Collapse of the twin towers in 2001. An engineering perspective

[Jay Ross]

Some people just believe the mainstream and won't even listen to the opposing experts

Others have a heavy political alignment and refuse to believe they can do anything wrong.

But 3 things prove to me it was a demo job
1 - The physics tells us it was impossible for those buildings to free fall
2 - Molten metal in the wreckage
3 - Thermite in the wreckage
There is more evidence but those 3 are the main ones for me.
There is no excuse for them

AOG, I do not need to dig the hole that you want too burry yourself in. You are the only one digging your hole to fall into.

The physics does tell us that it was possible for the Twin Tower building, the videos of the towers collapsing shows us that the towers did free fall using the vertical columns as the guides for the collapsing towers.

The fact that you state that there was molten metal in the wreckage confirms that the temperature from the resulting fuel fire was hot enough to melt metal and that the resulting temperatures of the structural steel above the crashed plane in the building was hot enough for the initial plastic deformation of the steel bolted floors sections to fail and the floors above to begin falling down using the aligned steel columns as the guide vehicle for the rest of the building to collapse.

Now the weight of the tower above the plane fell, let us say to or three metres and the energy of the falling sections of the building had enough energy to simply just shear all of the bolted floor connections as the building collapsed. When designing the building reference to the Sharpe Notch test would have been made to

The Charpy notch test is a standardized destructive test that measures the amount of energy a material absorbs during fracture under a sudden impact load. [1, 2]

The importance of the Charpy Notch test is taught to student engineers as it forms an important integral test that is considered when designing metal structures.

You referenced Thermite: -

resultsThermiteWikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Thermite

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia › wiki › Thermite

Thermite (/ˈθɜːrmaɪt/) [1] is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder and metal oxide. Fuels include aluminium, magnesium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron.

Because Aluminium powder is mixed with iron oxide to thermo-weld railway track rails together and because the planes were manufactured using Aluminium sheets and sections, the finding of thermite powder in the wreckage is not inconceivable.

The evidence you claim is true and the main basis for your understanding of how the towers collapsed supports the conclusion of the video that @Debp posted. Your objections to the facts presented of how the towers actually collapsed does not stand up to any close inspection.

Perhaps it would be best if you withdrew from this discussion even though you started it from memory.

Shalom

 

[Armour of God]

The fact that you state that there was molten metal in the wreckage confirms that the temperature from the resulting fuel fire was hot enough to melt metal and that the resulting temperatures of the structural steel above the crashed plane in the building was hot enough for the initial plastic deformation of the steel bolted floors sections to fail and the floors above to begin falling down using the aligned steel columns as the guide vehicle for the rest of the building to collapse.

An open fire can NOT melt steel.
Not even with jet fuel.
That's a metallurgical fact.
Jet fuel burns at 1,000c
Structural steel melts at 1,500c
There should have been no molten steel in the wreckage but a lot of it was found

Thermite (/ˈθɜːrmaɪt/) [1] is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder and metal oxide. Fuels include aluminium, magnesium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron.

Because Aluminium powder is mixed with iron oxide to thermo-weld railway track rails together and because the planes were manufactured using Aluminium sheets and sections, the finding of thermite powder in the wreckage is not inconceivable

The aluminium in the plane does not account for the amount of thermite found.
Especially at a nano scale
Besides, building 7 didn't have any plane go into it and thermite elements were still found

The physics does tell us that it was possible for the Twin Tower building, the videos of the towers collapsing shows us that the towers did free fall using the vertical columns as the guides for the collapsing towers.

The fact that you didn't answer my question says that you didn't actually do any mathematical calculations on the physics yourself.

When I was in university at the time we obtained the information for the towers. In physics class we did the calculations ourselves and we found that the mass of the building couldn't possibly cause a gravitational acceleration. The building would have to be much heavier and/or the columns would have to be much weaker. This was confirmed by our physics professor and countless other engineers since.

In addition to that columns would have to all give way simultaneously which is impossible given only one side of the building was damaged.

The theory about horizontal bolts shearing is just one of many contradicting theories I have heard. Colums are holding up the structure and it doesn't explain how those colums below, uneffected by heat, can just give way so easily before the excess mass reached them. Those colums would have to buckle first causing a considerable resistance and deceleration of the collapse.

