Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower

[UnusualSuspect]

You don't have to be an engineer to work that one out. Buildings simply do not fall that way from fire damage, or from planes hitting the near top. I mean, come on guys, you're supposed to be intelligent people on this forum, take the blinkers off for a minute.

You have planes hitting the two main towers, somewhere near the top. Okay, so you get some fire damage as well that could, theoretically, make the floors above it collapse. But surely, from physics alone, the floors would topple into the weakest point, so you'd have it all falling to one side or the other. Then the 200 floors below that suddenly crumble like a deck of cards, one after the other, due to 'the weight'?! And they don't just crumble, they drop in perfect unison with no sway to either side. Plus, the massive metal structure that the whole building was built around has been destroyed too? How tall was that building? How much heat would they need to have for the entire metal structure to melt away leaving only a few small pieces at ground level?

This doesn't only happen to one building, not the two, but three, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane, but only took a few pieces of falling debris and some fire damage. I've seen buildings consumed by fire take less of an impact than that third building took.

 

[wedgie]

You don't have to be an engineer to work that one out. Buildings simply do not fall that way from fire damage, or from planes hitting the near top. I mean, come on guys, you're supposed to be intelligent people on this forum, take the blinkers off for a minute.

You have planes hitting the two main towers, somewhere near the top. Okay, so you get some fire damage as well that could, theoretically, make the floors above it collapse. But surely, from physics alone, the floors would topple into the weakest point, so you'd have it all falling to one side or the other. Then the 200 floors below that suddenly crumble like a deck of cards, one after the other, due to 'the weight'?! And they don't just crumble, they drop in perfect unison with no sway to either side. Plus, the massive metal structure that the whole building was built around has been destroyed too? How tall was that building? How much heat would they need to have for the entire metal structure to melt away leaving only a few small pieces at ground level?

This doesn't only happen to one building, not the two, but three, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane, but only took a few pieces of falling debris and some fire damage. I've seen buildings consumed by fire take less of an impact than that third building took.

If it's so obvious that buildings won't fall like that, then it seems a little daft to blow them up and make them fall in that way.

Your assumptions, while they may seem logical, they are very far from being fact.

 

[SideWinder]

You don't have to be an engineer to work that one out. Buildings simply do not fall that way from fire damage, or from planes hitting the near top. I mean, come on guys, you're supposed to be intelligent people on this forum, take the blinkers off for a minute.

You have planes hitting the two main towers, somewhere near the top. Okay, so you get some fire damage as well that could, theoretically, make the floors above it collapse. But surely, from physics alone, the floors would topple into the weakest point, so you'd have it all falling to one side or the other. Then the 200 floors below that suddenly crumble like a deck of cards, one after the other, due to 'the weight'?! And they don't just crumble, they drop in perfect unison with no sway to either side. Plus, the massive metal structure that the whole building was built around has been destroyed too? How tall was that building? How much heat would they need to have for the entire metal structure to melt away leaving only a few small pieces at ground level?

This doesn't only happen to one building, not the two, but three, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane, but only took a few pieces of falling debris and some fire damage. I've seen buildings consumed by fire take less of an impact than that third building took.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locations.jpg

Yes it is near the top but not everything falls down straight away. Plus the weight and unbalance near the top would have an impact on the floors below - think low scale like stair cases collapsing all the way to ceilings, furniture and everything.

 

[Muffin`]

You don't have to be an engineer to work that one out. Buildings simply do not fall that way from fire damage, or from planes hitting the near top. I mean, come on guys, you're supposed to be intelligent people on this forum, take the blinkers off for a minute.

You have planes hitting the two main towers, somewhere near the top. Okay, so you get some fire damage as well that could, theoretically, make the floors above it collapse. But surely, from physics alone, the floors would topple into the weakest point, so you'd have it all falling to one side or the other. Then the 200 floors below that suddenly crumble like a deck of cards, one after the other, due to 'the weight'?! And they don't just crumble, they drop in perfect unison with no sway to either side. Plus, the massive metal structure that the whole building was built around has been destroyed too? How tall was that building? How much heat would they need to have for the entire metal structure to melt away leaving only a few small pieces at ground level?

This doesn't only happen to one building, not the two, but three, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane, but only took a few pieces of falling debris and some fire damage. I've seen buildings consumed by fire take less of an impact than that third building took.

I agree that it is suspicious about tower 7 with what it held in it. But the twin towers collapse because the structure was weakened at certain points because of the extreme heat, things failed and gave way, the weight of the floors above started a domino effect creating more and more force on the floors below.

And AFAIK aren’t towers supposed to fall in and not over?

 

[Rybo89]

i think people are stupid to think the American government didn't do this.........And obviously America's wont see that as there to brain washed as it is.....

way too much solid evidence about the twin towers/pentagon

 

[SideWinder]

I agree that it is suspicious about tower 7 with what it held in it. But the twin towers collapse because the structure was weakened at certain points because of the extreme heat, things failed and gave way, the weight of the floors above started a domino effect creating more and more force on the floors below.

You phrased it much better than i did.

