I haven't read all of the threads yet, so forgive me if i am duplicating. how did the Trade Centers implode from airplanes hitting them? I would have to think they were wired with explosives? wouldn't they have fallen left or right if they were just knocked over.? How the hell could that happen with security.?

Scot

 

What I have heard:

The buildings, with their proximity to major air traffic, were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. While the 757 is based on the 707, it carries much more of a load (fuel and cargo/passengers). The force of the impact itself didnt cause the buildings to collapse, but the conbination of structral weakening(from the impact and from the heat of the burning fuel), plus the weight of the floors above the impact cased the initial collapse, and the momentum of the falling floors was ust too much for the building to take.

Theres some good info and commentary about everything (with regards to intelligence information as opposed to the mainstream media's slant) on:
http://www.janes.com/
and
http://www.stratfor.com/

 

pellisS2k, I'm not saying you are promoting the argument, but I can't see the burning fuel thing being what caused the buildings to collapse. IF the burning fuel, which would have to be hot enough to melt steel, were the cause, it would have to run all the way down to the base of the building to weaken it sufficiently, thereby making the building start to fall into itself like it did.

I'm far from an engineer, but that just doesn't seem logical to me.

I have heard several reports of additional blast(s) taking place down below...in fact, one eye witness said that he assumed it was a third plane that came in from opposite the building, exploded and did its damage.

I have no evidence to say what the real cause was other than logic, as I see it. Had the buildings been hit nearer to the base of the building, it would have a greater tendency to make the buildings collapse as they did. However, since they were hit so high, near the top, I just can't see it happening.

Could be wrong, I'm just trying to think logically...

 

Im not saying it melted the steel, but rather softened.

 

The buildings collapsed from the top down. There wasn't much damage to the floors under fire as far as I could tell. The impact from the aircraft weakened the structure but the intense fire is the main reason for the upper floors falling. The heat caused the steel beams to buckle, then the floors above fell. The inertia of the falling levels could not be halted by the next floors.

A domino effect caused every floor to fail one by one from top down.

 

answers here:

http://www.abcnews.com/sections/scitech/Da...ture010911.html

[QUOTE]Sept. 11

 

AHA...I hadn't heard it put that way before, Roceye...

That makes sense, I hadn't looked at it that way before. The building was essentially crushed from the top. That has merit to my oft twisted understanding of the world...

Thanks...

 

Thanks pfb, that explains it well.

 

Yeah I was initially very suspicious as well, since I didn't think the impact alone would be enough to bring the buildings down, let alone cause them to collapse on themselves an hour later. I didn't think about the fire. Watching the videos, it's pretty apparent that this domino effect thing is what happened, and the fire explanation is reasonable.

 

If you want to see a demonstration of why the towers collapsed... take 2 glasses (one is going to go bye-bye). First, set about 30 lbs on one (gently!!). That's what the building normally would see. Next, pick those 30 lbs up and drop it from about an inch. Unless you have some fine glassware, the falling weight will just crush the glass.

This is impulse loading versus static loading. The impulse came from the upper floors falling down as their damaged structure melted and could no longer support the weight. Once the upper floors started going, they took each successive floor down with them as the structure wasn't designed to handle 20 floors falling down. I can get more technical if you have some sadistic desire, but I hope this explains it.

Had the two planes been near landing (empty of fuel) I suspect the towers may have survived, just as tower 1 survived a bomb blast 8 years ago.