A recap of the facts
1- Jet fuel fire cannot melt steel which was found at the wreckage
2- A plane cannot account for the large amounts of thermite found
3- The mass of the building cannot account for the gravitational acceleration of the building. That defies the laws of physics

So in the end you dug yourself your own hole to lay in. All your points were easily refuted. They didn't come from any kind of physics or engineering of your own mind. They're just a repeat of the mainstream propaganda you have swallowed up my friend.

God bless

 

[Wrangler]

AOG, I do not need to dig the hole that you want too burry yourself in ... Perhaps it would be best if you withdrew from this discussion even though you started it from memory.

Appalling passive aggressiveness.

Shalom

Shalom?! After being so aggressive, the gas lighting is like punching somebody in the face, then acting morally superior in "warning" them not to "start anything." The Appeal to Ad Hominem powerfully shows you've lost the argument.

 

[Armour of God]

Appalling passive aggressiveness.



Shalom?! After being so aggressive, the gas lighting is like punching somebody in the face, then acting morally superior in "warning" them not to "start anything." The Appeal to Ad Hominem powerfully shows you've lost the argument.

We're you unhappy at my refutation of his arguments? Cos you gave it a sad face
Maybe you didn't read it

 

[Jay Ross]

Question to you.
Did you obtain information about the towers and did the mathematics regarding the physics of the collapse?

Whether or not I obtained information about the towers or considered the mathematics regarding the physics of the collapsing towers is irrelevant to this discussion.

The Notch Charpy test mechanism demonstrated that a metal object when tested can shears when the energy input, in the case of the test apparatus it shows that there is a critical energy when the test specimen will shear. In the case of the Twin Towers the energy associated with 1,000 kilograms falling around 3 metres approaches around 30 kj/tonne and if the bolt sheared in 1 millisecond, then the power per one tonne approaches 30 Mw. Now if the 1 tonne mass fell from the 100 level, then the power that was causing the towers to collapse approaches 3 Gw/tonne.

Now correctly interpreting the data to arrive at the correct conclusion is a science in and of itself.

How close to the pin we are determines whose conclusion we should accept. It really depends on whom we trust to provide the factually correct conclusion.

Now Satan loves the art of presenting false information in a manner that seems to provide the right answers.

Knowing the mechanisms that cause the towers to collapse is not as important as some want us to believe. What is important for us to understand is what the outcome will be for the signs and wonders performed at 9/11 and the resulting outcome for the kings of the earth being Drawn to assemble at Armageddon to be judged, along with the judged heavenly hosts.

The question that we should be trying to understand is what the purpose of the Rev 16:12-16 prophecy was for us to understand it importance for the Saints of the earth.

I am content that I have correctly understood the purpose of the Sixth Bowl Judgement and its outcome being fulfilled.

Shalom

 

[Lizbeth]

I'm a mechanical engineer. My class mates and even my teachers at the time discussed it at length and came to the same unanimous conclusion. Before any of us could be influenced by mainstream ideas.

My teachers weren't at all ignorant, as your slanderous attack suggests, they were very well educated. That's why they were teachers.

Your explanation is not based on engineering or physics. Your personal opinion is only based on the mainstream excuses they have given about bolts shearing. It's not anything you have objectively thought through yourself like we did in class with our teachers.

There is no way those buildings could free fall.

Bolts on the levels below were not effected by heat and would not all shear so easily. If all the bolts on the levels below were shearing there should have at least been resistance and considerable deceleration. But we didn't see that. We saw gravitational acceleration. No resistance at all.

It wasn't just bolts that sheared, it was whole colums. Columns should be buckling and that should be causing a massive deceleration.

That's simply not possible.
It defies the laws of physics.

And no, the energy of the top floors falling is not enough to provide a free fall. We calculated all that. It's weight would not even be close enough to shear colums as if they weren't even there. There should still be resistance and considerable deceleration. Small scale demonstrations have not been able to replicate the way they collapsed.

Look closely and puffs of smoke can be seen going off in sequence down the building from the demo charges. Shearing bolts don't create puffs of smoke. Whole colums were found sheared, not just bolts. And thermite was found everywhere from the demo charges.

That mainstream explanation is flawed. It doesn't explain the collapse of the twin towers or of building 7 either. It's just an explanation to fool the average person

At the end of the day you have your own personal opinion. Its just a repeat of the mainstream explanation. Nothing that you objectively thought through yourself by using any kind of engineering or physics or calculations.

