Collapse of the twin towers in 2001. An engineering perspective

[Armour of God]

While it may be hard to detemine just how deep the rabbit hole goes, one must recognize the official narrative is seldom the truth.

I saw a Kermit the frog meme last summer that said, “I want to believe in aliens …. but the government said they’re real.” The coercive agents of the State earned our distrust from decades of duplicity.

You know that video I posted. I learned that they lied about the physics and metallurgy in order to make the computer models collapse the same way.
In their calculations they made the building twice as heavy and they made the columns three times weaker.
This is outright fraud.

 

[Debp]

I didn't see a Coke can example but a Coke can is very weak. It's not built like a building it's only designed to hold liquid. It's not designed to support a large mass nor does it have interior colums. So it's not comparable. If you want to make a fair comparison then you must look at other building collapses.

But show me the Coke can example. I'm curious to see how it's gets crushed under its own weight like the towers did and I'm objective enough to hear both sides of the argument

Did you watch the video I posted?

The Coke can example was in one of the videos I posted by Sabin Civil Engineering. He put weight on top of the can and the can held up perfectly. However once the side of the can was dented in, the can instantly collapsed downwards.

Also, as I said before, Sabin Civil Engineering said the center columns were weaker. Thus when the plane crashed into the building, this put added strain on the weaker center columns, leading to the collapse.

I didn't have the time to watch your one hour video, maybe another time.

 

[Debp]

An internet trend, even on discussion forums: paste something in a fallacious Appeal to Authority, which implies … I can’t defend or explain the conclusion I have so go away with this other person’s testimony. Who are you to argue with the experts I present?! This is sad.

She can’t address our points. Just doubles down with another vid. Whoever has the most pasted vids wins, I guess.

@Wrangler if you don't like my posts you don't have to read them.

 

[Armour of God]

The Coke can example was in one of the videos I posted by Sabin Civil Engineering. He put weight on top of the can and the can held up perfectly. However once the side of the can was dented in, the can instantly collapsed downwards.

Also, as I said before, Sabin Civil Engineering said the center columns were weaker. Thus when the plane crashed into the building, this put added strain on the weaker center columns, leading to the collapse.

Regarding the Coke can
- A weight was placed on top. It didn't free fall on its own weight like the towers did.
- A Coke can is not a building. It's only designed to hold liquid.
- A Coke can doesn't have columns, it's just a thin aluminium sheet in the form of a cylinder.
- A Coke can is not to scale of the buildings.
- It's not a valid comparison. If you really want to compare you need to look at other building collapses.

I didn't have the time to watch your one hour video, maybe another time

Im sorry Deb but without looking and listening to the opposing arguments your really just repeating what the mainstream media has dished out.

Deborah my friend. Why do you suppose over 3,600 architects and engineers, over a thousand companies, officially reject the mainstream explanation and wanted a real investigation?



And this is not including the many more that didn't sign this petition.
Such opposition in engineering is unheard of

 

[Armour of God]

@Wrangler @Debp

The subject of how the towers and building 7 collapsed has been a much discussed topic among engineers, especially in the first 10 years or so after it happened.

I was in university when it happened so I've been in engineering now for over 25 years and iv met many other engineers.

Most of them agree that demo charges was the only explanation for how those towers came down.

From the ones that disagree, most of them resorted to name calling and refused to
have an open discussion about it.

Much like Jay Ross did in the start of this thread. Repeatedly called me, class mates, colleagues and teachers ignorant, refused to address my arguments and left an angry man.

Why? Because they are uncomfortable discussing the facts. Deep down they know something was not right with those buildings but it goes against the political or world view. That's why they resort to name calling and refuse to have an open discussion about it.

Much easier to attack the man than to attack the argument. But it's an ad hominem fallacy and concedes defeat in the argument.

Much like the mainstream that dismisses anyone who questions the collapses as a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Wrangler]

I learned that they lied about the physics and metallurgy in order to make the computer models collapse the same way.
In their calculations they made the building twice as heavy and they made the columns three times weaker.
This is outright fraud.

Many are convinced by computer graphics. It ‘shows’ the collapse so it must be scientifically verified.

 

[WHO ME]

I found this and wondered what others thought about it.... not sure when it was written......


Larry Silverstein is the New York property tycoon who purchased the entire WTC complex just 6 months prior to the 9/11 attacks. That was the first time in its 33-year history the complex had EVER changed ownership.

