once the mass started moving down, there is a continuing cycle of floors getting overloaded due to debris impact / pancaking, resulting in failure of floor framing and the loss of the floor diaphragm removing bracing for those next columns below.

If the planes hit higher, the whole building may not come down.  The second plane with the banked impact took out more levels of structure, which led to that tower collapsing first.


Conspiracy is bullshoot

^^All of this is what I was about to say.

[GH2001]

Yeah, someone definitely planted the charges in the lower portion of the building before the attack, along with the diagonal cabling from low columns up to higher columns.  Oh, and don't forget the smaller charges to weaken key column and beam sections to help once the big mechanism is initiated.

The towers were 225 feet square, if I recall.  You think that gravity acting downwards can tip a block of the top of the tower (which is not actually a solid rigid block) over sideways to spill onto a different lot?  Do you realize the amount of force exerted on the outward line of columns if they were actually acting as a fulcrum for that?

Those towers had clear "lease spans" out from the core to the perimeter "tube" of closely-spaced columns. Lose a few floors of framing, and the exterior columns lose their out-of-plane bracing.  Couple that with the altered load path due to severed columns creating an increase in load in the un-severed columns, along with potential softening of the steel due to heat from the fire, and there is the collapse mechanism.  Initially ductile, possibly inelastic buckling local to the impact.  Once the mass started moving down, there is a continuing cycle of floors getting overloaded due to debris impact / pancaking, resulting in failure of floor framing and the loss of the floor diaphragm removing bracing for those next columns below.

If the planes hit higher, the whole building may not come down.  The second plane with the banked impact took out more levels of structure, which led to that tower collapsing first.


Conspiracy is bullshit

I've always found it feasible to pancake downward. Good info.

[Kaos]

Yeah, someone definitely planted the charges in the lower portion of the building before the attack, along with the diagonal cabling from low columns up to higher columns.  Oh, and don't forget the smaller charges to weaken key column and beam sections to help once the big mechanism is initiated.

The towers were 225 feet square, if I recall.  You think that gravity acting downwards can tip a block of the top of the tower (which is not actually a solid rigid block) over sideways to spill onto a different lot?  Do you realize the amount of force exerted on the outward line of columns if they were actually acting as a fulcrum for that?

Those towers had clear "lease spans" out from the core to the perimeter "tube" of closely-spaced columns. Lose a few floors of framing, and the exterior columns lose their out-of-plane bracing.  Couple that with the altered load path due to severed columns creating an increase in load in the un-severed columns, along with potential softening of the steel due to heat from the fire, and there is the collapse mechanism.  Initially ductile, possibly inelastic buckling local to the impact.  Once the mass started moving down, there is a continuing cycle of floors getting overloaded due to debris impact / pancaking, resulting in failure of floor framing and the loss of the floor diaphragm removing bracing for those next columns below.

If the planes hit higher, the whole building may not come down.  The second plane with the banked impact took out more levels of structure, which led to that tower collapsing first.


Conspiracy is bullshoot

Ok, so you're saying it's probably bombs.  Gotcha.

[DnATL]

Ok, so you're saying it's probably bombs.  Gotcha.

[CCTAU]

Yeah, someone definitely planted the charges in the lower portion of the building before the attack, along with the diagonal cabling from low columns up to higher columns.  Oh, and don't forget the smaller charges to weaken key column and beam sections to help once the big mechanism is initiated.

The towers were 225 feet square, if I recall.  You think that gravity acting downwards can tip a block of the top of the tower (which is not actually a solid rigid block) over sideways to spill onto a different lot?  Do you realize the amount of force exerted on the outward line of columns if they were actually acting as a fulcrum for that?

Those towers had clear "lease spans" out from the core to the perimeter "tube" of closely-spaced columns. Lose a few floors of framing, and the exterior columns lose their out-of-plane bracing.  Couple that with the altered load path due to severed columns creating an increase in load in the un-severed columns, along with potential softening of the steel due to heat from the fire, and there is the collapse mechanism.  Initially ductile, possibly inelastic buckling local to the impact.  Once the mass started moving down, there is a continuing cycle of floors getting overloaded due to debris impact / pancaking, resulting in failure of floor framing and the loss of the floor diaphragm removing bracing for those next columns below.

If the planes hit higher, the whole building may not come down.  The second plane with the banked impact took out more levels of structure, which led to that tower collapsing first.


Conspiracy is bullshit

So from an engineering standpoint, if everyone had put the fire out an gathered on that floor and held their hands up, they could have held the building up until crews came with braces?

I do do not understand engineering.

[bottomfeeder]

An Italian MP has described the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in which around 3,000 people were killed, as “an inside job” and slammed the official version of events as a “conspiracy”.

Paolo Bernini, an MP for the Five Star Movement (M5S) was speaking in parliament on Wednesday, the 12th anniversary of the attacks.

He said that the official version of the event has been “proved wrong from every point of view”.

“It’s clearly false and by now, the world has realized.”

On 11th September 2001 terrorists hijacked four planes in the US; two crashed into New York’s World Trade Centre, another struck the Pentagon in Washington, while the fourth crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers fought against the hijackers.