Mine is the opinion of a whole class and engineering teachers and was examined, calculated, discussed and concluded before any mainstream explanation came about.

Your personal attack of us all being ignorant is just you resorting to slander.

Not attacking you....but just a thought. I'm a bit confused....if this was an inside job done using demolition explosives, why would anyone be willing to hijack airplanes and die so horribly.....since there would be no need to use airplanes at all, I would have thought. Whoever did this could still blame the explosives on Bin Laden and say they trace back to him. Or maybe I'm missing something.

This world is run by unspeakably evil people, so I wouldn't be surprised if this had been an inside job though, as awful as that is to contemplate.

 

[Wrangler]

We're you unhappy at my refutation of his arguments? Cos you gave it a sad face
Maybe you didn't read it

No, I was not unhappy at your refutation but the need for it. A guy who claims technical mastery can’t grasp the basics you listed or even that bolts don’t hold up sky scrapers. Yet, he persists. I won’t say more.

 

[Jay Ross]

AI Overview



The Twin Towers collapsed because the airplane impacts caused major structural damage and stripped away fireproofing, allowing intense fires to severely weaken the steel columns until they could no longer support the weight above.
Reddit·r/explainlikeimfive


Plane Impact

• • The hijacked airplanes cut through exterior and core support columns.
  • The high-speed crashes and explosions blasted off the spray-applied fireproofing insulation from the steel structure.
  • Debris and winds from the broken windows fueled the raging flames.
    Wikipedia +2
    

Intense Fires

• • Burning jet fuel and office materials ignited multi-floor fires with temperatures reaching up to 1,000°C (1,800°F)
    .
  • Unprotected structural steel lost its strength and stiffness rapidly under this extreme heat.
  • The floor trusses began to sag and pull inward on the exterior columns.
    
    
    ScienceDirect.com +3
    

Progressive Collapse

• • The weakened exterior columns bowed inward and buckled under the load.
  • Once the top sections of the buildings started to move downward, gravity created an unstoppable chain reaction.
  • According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the falling upper floors acted like a heavy hammer, crushing the floors below in a total progressive collapse. More details are outlined in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked.
    

An interesting summary

 

[CrowCross]

The Twin Towers collapsed because the airplane impacts caused major structural damage and stripped away fireproofing, allowing intense fires to severely weaken the steel columns until they could no longer support the weight above.

...and I might add....didn't destroy the passports of one of the terrorist onboard the aircraft in NY and Pa. Imagine that.

 

[Armour of God]

Whether or not I obtained information about the towers or considered the mathematics regarding the physics of the collapsing towers is irrelevant to this discussion.

It's very relevant. It shows that you have NOT applied the physics yourself. You've only repeated what you've heard. I have applied the physics myself so I actually know the collapse defies physics, I'm not just relying what someone else is saying.

In a doco I watched they said for computer models to replicate the collapse they had to double the mass of the building and make the colums three times weaker. I believe that because that's basically what our own calculations showed. The building had to be much heavier and/or the colums much weaker

If buildings were that weak then we would of seen heaps of collapses in that fashion. Buildings engulfed in flames would of come down but we've never seen that. Buildings aren't that weak.

The Notch Charpy test mechanism demonstrated that a metal object when tested can shears when the energy input, in the case of the test apparatus it shows that there is a critical energy when the test specimen will shear. In the case of the Twin Towers the energy associated with 1,000 kilograms falling around 3 metres approaches around 30 kj/tonne and if the bolt sheared in 1 millisecond, then the power per one tonne approaches 30 Mw. Now if the 1 tonne mass fell from the 100 level, then the power that was causing the towers to collapse approaches 3 Gw/tonne.

I remember this test from school.
But again, this not a test you have done yourself on material from the towers. Only stuff you have heard. There are other tests that are relevant as well such as compression of columns. I think that test would be extremely relevant. Bolts shearing is one thing but colums buckling is another that must be considered and is more important.

How close to the pin we are determines whose conclusion we should accept. It really depends on whom we trust to provide the factually correct conclusion.

In your case I agree. It's all about which side of the story you trust. In my case we obtained the info of the towers. We did the physics for ourselves. It became part of our lessons in our classes. So much of my trust is in my professors, our own calculations and conclusion based on the physics we calculated. We also looked at previous building failures and collapses and how buildings are assembled and material properties. Other things confirm our conclusion like molten metal, thermite, and many other engineers.

