Are there any similarities with the WTC, ore do they look completely different from one another?

Good question. You could always go to Google, then click on "Images" and then type in "building collapse."

I mean, in order to respond to your post, that's what I started to do. And then I realized I didn't know which pictures to show you, so since you've got an Internet connection, maybe it would be better if you had a look for yourself. You probably know more what you are looking for than I do.



This is what a steel framed building that has been on fire for 23 hours looks like after it doesn't collapse though!

Had the building been hit by a airplane? hehe...

seriously. I watched a documentary on TV here, and the showed a builing collapse due to earthslide. The building actually fell down in its own footprint... I've been all over youtube trying to find it, but all we see of buliding collapses these days are millions of WTC clips, so I have no youtube-proof, I'm sorry

You won't find an event similar to what happened to (all!!!) the buildings in the WTC complex. Planes or not. Fires or not. Nothing like what happened to those buildings (all 7 of them, in the end) had ever happened before, nor has happened since.

I find it fairly remarkable, actually, that it was only Larry Silverstein's property that got totally wiped out that day. Well, granted they had to actually pull 3, 4, 5 and 6 manually. But they had massive damage, huge holes blown out of the centers in some cases. Pretty amazing. His entire wad... such luck, eh?

Almost as if someone wanted to target good old Larry.

Reminds me of this story of the guy who killed his wife, and then shot himself in the shoulder, arm and hand, so he could tell the police someone else did it.

Since I've seen buildings collapse like WTC without CD, I ask the truthers:

Is it possible (even remotely) that WTC 1, 2 an 7 could collapse due to structural failure? I think it it... for me, I think it is more likely to cover up poor enginering on WTC than to CD the WTC without anyone (except truthers) knowing about it

No, you haven't. :)

hehehehehe... Like I said: This TV programme showed us concrete/Steel buliding fall straight down after muslide tore apart parts of the lower floors

You have not seen buildings collapse like WTC without bombs. :)

Why?

Because you are full of sh^t. :)

Prove it

YOU prove it....or I'll continue to assume correctly that you are full of sh^t. :)

Will you believe me if I give you proof of bulidings collapsing in their own footprint due to structual failure? Seriously? Do you think so?

Just because the truthers havent managed via web (There are other ways to search for facts than to use the web my friend) to dig up collapses that are similar doesn't make it impossible, does it?

If I told you that a 7 story concrete building in Bulgaria fell down in its own footprint after a earthslide in 1983, but no one was there with their camcorder so they could put it on youtube, so it exist only in old Bulgairian newspapers and eyewitnesses, that some are passed away. Is that a lie?


I'll let you get away easy on this one... You just have to answer that last simple little question: Is that a lie?

Yes og No

Show me a building falling like WTC where bombs aren't used.

I know information exists outside the web you f^cking weegie jack@ss. Dig it up then, idiot...

Stop telling me things and prove yourself...

Shut the f^ck up and prove it, weegie. :)

Do you talk to your mom the same way?
You know people don't take you seriously when you talk like that...

Using big bad words and "!!!" is a true sign of low brainactivity-

I'd rather discuss with someone that caughs up a dictionary at me, then someone that cracks under the tinyest amount of pressure.

You're collapsing at freefall speed here my friend, take it easy... think of your health. It's not healthy to get so stressed out all the time

Did the buildings you've seen collapse without CD look like this:

Well, no... because it was not the WTC I saw.
And the buldig was 5-6 stories high, yet it was no more than dust when it collapsed and got crushed under it's own weight. Numerous youtube clips show collapsing bulidings turing to dust after falling down, without CD.
But it's too bad (for me ofcourse) that there is no youtubeclip to be found of that one example of concrete buliding collapse due to structural failure

I've seen pictures of mud brick buildings turned into rubble from earthquakes, and for sure there was some dust, but not entirely dust!

But the Towers were built of structural steel -- it was just the floors that were poured over with concrete. Underneath each concrete floor was lots of steel framing. The core and perimter columns were redundant, box columns, some of the steel several inches thick, tied together to permit both flexibility (for wind or even airplanes crashing into them) as well as vertical strength.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
-- Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management

(Mr. DeMartini died on September 11th. After accompanying his wife down 88 flights of stairs from his office in the North Tower, he went back up with fellow WTC worker Pablo Ortiz and rescued over 70 people. DeMartini and Ortiz - both 49 years of age - perished in the collapse of the North Tower.)

It's too bad we can't ask Mr. DeMartini whether he was worried that the airplane crash or faulty construction might cause the buildings to erupt like they did. Somehow I don't think he was worried about it when he went up and saved those 70 people.

That's easy. The WTC.

Stupid.

I dont think you would find a video that is similer to teh WTC collapse at all because i have never seen a building on film fall like that without CD or with CD because the WTC did not implode into its self like buildings that use CD. Insted it rained down the powdered concrete on the sides and only the core fell into a nice neat pile. I think this is why there is so much confusion on to what happend that day. But I still have not to this day seen any one explain why the molten steel was found under WTC 1,2,and 7.

