World Trade Center - was building responsible for collapse?

[tenenbaum]

Also, WTC 2 was hit twice as low from the roof than WTC 1, so the columns in the WTC 2’s impact zone were much heavier than in the WTC 1’s zone of impact. Obviously, the heavier columns in WTC 2’s zone were by far more resistant to mechanical damage from impact and to thermal damage from the fire than the thinner ones in WTC 1’s zone, but – ironically - WTC 2 collapsed almost twice as fast as WTC 1.

The obviously lesser mechanical and thermal damages to the heavier columns in WTC 2’s zone contradict the faster collapse of WTC 2, and so - the NIST’s theory as well for employing such damages in addition to that to the cores by the engine shafts (see my previous posting) meaning also by the whole airplanes since the rest of the airplane had no capacity to damage the core columns, which – anyway – was not found.

Not seeing something does not prove its non-existence. The hat truss role derives from the damage to the core columns. In other words, without damage to core columns, the hat trusses would not have had anything to bear, and would not have been mentioned in the theories. On the other hand, I do not propose any theory.

[P.C.]

"how much do you think 100+ stories of water weighs?

you would probably be introducing more danger than safety with this method... imagine millions of gallons of scalding hot water pouring over thousands of people...."

1 : I try very hard in my text to xplain, that I talk about TWO tubes one inside the other --- Listen no one proclaimed that there only ans only ever has, to be, one tube only acturly you can decide to have one tube inside another, for every each "tube" .
Clear now --- as if you emagine I mean a one tube filled with water you did not read what I wrote. I wrote one tube inside another as every "tube" .
That way there are not water inside the whole outside tube hense there are an emty tube inside each tube and the water, the water is only between the two tubes --- one inside the other , that mean in the wall between the two tubes see, that is a lot less water.

Water that don't need to be there untill you as usealy use it to bring down the fire ; by pouring it onto the fire one way or another , --- it proberly will be equaly hot both way's but, if added the structure when and where ,there has to be a hole , a hole that usealy is not there in 99 pct of fires , before it could ecape at not only very hot, but any temperture if vented and driven around the internal structure it beside, most proberly would still ask colossal amounts of heat before it even get hot.

Gee .

[P.C.]

Beside --- with two tubes one inside the other, the very unthinkable steam ( it still ask huge huge huge fires to keep a kettle boiling --- even a piece of paper will not burn with water on one side and please use, one hour with a piece of paper filled with a cup of water , then try count the hours before a flame from a gas lighter would fry out that poor single cup of water, you proberly would need the gas from 100 lighters and both burn your fingers plus spill the water , but remember ; venting the steam is done thru the inner tube : the one _without_ the water remember. that way you can lead any if ever any hot steam .

[P.C.]

"how much do you think 100+ stories of water weighs? "

Who say I have to do it the most stupid way , and connect all these 100 stories , gee they don't do that with _anything_ already in a highrise , each this and that many stories are une unit , then ontop there are one more guess why, as else the preasure turn to high even to bring water in one pipe.

Why shuld I then want to do it the most silli way, when this can acturly provide a more firesafe building with just a bit thought, by acturly protecting the core structure. and nothing else.

[P.C.]

Bside I tell you one thing for sure --- if there was water like I describe it cirtainly would start to flow heavy , as soon part of the water was heated ; the heat you expect to fabricate huge quantities of steam would rush around untill it fast was cooled just heating up the inner shell tube , gee water work that way, and from what I know a water cooled steel structure already been tested it work "but due to higher manufactoring costs aso aso," --- but that have changed havn't it, remember it is to expensive within any known building method, guess the best thing then would be a new method that would accomblish this feature with a greater strength as side effect.

[mx2]

[Richard Haut]

and WTC 7 ?

sorry, folks, but three towers collapsed that day.

like Eugene, I offer no theory on this, but I know that no fast-flying aluminium tube and kerosene (and sadly people) brought down WTC 7. And I see a lot of inconsistencies in the explanations of how the Twin Towers came down.

Many have tried to explain how the buildings collapsed based on what we were told happened.

However what is needed is an explanation of how these buildings could have collapsed in the manner, at the speeds, and with the timing that they did collapse. Just that, and only that - and then perhaps we could see if that does, or does not, fit with the version that we have been fed.

[am_i_wry]

WTC7 had a damaged exterior skin and fires that were allowed to burn as firefighters were pulled out. Serious fire allowed to spread unchecked and structural damage. Those are extreme circumstances and while i wont pretend to understand or know the exact reasons for the failure i think that its dangerous to give the wild conspiracy theories any credence. Most of those are based on false premises, selective use of information and lies.

[Richard Haut]

am_i_wry, I agree with you about the wildness of many conspiracy theories, but I am not suggesting any such theories.

insurance companies are not famed for following wild and extreme notions - and they do not appear to accept that WTC7 came down as a result of terrorism.

did it simply burn down ? it would have made construction history if it had.

the selective use of information is what causes confusion which is why it appears to be sensible to look for a realistic explanation of what could have made these three buildings come down as they did. If that fits the "official" explanations, then fine - but few seem to think that it could.

therefore it would appear that there is something that we have yet to learn.

[Architorture]

[Richard Haut]

I have not offered any alternative explanation at all - sinister or otherwise.

No, I do not consider the effects of the Pentagon attack to be similar. Part of the building was severely damaged and - from what I and others have seen - most seem to accept that the level and type of damage are consistent with the impact.

That does not appear to be the case with the attacks on the Twin Towers - and the resulting collapse of three towers.

And in considering the collapse of the two main towers, of course a realistic explanation is needed for the collapse of WTC7. (I did not mention any "planned" destruction).

As for being concerned with the fate of those who died, I would just point out that what you misrepresent as the "common version" is actually a version put out by the self-same people who deliberately and calculatedly lied to get your nation involved in a war. It is not a "common version".

The only way to show respect for those who died is to find out what really happened - and no, I do not find the explanation officially put out to be credible. Could I be wrong ? Certainly.

But to pretend that the collapse of the third tower is somehow irrelevant and should not be bothered about is more an indication that what you are really saying is that people should not look too closely at what happened to WTC7. And my answer to that is: no way.

[mx2]

[mx2]

BTW, just read several conspiracy theories ranging from the building (WTC 7) was "pulled" (purposefully destroyed in order to contain the fire), to missiles shot, to diesel engines exploding, to pre-planted bombs...etc, etc

mx2

[Architorture]

i didn't disregard WTC7 i simply said that there isn't alot of mystery about its demise...

when was it that fire suddenly became such a non-issue in buildings as it seems to be being treated by some here... a fire is an extremely dangerous event inside a building and is probably the single most powerful driving force in the creation and enforcement of building codes... it is no accident that the building code more or less forces someone to install a sprinkler system if they build anything over 3 stories tall... b/c even in a structure under 50' in height is at great risk when it comes to a fire event...

and if WTC 7 was not brought down in a planned manner and was not brought down by structural failure due to fire... then what options are still available?

[Architorture]

and how about the inverse question.... why should have WTC 1/2 stood up through the entire event?

and just for some needed perspective... it has been a couple of years since the roof collapse at charles de gaulle airport in paris-an exponentially simpler situation than the WTC- and what did they come up with for the reason for collapse? the entire structure was built simply too close to the structural limitations of the design and a variety of other issues including costs and schedules

now lets compare that to the scenario that birthed the WTC...a huge commercial development in one of the worlds busiest cities...the structure was designed for speed and economy of construction...now factor in 30 years of technological advancement and almost 1000 feet and its no wonder that failure would be a distinct possibility in a catostrophic fire...