AI Overview


View attachment 90066
The Twin Towers collapsed because the airplane impacts caused major structural damage and stripped away fireproofing, allowing intense fires to severely weaken the steel columns until they could no longer support the weight above.
View attachment 90065Reddit·r/explainlikeimfive


Plane Impact

• • The hijacked airplanes cut through exterior and core support columns.
  • The high-speed crashes and explosions blasted off the spray-applied fireproofing insulation from the steel structure.
  • Debris and winds from the broken windows fueled the raging flames.
    View attachment 90064Wikipedia +2

Intense Fires

• • Burning jet fuel and office materials ignited multi-floor fires with temperatures reaching up to 1,000°C (1,800°F)
    .
  • Unprotected structural steel lost its strength and stiffness rapidly under this extreme heat.
  • The floor trusses began to sag and pull inward on the exterior columns.
    
    
    ScienceDirect.com +3

Progressive Collapse

• • The weakened exterior columns bowed inward and buckled under the load.
  • Once the top sections of the buildings started to move downward, gravity created an unstoppable chain reaction.
  • According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the falling upper floors acted like a heavy hammer, crushing the floors below in a total progressive collapse. More details are outlined in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked.

An interesting summary

Very interesting indeed. A very different explanation to yours. I've watched several documentaries and noticed several different explanations contradicting each other. In this one there was no mention of bolts at all.

Instead they say the impact stripped the fire proof concrete, the heat effected the colums around the impact area causing them to buckle. For me that's more viable that the bolt theory but doesn't account for the whole thing collapsing in a free fall. That damaged side of the building should of sagged and eventually tipped over. As we have seen badly damaged buildings on one side do in the past.



What you posted confirms that the fires were 1,000c like I said. But structural steel melts at 1,500c so there is no mainstream explanation for the finding of molten metal in the wreckage.

Then it says that gravity created an unstoppable reaction. That the building acted like a heavy hammer. But a hammer will always decelerated when its met with resistance. But no deceleration at all in the buildings collapse. This had us all perplexed at school, professors more so.

First the excessive load has to reach the column, then it resist, then it buckles. This must cause a deceleration. MUST. The fact that we see a free fall means that the column had already failed before the excessive load reached it.

They want us to imagine a hammer going through a house of cards but buildings are not that weak or else we would of seen these collapses before. But we never have.

And it doesn't mention many important facts such as the columns in the floors below not being effected by heat just snapping like twigs, the gravitational acceleration, or the finding of molten metal which is absent from the official investigation and thermite in the wreckage which the official investigation calls a mystery.

So yea it's what I expected from AI and mainstream sources. It just says what its told. They must maintain the mainstream narrative after all.

I don't know of any other engineering topic that has caused such division. We typically agree on everything else. So I'd like to ask why you think so many architects and engineers oppose the mainstream narrative?

 

[Armour of God]

Not attacking you....but just a thought. I'm a bit confused....if this was an inside job done using demolition explosives, why would anyone be willing to hijack airplanes and die so horribly.....since there would be no need to use airplanes at all, I would have thought. Whoever did this could still blame the explosives on Bin Laden and say they trace back to him. Or maybe I'm missing something.

This world is run by unspeakably evil people, so I wouldn't be surprised if this had been an inside job though, as awful as that is to contemplate.

That's a decent question.
One that I've asked myself along with many others.
But as an engineer I can only really state what I know about the engineering side of things and speculate on these other things like motives, logistics and stuff.

I know someone who is excellent at these kind of questions.
@Wrangler My friend, our sister, Lizbeth, has a decent question above. Please give us your thoughts

 

[CrowCross]

It's very relevant. It shows that you have NOT applied the physics yourself. You've only repeated what you've heard. I have applied the physics myself so I actually know the collapse defies physics, I'm not just relying what someone else is saying.

In a doco I watched they said for computer models to replicate the collapse they had to double the mass of the building and make the colums three times weaker. I believe that because that's basically what our own calculations showed. The building had to be much heavier and/or the colums much weaker

If buildings were that weak then we would of seen heaps of collapses in that fashion. Buildings engulfed in flames would of come down but we've never seen that. Buildings aren't that weak.