This is disgusting, Mr DeMartini in fact was worried about the structural integrity of the towers, indeed he radioed down to ask for structural engineers to come view the steel on (I believe) the 78th floor. Congratulations, you've just lied about a heroic dead man.

edit:

It wasn't, there appears to have been steel at approx 870-1100C as supported by on site temperature measurement, pictures of cherry red / yellow steel, satellite imagery, debris recovered from the pile etc. There was softened steel but it's unlikely it was molten in any large quantities. Indeed only 2% of one pixel on the NASA overheads contained temperatures close to molten steel I believe.

and the previously molten iron spheres found in the dust?
what made them molten?
answer - a temperature above 1500C made them molten and surface tension caused them to become sphericle before they 'froze' in a spherical state as they cooled.

...a temperature above 1500C will melt structural steel.

you can argue all you like over testimony, pictures, videos of molten steel and metal conglomerate masses (of which plenty exist), the spheres prove temperatures of 1500C which was capable of melting steel at the wtc.
the popular mechanics "the steel only needed to weaken for the building to collapse" is total misdirection from the fact that molten iron was found at the WTC.

If DeMartini was worried about the structural integrity, then why did he continue up into the building to rescue people? Why would he endanger structural engineer lives if he thought the building was structurally unsound? What in the world did he see way down on the 78th floor, 13 floors below the damage done by Flight 11? Evidence of what should not be? Congratulations, you've just dirtied the good name of a heroic dead man.

Crisfarb on the Loose Change forum (Wtc Controlled Demolitions A new theory reveals how) has a great theory about how thermite in the 3rd level sub-basements was used to melt and drop the core structures to collapse the towers. Obviously this needs much more investigation and research, but this may explain why the North Tower antenna which weighed 353 tons and was supported by the entire core structure fell first about 10-15 feet and fell 56 feet before the 91st floor began to fall. Are we to believe that a fragile aluminum skinned aircraft totally sheared through the core structure on the floors where it hit, and if so why did the top section wait so long to fall? Of course the core structure was not sheared through. So how did the antenna which was supported by the entire core structure fall first unless the core structure was shattered or melted in the sub-basement levels? Core Solid After Aircraft Impact What Caused WTC1 Core to Fail?

Each colored segment is 50 feet and in the last four frames the antenna drops over 50' while the fire line on the 91st floor remains stable and the highest roofline also appears stable. Antenna Falls First video

Actually this theory has been explored by others. The WTC Attack Experienced demolitions expert

I don't see the squibs explained in the thermite at 3rd floor theory....

Mosquito-net? I never saw him drive an exploding pen with wings, landing gear and engines thorugh the net when using that example...

the demolitions are likely to have been more complex than explained above. for starters part of the core was briefly still standing in one of the towers after the perimeter columns and floors had completely collapsed, so unlikely the core pulled down the rest of the structure. what seems likely is that the core was pre-cut (or melted) near the base stressing the rest of the structure attached to the core and insuring a straight down collapse when the collapse initiated, then the core was blown in various places up the tower seperating the floors from the core. Engineer Gordon Ross has presented an theory which accounts for all the data, including thermate, squibs and much more.
Do not think thermite or explosives, think thermite and explosives, even steve jones has said this.
http://gordonssite.com/id2.html

This makes no sense whatsoever. Cutting the base would ensure a straight down collapse? How did you come up with this?

Excuse me. That's a pretty ferocious response, and I honestly don't see any lie. I said, "Somehow I don't think he was worried about it when he went up and saved those 70 people."

His statement, which you do not re-quote, is not a lie either. It's on video, and it's been transcribed in numerous sources -- you know, the one where he says, in 2001, shortly before the attacks mind you, that the building was an intense mesh and could easily withstand a jetliner, probably even multiple jetliners crashing into it.

Now that we've cleared up that I have not lied, please provide evidence and context for your statement about Mr. DeMartini asking engineers to come view the steel. When did this happen? If it did happen, what was the context, and what was the outcome? If it did happen on 9/11 after the plane hit, why on earth would the man go up in the building himself, helping 70 people evacuate, AND call in engineering crews to go take a look, if he didn't feel like the building was safe to occupy?

Good grief, your mind sure works in twisted ways, E to the Nth. Maybe you need more B vitamins.

Hi Goblin,

Since our discussion is about what building collapses look like, and since we can probably agree that there's never been anything that looked like Tower 1 and 2 before, maybe it would be helpful for you to watch this video. I know this link is posted elsewhere on these forums--apologies if you've already seen it.

This fellow in this video is an engineer, and while he doesn't have all the answers (only those who did it know for sure) he points out several telltale signs that intentional explosion-initiated and explosion-assisted demolition, instead of the fire-weakened-steel hypothesis, brought the Twin Towers down.

If you'll have a look (the video is about 25 minutes long, and a little dark because the speaker is on a darkened stage in an auditorium), I'd like to know what you think about it.