Mr. Silverstein’s first order of business as the new owner was to change the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. According to public records, not only did Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two key players in the 9/11 attacks.

The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for many years to the Bush family. KuwAm has been linked to the Bush family financially since the Gulf War. One of its principals and a member of the Kuwaiti royal family, Mishal Yousef Saud al Sabah, served on the board of Stratesec.

Now, consider: The members of a small cabal owned the WTC complex, controlled its electronic security, and also controlled the security not only for one of the airlines whose aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, but the airport from which they originated.

Another little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”.

Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million.

There’s more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.

The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected “terrorist” attack demolished the buildings completely.

WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-storey steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at freefall speed — exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

How could this have happened? Mr. Silverstein gave the world the answer when he slipped up during a PBS television interview a year later, on 9/11/2002:

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

As anyone who knows anything about construction can tell you, “Pull” is common industry jargon for a controlled demolition.

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history — including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building’s tenants:

• US Secret Service
• NSA
• CIA
• IRS
• BATF
• SEC
• NAIC Securities
• Salomon Smith Barney
• American Express Bank International
• Standard Chartered Bank
• Provident Financial Management
• ITT Hartford Insurance Group
• Federal Home Loan Bank

The Securities and Exchange Commission has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed by the collapse of WTC 7. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases."

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack.

Inside WTC 7 was the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran.

What a neat, complete, and fortuitous turn of events was 9/11.

Incidentally, it’s worth noting that one of Lucky Larry’s closest friends — a person with whom it’s said he speaks almost daily by phone — is none other than former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (end)



hmmmmm I thought it was funny business they had g w bush down reading to kids in florida..... then they passed the patriot act which I Think let them bypass the constitution to spy on americans..... cant quite rememeber

the 3 israel prime ministers all changed their names so benny is a fake name.....

 

[Armour of God]

Many are convinced by computer graphics. It ‘shows’ the collapse so it must be scientifically verified.

You can make those computer models do whatever you want them to do by changing the parameters. So beware when they say "the science tells us" and then they refer to their models. They did it for their climate change hoax, they did it for their covid scam.

"Follow the science" except for when it comes to gender

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Who says those buildings were damaged "by accident"?
That's a goofy statement.

Well it was a plane crash. but a plane crashing into a buidling will never causde it to collapse in on itself like an intnetional demolition does. It just doesn't happen.

Think- if that building wasn't intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition, it would have wreaked havoc in NYC> It would have caused 10,000+ deaths with the building flying everywhere.

And what about tower 7 that did not get hit by a plane? Iyt was only caught with collateral debris and yet just like all controlled planned demolitions, it was brought down upon itslef.

That doesn't happen with marginal damage and small fires that do not burn hot enought ot melt construction steel.

 

[JimKnox]

Well it was a plane crash. but a plane crashing into a buidling will never causde it to collapse in on itself like an intnetional demolition does. It just doesn't happen.

Think- if that building wasn't intentionally brought down by a controlled demolition, it would have wreaked havoc in NYC> It would have caused 10,000+ deaths with the building flying everywhere.

And what about tower 7 that did not get hit by a plane? Iyt was only caught with collateral debris and yet just like all controlled planned demolitions, it was brought down upon itslef.

That doesn't happen with marginal damage and small fires that do not burn hot enought ot melt construction steel.

"Small fires"??????
Wow! You sure are desperate to prove your gubmint conspiracy, huh?
EACH plane was carrying upwards of 10,000 GALLONS of jet fuel.
"Marginal damage"?????
Are you kidding???
The collision point alone spread across FIVE floors of each tower.
Each fire burnt at approx. °1500f - °1800 f. from a combined fuel source of jet fuel, office furniture, ceiling tiles, carpet, papers, etc. It was a veritable inferno INSIDE that building over FIVE floors.
The supporting metal did not need to "melt". It only needed to be weakened and the structure was compromised. The fireproofing insulation was blasted away upon impact. That left the structural supports vulnerable to the intense heat. The ceiling trusses showed considerable signs of weakening due to extreme heat. All that was needed was ONE floor to fail and the energy from upper floors FALLING onto the floor below created a catastrophic chain of failure that was impossible to abort and recover from.

This was all revealed (and much more) by independent fire investigation.

 

[Jay Ross]

@Wrangler @Debp

The subject of how the towers and building 7 collapsed has been a much discussed topic among engineers, especially in the first 10 years or so after it happened.