 

[Glaucus]

Isn't it obvious that a fire cannot make a building fall like that? There is absolutely no way. A fire eats away at the place where its situated, so if the building did collapse it would crumble into the parts that have sustained fire damage. To have it collapse in a straight line like that, from roof to floor, is completely ridiculous. The same thing for the two main towers, theres just no way they would fall like they did from fire damage alone.

Are you a structural engineer?

They fell like that due to there design. Which isn't used in other buildings. It means the building collapses into itself.

Even computer models of the towers show that the structure is designed and built in such a way that is how it falls.

Yet again just like the moon landings. people thinking they are armchair experts because they have seen other buildings fall/ photographs. Yet don't consider the different aspects between two totally different events.

 

[Mp4]

MINT!!! what time is TopGear on ? i love all the conspiracy malarkie , & belive heavy that both towers where used in demolision ( i.e Goverment's Fault)

 

[Glaucus]

way too much solid evidence about the twin towers/pentagon

go on then post one bit of this so called "solid" evidence.

 

[Azagoth]

Yet again just like the moon landings. people thinking they are armchair experts because they have seen other buildings fall/ photographs. Yet don't consider the different aspects between two totally different events.

Are you saying that Neil Armstrong brought the towers down then?

 

[Muffin`]

i think people are stupid to think the American government didn't do this.........And obviously America's wont see that as there to brain washed as it is.....

way too much solid evidence about the twin towers/pentagon

Calling people stupid is a definate way to win an argument and get people behind you on your statement.

 

[Nitefly]

Yawn.

 

[*Moangroan*]

Wasn;t this the building the bloke said ''pull it''. Was it the mayor or some official. A term usually meant to mean bring it down in demolishing terms as I assume you lot know. So this building may have been pre-packed with explosive ??? dunno ..

 

[Azagoth]

i think people are stupid to think the American government didn't do this.........And obviously America's wont see that as there to brain washed as it is.....

way too much solid evidence about the twin towers/pentagon

People in glass houses......

 

[Glaucus]

Wasn;t this the building the bloke said ''pull it''. Was it the mayor or some official. A term usually meant to mean bring it down in demolishing terms as I assume you lot know. So this building may have been pre-packed with explosive ??? dunno ..

yes it is a common phase for demolition, but it is also a common term for fire fighters. That means pull out the building we have lost control.

 

[SideWinder]

Wasn;t this the building the bloke said ''pull it''. Was it the mayor or some official. A term usually meant to mean bring it down in demolishing terms as I assume you lot know. So this building may have been pre-packed with explosive ??? dunno ..

I'm not sure many people would want to 'press the button' to explode the Towers knowing innocent people were in there working away, just like every other day.

 

[UnusualSuspect]

If it's so obvious that buildings won't fall like that, then it seems a little daft to blow them up and make them fall in that way.

Your assumptions, while they may seem logical, they are very far from being fact.

Not really. It got the result that was required and who the hell is going to challenge the people responsible, if it can't be proven because all the evidence is gone? Plus, at the time, people shouting 'Terrorist!' and seeing planes hitting the Twin Towers, most wouldn't have thought much about it. You can see on some news reports at the time, people sounding very dubious about the whole thing, but they were never aired twice.

Yes it is near the top but not everything falls down straight away. Plus the weight and unbalance near the top would have an impact on the floors below - think low scale like stair cases collapsing all the way to ceilings, furniture and everything.

Look at the difference between top and bottom. If the bottom area isn't even slightly damaged then its still got the strength it was built with. A few floors collapsing downwards might take a few floors with it, but the momentum is going to slow and eventually stop. The way the three towers dropped, they never showed any sign of slowing down. It was continuous all the way down. They dropped at the same speed as a building destroyed with demolitions.

I found something about my same point:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI

 

[Glaucus]

Look at the difference between top and bottom. If the bottom area isn't even slightly damaged then its still got the strength it was built with. A few floors collapsing downwards might take a few floors with it, but the momentum is going to slow and eventually stop.

Just wrong, so so wrong. Your not even in the right ball park.

Yes they have the strength to carry the load they where designed for. That does not include the top 20 floors accelerating and then impacting them at God knows what G. That floor then collapses. The next floor then has the weight and speed of 21 floors hitting it. Then next floor then has 22 floors hitting it.

They are design to take a stationery load. Not a falling load and impact G force of falling floors. Your arguments is just so far wrong it's funny.

 

[UnusualSuspect]

Are you a structural engineer?

They fell like that due to there design. Which isn't used in other buildings. It means the building collapses into itself.

And if you're so knowledgable about the design of the Towers, then you'd also know that the metal structure is built to withstand the heat that could be caused by jet engine fuel. It was also designed with aircraft impacts in mind. Look it up, the actual structural designer for the Two Towers has spoken out about it.

 

[Glaucus]

And if you're so knowledgable about the design of the Towers, then you'd also know that the metal structure is built to withstand the heat that could be caused by jet engine fuel. It was also designed with aircraft impacts in mind. Look it up, the actual structural designer for the Two Towers has spoken out about it.

Yes an aircraft much smaller, slower speeds. Smaller fuel tanks. Yes it was designed to have fire protection around the steel. but the contractors didn't install it properly and as a result it was already flaking of and on top of that it wasn't to the specified thickness. Then the little protection it did have was blown away by the plane hitting.