View attachment 90069



I remember this test from school.
But again, this not a test you have done yourself on material from the towers. Only stuff you have heard. There are other tests that are relevant as well such as compression of columns. I think that test would be extremely relevant. Bolts shearing is one thing but colums buckling is another that must be considered and is more important.



In your case I agree. It's all about which side of the story you trust. In my case we obtained the info of the towers. We did the physics for ourselves. It became part of our lessons in our classes. So much of my trust is in my professors, our own calculations and conclusion based on the physics we calculated. We also looked at previous building failures and collapses and how buildings are assembled and material properties. Other things confirm our conclusion like molten metal, thermite, and many other engineers.



Very interesting indeed. A very different explanation to yours. I've watched several documentaries and noticed several different explanations contradicting each other. In this one there was no mention of bolts at all.

Instead they say the impact stripped the fire proof concrete, the heat effected the colums around the impact area causing them to buckle. For me that's more viable that the bolt theory but doesn't account for the whole thing collapsing in a free fall. That damaged side of the building should of sagged and eventually tipped over. As we have seen badly damaged buildings on one side do in the past.

View attachment 90076

What you posted confirms that the fires were 1,000c like I said. But structural steel melts at 1,500c so there is no mainstream explanation for the finding of molten metal in the wreckage.

Then it says that gravity created an unstoppable reaction. That the building acted like a heavy hammer. But a hammer will always decelerated when its met with resistance. But no deceleration at all in the buildings collapse. This had us all perplexed at school, professors more so.

First the excessive load has to reach the column, then it resist, then it buckles. This must cause a deceleration. MUST. The fact that we see a free fall means that the column had already failed before the excessive load reached it.

They want us to imagine a hammer going through a house of cards but buildings are not that weak or else we would of seen these collapses before. But we never have.

And it doesn't mention many important facts such as the columns in the floors below not being effected by heat just snapping like twigs, the gravitational acceleration, or the finding of molten metal which is absent from the official investigation and thermite in the wreckage which the official investigation calls a mystery.

So yea it's what I expected from AI and mainstream sources. It just says what its told. They must maintain the mainstream narrative after all.

Many people have only seen the "narrative" the globalist have presented.

In a sense I see where their mind set is....who wants to believe the government of the USA...3 letter agencies...could actually do this to America.
Once I came to the realization our government has and can do such "false flags"...even if only in part...the reality of the event began to sink in.

 

[Wrangler]

Not attacking you....but just a thought. I'm a bit confused....if this was an inside job done using demolition explosives, why would anyone be willing to hijack airplanes and die so horribly.....since there would be no need to use airplanes at all, I would have thought. Whoever did this could still blame the explosives on Bin Laden and say they trace back to him. Or maybe I'm missing something.

It is a great question.

This world is run by unspeakably evil people

This last realization contains the key to understanding. The evil does not flow from the engineering analysis, strength of columns or melting temperature of bolts; it comes from those who have the goal of maximizing terrorism. It’s not the body count. More people probably die everyday in America than on that fateful day. That the terror was successful is not seen in the buildings collapse but the aftermath. American air space was shut down. The economy was crippled.

Government grew with TSA, Homeland Security and the ultimate success of terror, getting us to abandoned our freedom and rights via The Patriot Act. Then there’s the wars. Terrified of casualties, America launched $2M missiles to take out $50K of enemy hardware; an unsustainable exchange - even for a superpower.

Yes, publicly taking credit for demolishing the WTC would still be a successful attack. However, the terror from the skies, from our own technological sophistication, network, willingness to embrace totalitarian ideologies, giving up our freedom voluntarily could only be achieved by hijacking American planes.

One more thing about the evil of Islamic Jihad; you incorrectly categorize their death as ‘horrible.’ According to their ideology, martyring oneself for the cause of Islam is the very best way to die, guaranteeing admission to paradise. 25 years later and the West still doesn’t understand Islam. In fact, Europe has been Islamized and @Debp has started many threads detailing how the UK government is now hostile to their own people in favor of the invaders. London and New York are ruled by Islamists. Why hasn’t there been another 911? Because the West has already surrendered.

 

[JustMe]

This is an engineering perspective of how the twin towers collapsed in 2001.

At the time I was in my 20s, studying engineering at university. From a physics standpoint, we (my class mates, teachers and i) couldn't believe how quickly those buildings collapsed.

They fell at the acceleration of gravity. If you dropped a hammer from the same height it would of landed at the same time the top of the building did.