I'm leaving WTC7 out of the discussion, since the images of what that building looked like coming down are so like so many other CDs that you can see in video on the 'net. Maybe you can let us know what makes you think 7 came down, or why you have a problem with the CD "theory" on that one, in another thread.

They're completely different for several reasons:

1) The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, whereas CD buildings have their entire support infrastructure taken out at once, initiating a collapse from the bottom.

2) CD usually has a telltale series of rapid explosions and flashing lights up and down the building. WTC did not display this.

3) The WTC did indeed NOT fall into its own footprint, as it caused massive damage to WTC 7, 400 feet away

4) WTC did not fall at freefall speed. This can be seen by simply observing that falling debris that had been ejected from the building was falling much faster than the main part of the tower

5) The so-called "squibs" that are pointed to in the WTC 1/2 collapse videos are laughably few, and occur DURING the collapse, not BEFORE

6) Buildings typically take a very long time to prepare for CD, with miles and miles of wiring and countless explosives being placed in key areas. And that's when they have to bother concealing the explosives. How long do you think it would take to SECRETLY rig up two 110-story skyscrapers?

7) Some people point to eyewitness accounts of people hearing explosions while in the building as proof that there were demolition charges. If these people got out alive, then why were the explosives going off so far in advance of the collapse?

Basically, what it comes down to is this: To believe that WTC 1/2 were brought down by CD, you'd have to believe that someone was able to covertly rig up two 110-story skyscrapers with explosives. Then, AFTER the buildings were hit by planes (which would surely knock out some of the network of charges, usually all wired together to go off simultaneously or in rapid succession), those charges would have to be detonated in such a way to initiate a collapse from the site of the impact, something that would not have been known ahead of time. Then, you have to believe that, coincidentally, part of those towers happened to open a gash in another building that was pre-wired with explosives, giving a convenient alibi to cover up its subsequent demolition.

So you can see it all makes perfect sense.

I agree and wish to add something:

just because you have an explosion, you do not necessarily have an explosive device. Cans of Soup explode during a routine house fire. Refrigerators explode. Doors to offices that are tightly sealed explode when fire finally breaks through or enters.

You can hear what you think are explosions but what are, in reality, common goods being burned.

I'm sure knocking down straw-man arguments makes you feel great about yourself, but try responding to some actual research.

He can't respond to actually research, thus he's no longer here.

1) The outer shell of the building disintegrated from the top down. There are pervasive reports that the inner infrastructure of the building was blown well in advance, bottom, middle and top.

2) This was no ordinary CD. In fact, you won't find any "traditional CD" videos out there on a building of this height. So in fact, you are quite right -- the twin towers were not taken down by your usual controlled demolition.

3) There is no publicly available evidence of "massive damage" caused to WTC7 by the collapse of the nearest tower. This is pretty odd, seeing as how we have hours and hours of images and video from that day. We have the say-so of some pandering idiot who writes for Popular Mechanics magazine that he's seen pictures but he goes on to point out that for security reasons, we can't see them. Since when does a magazine staff get to see classified evidence? And why in hell would this evidence be classified anyway?

4) The twin towers fell at nearly free-fall speed. Every single video we have demonstrates this. They fell so fast it is impossible to postulate that the under-infrastructure gave any resistance whatsoever. That, my friend, is fact. And that fact, when taken together with the laws of physics, puts the big lie to the official conspiracy theory -- plane damage + fire-weakened steel, and all that.

5) The squibs we can see are uniform, that is, they occur on all four sides of the building at the same time, and occur well below the collapse front. Of course they occur while the upper part of the building is collapsing. How else do you remove any obstacles from the path of falling debris?

6) As noted above, this was no typical CD. We can only speculate about the actual mechanisms, but there is persuasive evidence to suggest a thermonuclear device was responsible for a good part of the damage. If this is the case, the time and materials needed to rig the towers would have been significantly reduced. As an aside to this, when you are working in your office (you do work, right?) and the air conditioner maintenance/repair guys come in, do you pay much attention to the noise they make? No, you try to ignore it and get on with your job. It is human nature to see someone in a UPS uniform, for example, and to assume he's with UPS. Or a phone company repairman, assuming he's with the phone company. Don't be naive!

7) The towers were exceptionally strong. Things had to be blown/weakened well in advance of the final coup d'etat. We cannot disregard testimony of bodies burnt to a damn crisp inside closets, or collapsing stairwells, or exploding service elevators, or basement fireballs.

In summary... the powers that be had years to set the towers -- and building 7 -- up for demolition. The planes hitting the buildings were a distraction. Perhaps they were even laser-guided into the spots they hit, and the demolition was rigged around that. As for the gash in building 7, like I said, we have no pictorial evidence of it. In fact, we have no real witness evidence of it either. I'm reluctant to take Hearst Corporation's word for anything.

As for anything making sense... do you find any anomalies at all? Any contradictions with the official conspiracy theory at all? Does everything make perfect sense to you? If so, well.. please go back to sleep now and let us discuss new findings.