I was in university when it happened so I've been in engineering now for over 25 years and iv met many other engineers.

Most of them agree that demo charges was the only explanation for how those towers came down.

From the ones that disagree, most of them resorted to name calling and refused to
have an open discussion about it.

Much like Jay Ross did in the start of this thread. Repeatedly called me, class mates, colleagues and teachers ignorant, refused to address my arguments and left an angry man.

Why? Because they are uncomfortable discussing the facts. Deep down they know something was not right with those buildings but it goes against the political or world view. That's why they resort to name calling and refuse to have an open discussion about it.

Much easier to attack the man than to attack the argument. But it's an ad hominem fallacy and concedes defeat in the argument.

Much like the mainstream that dismisses anyone who questions the collapses as a conspiracy theorist.

We should remember that there are people who are gifted people in their chosen profession, there are people who learn the gift in their chosen profession and then there are others who receive a piece of paper that states that they should be gifted in their chosen profession and have passed the required subject with adequate proficiency to say that they might know something about their chosen profession, but i would not trust them to provide any useful engineering outcomes.

I worked with and "engineer" who had done his Master Studies and his PHD in Engineering and could do everything from first principles but could not define what the design criteria was for the work he was attempting to do. We were both involved in piping systems that operated at very high pressure, i.e. above 5,000 psi and he to save tubing costs reduced the tubing gauge from 16 gauge to 18 gauge which led to a fatigue failure on the outlet tubing from a precipitating high-pressure compressor. Because he did not understand the fundamentals of engineering with respect to the design pressure of the high-pressure tubing, he had designed the wall thickness without regards to an oscillating pressure output from the compressor. He had his pieces of paper to say he had studied, but as an engineer he was lacking in his understanding of engineering. In other words, he was ignorant in his chosen profession.

Amour of God falls into this same category of being ignorant, in his case, about the fundamentals of the science of materials and how they fail.

@JimKnox in his post above confirmed what I had posted about the mechanism of how the twin towers failed.

When people resort to bluster to defend their theories, we know that they are out of their depths with regards to the subject matter being discussed. Just because people heard loud "bang" noises, that in by itself does not indicate that a firecracker or TNT was the cause. Steel when it fractures does so with a loud "bang" as the material catastrophically fails when it is stressed beyond its failure point.

I have no problems with the analogy as presented of a hammer falling at about the same rate as the floors did and they pancaked upon each other as the building collapsed but this analogy does not explain how and why the towers began to collapse nor why the second tower began collapsing before the first tower did after being struct by plane in each case.

What we need to understand is the reason for the signs and wonders in that they were performed to draw the kings of the earth to begin assembling at Armageddon where God judged them for their part in the trampling of God's sanctuary and His earthly hosts a little over 40 years later when the 2,300-year prophecy in Daniel 8 will come to its completion around the year 2044/2045 AD.

The mechanism of how the towers collapsed at that time will be irrelevant with respect to the fulfilment of the Rev 16:12-16 prophecy.

The judgement of the kings of the earth at Armageddon is also found in Isaiah 24:21-22.

Understanding how the twin towers collapsed is not as important as ensuring that our relationship with God is in right order.

Shalom


PS @Armour of God, just remember that it was only you who became angry by trying to justify why you were not ignorant in your understanding of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Your theory could not be disputed but its application could.

 

[Armour of God]

Amour of God falls into this same category of being ignorant

Resorting to slander once again. Shameful
It's not just me



Your calling thousands of architects and engineers ignorant.
Not a chance.

How about you come back when the Holy Spirit has purged you of your anger and your willing to have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks and slander

 

[Jay Ross]

Resorting to slander once again. Shameful
It's not just me

View attachment 89963

Your calling thousands of architects and engineers ignorant.
Not a chance.

How about you come back when the Holy Spirit has purged you of your anger and your willing to have a discussion without resorting to personal attacks and slander

AoG, you are claiming that I have slandered you by saying that you were being ignorance over your understanding of the mechanisms associated with the collapse of the Twin Towers in 2001-9-11 but you are very happy to slander me by claiming that I had personally slandered you when I had suggested that there were many people who were/are ignorant with respect to one of the many reasons of how the twin towers collapsed.

The louder you claim that I slandered you, the more the people will conclude that your reasoning is suspect with respect to the towers collapsing.

The three separate events on 9-11 were attacks upon the three pillars of our faith in money, commerce and defence and that the world actually because of the three pillars of our belief system really had no time for God and more belief in our own understanding.