This is impossible. There should of been a resistance below the airplane impact point that would have decelerated the collapse. Instead it accelerated at the same rate as gravity.

According to the laws of physics, the only possible way those buildings could of collapsed like that was if there was nothing holding it up. But obviously the building itself was holding it up.

So then how did they fall so fast.

We concluded, from a physics and engineering standpoint, that it was impossible for the plane damage to bring down the towers that way. Their had to have been demolition charges throughout the buildings core for it to fall that fast. And if you look at the destruction of a building using demo charges, it falls exactly the same way.

Without charges the top of the building may have crushed the levels that were damaged by the plane but would never have destroyed the whole building. At the very least there should of been a deceleration, leaving the lower levels in tact.

Then there was a smaller building, named building 7, that wasn't hit by the airplanes and still collapsed in the same fashion. Its unexplainable without demo charges.

At the time we were all convinced that the Americans would conclude the same thing after an investigation. We thought that the terrosrists must of planted demo charges throughout the buildings.
But much to our surprise the investigation maintained that the planes alone caused the collapse which perplexes me still to this day.

It's important to note that this isn't my own personal conclusion. This event was heavily discussed by our whole class and teachers and the conclusion came about by everyone, uninfluenced by any mainstream explanations that came about later on.

As you already know, Aunt Jemima was not baking a stack of pancakes on 9/11 in lower Manhattan.

I do not believe the official account truthfully explains what occurred in Lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001.

Much of the concrete reportedly disintegrated into fine dust, along with materials inside the buildings, including office furniture and parts of the elevator systems.

It’s clear, on-site first responders reported extremely hot material and persistent fires at the sites for weeks afterward. The fires would not ‘go out’ because the heat was too extreme for any simple much lower jet fuel and office fire temperature environments.

Military weapons (missiles) launched from airborne platforms were involved and the commercial aircraft served as a convenient cover story. Odd, those implicated commercial jets were still in service the day after 9/11.

The aircraft impacts could not have caused the observed and then examined destruction as also thermite or thermate charges (their signature examined) were placed in advance. The official “pancaking” explanation is obviously scientifically and structurally wrong as an unviable hypothesis and foot-loose theory.

My background includes astronautical and aerospace engineering. I was also among the first several dozen published signatories supporting the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded by Richard Gage.

I find it difficult to dismiss all of those professionals as mistaken. In my view, many people were misled about the events, and that multiple state and non-state actors were involved warrants serious scrutiny and investigation even after all these years, rather than automatic attribution to Iraq or Saudi Arabia as they had no play on 9/11.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

"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.

1. the office furnishings, ceiling tiles carpets were all non-flammable as per NYC regulations.

2. In a 110 story building, 5 floors is marginal damage.

3. Jet fuel combusts at 500 c. which is 930F. Jet fuel combusts and explodes not burn log a wood fire. so the effects of the combustion are short lived. The Jet fire would not burn long enough to comromise the steel. Other than clothing and papers, there were no combustibles there by law.

4. Industrial steel used in skyscrapers BEGINS to melt at 1370C. which is 2500F.

5. Inddustrial steel begins to soften at 1100F.

6. Those fires did not get to the 1500-1800 degrees you allege except for maybe the first few minutes when the jet fuel combusts.

7. One floor falling will result in a collapse of two - 4 floors only. Every floor collapse releases energy and destruction of material. so as the floors were dropping they would be eating the material and thus weakening and ending the collapse to the equivalent of the number of upper floors involved. This is proven architectural physics. It is known as the pnacake effect.

8. Finally damaged buildings do not collpase into their own foot print.. If a building is struck on a side and opens a gaping hole like we saw in both twin towers, the upper floors will fall onto the weakest side.

9. If you care to google search, you can see high rise skyscrapers hit by planes, fully engulfed in flames and other ctastrophes and not one of the over hundred recorded collapsed in on itself as aplanned demolition does.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

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

Why don't you check the fact that the elevator shafts were being serviced and armed guards were at each floor being serviced?

Nobody wants to talk about building 7 the 50+ story high rise that collapsed and was not hit by a jet and only received collateral fire from the towers. It was not even marginally engulfed in flames.

 

[JimKnox]

Since my post got deleted I will post again.

Those who promote a gubmint conspiracy are not providing accurate information.