But Bernini believes the account of what happened is a “conspiracy”.

“We will probably never know the truth, but it is definitely completely different to the story told by mainstream media. In which case you can say that everything that you know is false and, as the American phrase goes, ‘It was an inside job’,” he said.

The 26-year-old, elected in February in the central Emilia-Romagna region, went on to elaborate on Twitter.

“If someone can show me a video where you can clearly see the plane hitting the Pentagon (the most watched place in the world)…I will resign,” Bernini wrote.

http://www.hangthebankers.com/911-was-an-inside-job-italian-mp-in-parliament/

[RWS]

I've always found it feasible to pancake downward. Good info.

Of course it is.  Every structural collapse and/or building construction class that I attended in my 14 years of firefighting included pancake collapse.  It is a risk for any multi-story structure fire.  The twin towers situation was a textbook pancake collapse, and makes complete sense.  It is the same concept as fires in large span buildings (grocery stores, Lowes, etc) causing failure of a roof system.  Had they hit closer to the top, maybe the weakened compenents would have held because less weight on them.  But where it was, once the top starts coming down, there is too much weight to be stopped dead.

[GH2001]

Of course it is.  Every structural collapse and/or building construction class that I attended in my 14 years of firefighting included pancake collapse.  It is a risk for any multi-story structure fire.  The twin towers situation was a textbook pancake collapse, and makes complete sense.  It is the same concept as fires in large span buildings (grocery stores, Lowes, etc) causing failure of a roof system.  Had they hit closer to the top, maybe the weakened compenents would have held because less weight on them.  But where it was, once the top starts coming down, there is too much weight to be stopped dead.

Yeah but that makes sense. A conspiracy with no proof is much more entertaining.

[bottomfeeder]

Of course it is.  Every structural collapse and/or building construction class that I attended in my 14 years of firefighting included pancake collapse.  It is a risk for any multi-story structure fire.  The twin towers situation was a textbook pancake collapse, and makes complete sense.  It is the same concept as fires in large span buildings (grocery stores, Lowes, etc) causing failure of a roof system.  Had they hit closer to the top, maybe the weakened compenents would have held because less weight on them.  But where it was, once the top starts coming down, there is too much weight to be stopped dead.

Now that your overpriced bammer edumacation finally paid off, I still think the fucking government knew and stood down and/or participated in some capacity.  We can discuss the collapse ad nauseum, however, the real story is the government's complacency and/or participation in said attacks.

[GH2001]

Now that your overpriced bammer edumacation finally paid off, I still think the fucking government knew and stood down and/or participated in some capacity.  We can discuss the collapse ad nauseum, however, the real story is the government's complacency and/or participation in said attacks.

You know he's a firefighter right? They do know a tiny bit about fire science. He will probably tell you one of the basic tenants of firefighting is that they like to have the water and electricity shutoff to the burning structure if at all possible. When those two combine with certain metal elements internal explosions WILL happen. It's happened and is documented. It's been done in labs and has happened in real fires. But these gut feeling conspiracy theories? They hold no weight. None

I think you'd be better off sticking with the "they knew but let it happen" line of thought. That can be debated with a lot of the evidence we have that they were complacent or just flat out ignored warnings. Inside job? Good luck with your evidence-less witch hunt.

[Kaos]

You know he's a firefighter right? They do know a tiny bit about fire science. He will probably tell you one of the basic tenants of firefighting is that they like to have the water and electricity shutoff to the burning structure if at all possible. When those two combine with certain metal elements internal explosions WILL happen. It's happened and is documented. It's been done in labs and has happened in real fires. But these gut feeling conspiracy theories? They hold no weight. None

I think you'd be better off sticking with the "they knew but let it happen" line of thought. That can be debated with a lot of the evidence we have that they were complacent or just flat out ignored warnings. Inside job? Good luck with your evidence-less witch hunt.

So we're sticking with bombs?

[GH2001]

So we're sticking with bombs?

"Charges"

[Kaos]

"Charges"

Stupid credit cards. I knew it.

[bottomfeeder]

I could sware that's what i stress. Oh, and that's why we electwisans put shunt trip main brkrs for indoor mains.  NFPA member here.

[War Eagle!!!]

Now that your overpriced bammer edumacation finally paid off, I still think the fucking government knew and stood down and/or participated in some capacity.  We can discuss the collapse ad nauseum, however, the real story is the government's complacency and/or participation in said attacks.

You are dead fucking wrong dumb ass!!

Everyone knows that RWS is a side walk Alabama fan...

[GH2001]

You are dead fucking wrong dumb ass!!

Everyone knows that RWS is a side walk Alabama fan...

Da hussel wuz strong

[Saniflush]

Now that your overpriced bammer edumacation finally paid off, I still think the fucking government knew and stood down and/or participated in some capacity.  We can discuss the collapse ad nauseum, however, the real story is the government's complacency and/or participation in said attacks.

This guy did it.  I saw him buy the bomb.

[Godfather]

This guy did it.  I saw him buy the bomb.

A BUH!