The twin towers fell into thier own footprint, suspiciously like a controlled demolition
|
 | FALSE |
|
Updated: 2008/02/17 PM 9:43:07
 Comments (4)
|
|
Rate This Article
 0  1
|
|
|
 Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, the structure had no "choice" but to fall straight down.
NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?
Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending.[7]
Tall Buildings Hardly Ever Fall Over Like Trees
With VERY few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. Also, the towers did not fall into their own "footprint". They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance. Gravity was pushing the enormous weight load DOWN not HORIZONTAL.
But the Buildings Also Did Not Fall Into Their Own "Footprint"
"We also must examine how buildings collapse and observe the damage inflicted upon adjacent structures that morning to explain that the buildings did NOT infact fall directly into their footprint!) Because the supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped of center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris drop zones.
The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.
95% of the Structural Debris Fell Away From the Footprints of The Towers
One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an extended-duration "pancake-like" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter.
As we now know, significant amounts of heavy structural debris rained down for blocks around the site. Many of the closest WTC buildings were completely destroyed and others heavily damaged. Predictably, the north tower's collapse caused slightly more ancillary damage than the south tower, as its impact point was higher and thus a larger volume of debris was projected farther from its footprint. Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express Building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure.
These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers' footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event."[5] Blanchard, Brent (2006, August 8). A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and controlled demolition industry viewpoint:
In its final report, NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001"[4] and posted a FAQ about related issues to its website in August of 2006.[3] The major elements of the hypothesis have been rebutted in mainstream engineering scholarship,[2] where its proponents are considered "outsiders."[1]
Sources:
- Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions". J Engrg Mech 133 (3): pp. 308-319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
- Bažant, Zdeněk P. (2007-05-27). "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?". 2007-06-22. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA. Structural Engineering Report No. 07-05/C605c Retrieved on 2007-09-17.
- NIST (2006-08). Answers to Frequently Asked Questions. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Retrieved on 2006-01-12.
- Sunder, Shyam (2005). Consideration of Public Comments (pdf). NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
- Blanchard, Brent (2006, August 8). A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and controlled demolition industry viewpoint
- Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective Nova Online
- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html
Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. (2008, February 17). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 02:19, February 18, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&oldid=192113588
 Add Your Comment:
You must be logged in to post a comment.
|
|
|
By: SabreTruthTiger on 2009/09/15 AM 6:39:08.
It was controlled demolition! A building suffering random structural damage from either falling objects or fire has uneven structural weakening. Thus, it's physically impossible for it to fall symmetrically as was observed in videos. In order for it to fall symmetrically, every structural support across each floor must fail at precisely the same time. This is impossible with random structural or fire damage, in fact it is ONLY possible with controlled demolition. This is the most basic of physical facts and I'm appalled that anyone let alone a site that claims to be about facts would ignore it. The freefall speed also violates the law of conservation of momentum. The building fell at freefall speed, this is impossible unless all the support stuctures were rapidly removed by demolitions as the falling mass would encounter resistance which transfers the kinetic energy back to gravitational potential, as the momentum is thus reduced, the energy to break through other floors is minimal and in fact insufficient as the structure is built to withstand multiple times it's static load. At the very least the speed would be much, much, much slower and uneven,messy and partial, due to integrity inequality.
I formally ask that this article be given the flag TRUE. |
|
|
By: SabreTruthTiger on 2009/09/15 AM 6:39:21.
It was controlled demolition! A building suffering random structural damage from either falling objects or fire has uneven structural weakening. Thus, it's physically impossible for it to fall symmetrically as was observed in videos. In order for it to fall symmetrically, every structural support across each floor must fail at precisely the same time. This is impossible with random structural or fire damage, in fact it is ONLY possible with controlled demolition. This is the most basic of physical facts and I'm appalled that anyone let alone a site that claims to be about facts would ignore it. The freefall speed also violates the law of conservation of momentum. The building fell at freefall speed, this is impossible unless all the support stuctures were rapidly removed by demolitions as the falling mass would encounter resistance which transfers the kinetic energy back to gravitational potential, as the momentum is thus reduced, the energy to break through other floors is minimal and in fact insufficient as the structure is built to withstand multiple times it's static load. At the very least the speed would be much, much, much slower and uneven,messy and partial, due to integrity inequality.
I formally ask that this article be given the flag TRUE. |
|
|
By: SabreTruthTiger on 2009/09/15 AM 6:39:37.
It was controlled demolition! A building suffering random structural damage from either falling objects or fire has uneven structural weakening. Thus, it's physically impossible for it to fall symmetrically as was observed in videos. In order for it to fall symmetrically, every structural support across each floor must fail at precisely the same time. This is impossible with random structural or fire damage, in fact it is ONLY possible with controlled demolition. This is the most basic of physical facts and I'm appalled that anyone let alone a site that claims to be about facts would ignore it. The freefall speed also violates the law of conservation of momentum. The building fell at freefall speed, this is impossible unless all the support stuctures were rapidly removed by demolitions as the falling mass would encounter resistance which transfers the kinetic energy back to gravitational potential, as the momentum is thus reduced, the energy to break through other floors is minimal and in fact insufficient as the structure is built to withstand multiple times it's static load. At the very least the speed would be much, much, much slower and uneven,messy and partial, due to integrity inequality. I formally ask that this article be given the flag TRUE. |
|
|
By: SabreTruthTiger on 2009/09/15 AM 6:40:07.
It was controlled demolition! A building suffering random structural damage from either falling objects or fire has uneven structural weakening. Thus, it's physically impossible for it to fall symmetrically as was observed in videos. In order for it to fall symmetrically, every structural support across each floor must fail at precisely the same time. This is impossible with random structural or fire damage, in fact it is ONLY possible with controlled demolition. This is the most basic of physical facts and I'm appalled that anyone let alone a site that claims to be about facts would ignore it. The freefall speed also violates the law of conservation of momentum. The building fell at freefall speed, this is impossible unless all the support stuctures were rapidly removed by demolitions as the falling mass would encounter resistance which transfers the kinetic energy back to gravitational potential, as the momentum is thus reduced, the energy to break through other floors is minimal and in fact insufficient as the structure is built to withstand multiple times it's static load. At the very least the speed would be much, much, much slower and uneven,messy and partial, due to integrity inequality. I formally ask that this article be given the flag TRUE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