Jet fuel burns at a rate sufficient to weaken the structural steel by 50% and to such a point that catastrophic failure of the exposed supports easily happens. To claim EVERYTHING in those offices were not flammable is simply naive. It was an inferno.

When the weight of multiple floors, ABOVE the five damaged floors, fall a mere 15 feet ONTO the unaffected floors, the energy created is more than sufficient to created a sequential failure of every floor thereafter.

Denying such physics does not display intellectual honesty. Rather it reveals a determined desire to indict the gubmint instead of a quest for truth.

These are my thoughts. I know what our government is capable of doing: just investigate the Benefit Army that was attacked to prevent paying Combat pay after WW1. Or investigate Johnson's part in the assassination of Kennedy. The attack on 9/11 is not that. One may as well say 12/6/41 was also a gubmint attack.

 

[Jay Ross]

I don't know of any other engineering topic that has caused such division. We typically agree on everything else. So I'd like to ask why you think so many architects and engineers oppose the mainstream narrative?

In your discourse above you have ignored the plastic deformation of the steel near the floors where the planes crashed and the fuel feed fires. The Ultimate Tensile Strength, the UTS of the steel become lower around 300° C and as the temperature rises the UTS increases until around 600° C when the UTS heads south rapidly. You have stated that the steel was not hot enough to melt the steel columns but have not spoken about the effect of temperature on its UTS and ductile failure. Now the initial failure was a ductile failure when the weight of the floors above where the planes entered the buildings caused the initial collapse. Because the upper floors of the respective buildings were falling, the failure mechanism become an energy related problem to solve and not a static structural mechanism which was the initial failure model.

Where the planes struct the building, was an important input to cause the buildings to collapse as they did. It should be noted that because the second building was struck by the plane at a lower level which resulted in second tower failure happening first.

Providing a heat source around the planes in the buildings was also critical as the heat released by the fuel from the planes only needed to raise the bulk temperatures of the steel structures a couple of hundred degrees until the initial plastic failure occurred in the respective towers.

With the building collapsing downwards, loud noises like a gun shot or explosion was heard coming from the building as the steel was failing at each floor as the towers collapsed.

The outer steel columns of the towers were pushed outwards away from the towers and when the steel support columns reached the critical unsupported length the columns failed and then fell down around the towers.

AOG, which one of us is right in their understanding of how the twin towers collapsed will be argued about for many more years to come, but your belittling of me and my engineering understanding is not becoming of you nor do your claims of being an engineering expert on this subject matter.

What we should be focusing upon is does Rev 16:12-16 accurately describe what occurred when the three pillars of our idolisation were attacked on 2001-9-11 and is this prophecy still unfolding and moving towards the Armageddon assembly of all of the kings of the earth to be judged.

Does Isaiah 24:21-22 describe the mechanism that God will use to honour His Covenant of Peace with Israel after they turn back to Worship Him after the completion of His Exodus 20:4-6 prophecy embedded within this commandment at the end of the fourth age of the Nation of Israel's existence.

A good engineer will learn from his mistakes. I for one during my engineering work life made mistakes that I learned from that added to my engineering understanding. Your claim that I had personally slandered you by stating that many people have ignorantly proposed an explanation of the mechanisms that cause the twin towers to collapse as they did when the statement was a global statement of fact given the many varying explanation of how the twin towers collapsed.

Are you an ignorant Engineer proposing an explanation of how the towers collapsed? That will be proved by others as the actual truths are exposed.

Will I also be included among these ignorant people who have penned their respective explanation of the collapse mechanisms? Perhaps/possibly. But I will be judged by the experts who have a more detailed understanding of how the buildings collapsed. What I understand is that the twin towers confirmed that towers can be designed to collapse in a manner that causes the least collateral damage to the surrounding buildings around them.

The real question for God's Saints is can they see God's hands at work in the 9/11 events that confirms to us what is still to come.

Shalom

 

[Wrangler]

When the weight of multiple floors, ABOVE the five damaged floors, fall a mere 15 feet ONTO the unaffected floors, the energy created is more than sufficient to created a sequential failure of every floor thereafter.

You can’t truly believe this. If you do, you’re a true NPC of ‘the narrative.’

 

[JimKnox]

You can’t truly believe this. If you do, you’re a true NPC of ‘the narrative.’

If you believe (X) then you ARE (y).
If YOU believe that, then YOU are ------------- (fill in the blanks).