People love to give their own understanding of what went down on 9-11 and have established many conspiracy theories to explain away what really went done on that day. The next event that still has to be played out in the Rev 16:12-16 prophecy is the timing of the Armageddon judgement when God will Judge the heavenly hosts and the kings of the earth on the earth and those judged to be wanting, they will be gathered together on the face of the earth and will be gathered together to be imprisoned in the Bottomless pit for many days, i.e. for 1,000 years to await the time of their future punishment.

Yes, it is important to remember what happened on 2001-9-11 and to settle upon how the twin towers collapsed so that people can understand.

@JimKnox in post #90 above provided a similar explanation to mine as to why the Twin Towers collapsed but sadly you only want to believe in your own theory. So be it. Other knowledgeable members can only present their understanding and explanation to you to either accept or to disregard.

Perhaps you will cease in your attempts to justify your understand through your blustering "rebuttals" of non-facts.

Shalom

 

[Armour of God]

you are very happy to slander me

My dear brother in Christ

I never slandered you.
I never resorted to calling you names.

You continued to provoke me with repeated insults. And the old me would have responded with insults.

But praise be to God because with the Holy Spirit endowed in me I have been able to maintain respect and decorum in the face of personal attack.

Glory be to God

 

[Armour of God]

@Wrangler Just a bit more info.

When I was studying engineering in 2001 we obtained specifications for the towers. Their mass, the material used, amount of colums, tensile strength, etc.

With that info we did the physics with help from our teachers, we crunched the numbers and we concluded that there was no possible chance the building could collapse like that in a gravitational free fall. 11 seconds, the same time a bowling ball would reach the ground if dropped from the same height.

The buildings mass would of had to be much heavier and/or the colums would of had to be much weaker for this to happen and colums would of had to shear simultaneously.

We had no political or media bias or influence. Just the numbers, physics, mathematics and engineering principals.

Eventually, over time, more and more engineers would come out confirming our conclusion, finding molten steel, thermite, testimonies of explosions moments before the collapse, concrete pulverised. All proof of demo charges.

If it was to collapse straight down there should of been resistance from columns buckling, resulting in a deceleration and a stop. The only way it could of accelerated was if colums had been sheared before the excessive load reached them.

No building had ever collapsed like that without demo charges. Without it they rarely fall straight down onto its own footprint and never at a gravitational free fall.

What should of happened was the side of the building that was damaged would of sagged and kept dropping until the top of the building tipped over. We've seen many buildings collapse in this manner.

Buildings that have tipped over. Notice that their not pulverised to dust like the towers were.


We have seen buildings with worse fires, totally engulfed in flames that didn't come down.



The only way a building can come down at a free fall rate is with demo charges. Watch any building being demolished and you will easily see the resemblance.

 

[Armour of God]

I've used terms like free fall or gravitational acceleration a fair bit on this thread. So I thought I'd explain what I mean by that.

I'm talking about the force of gravity and how it acts on an object.

Gravity will accelerate an object at 9.8m/s2 (meters per second square).
What does that mean?

Imagine someone is standing next to a cliff and drops a bowling ball.

One second after its been dropped the bowling ball will be travelling at 9.8m/s.
It's velocity will keep increasing by 9.8m/s every second. That what squared means.
So at 2 seconds it will be falling at 19.6m/s
At 3 seconds 29.4m/s
At 4 seconds 39.2m/s
At 5 seconds 49m/s

This is a good illustration of it


It's acceleration will keep increasing at this rate before it reaches terminal velocity, the fastest it can go due to the objects air resistance.

The twin towers and building 7 fell at this rate of gravity of 9.8m/s2. An impossibility given the structure should of provided resistance. No building has ever collapsed this way without demo charges.

 

[Debp]

The only way a building can come down at a free fall rate is with demo charges.

How on earth can anyone get into all of these huge, tall buildings to set explosives?!!!

 

[Armour of God]

How on earth can anyone get into all of these huge, tall buildings to set explosives?!!!

I'll answer your question Deb but I'd appreciate it if you answered the question that I previously asked you.

Answer.
Buildings require maintenance just like anything else does. So any company hired out to do so called maintenance could of easily taken demo charges into the buildings and set them.

Question.
Why do you suppose over 3,600 architects and engineers officially reject the mainstream explanation and wanted a real investigation?

And this is not including the many more that didn't sign this petition.
Such opposition in engineering is unheard of.