why didnt the second tower collapse to one side?

[themadness]

if i am not mistaken the second tower was predominately struck on one side and close to a corner. the building of course collapsed straight down. why didnt the corner and side that was hit collapse first, causing the upper levels to fall to that side? similarly to the way a tree would fall if you chopped or cut on one side. it seems to me that the area where the plane hit would burn hotter than the areas further away causing that side to weaken first. even if explosive thermite charges were fired off that side still would be weaker wouldnt it?

if this has been discussed b4 i apoligize.

my wife also brought up the idea that the explosives may have been put in while the building was constructed as fail safe in case the towers were ever hit. how likely would that be?

[poncho]

I highly doubt they would ever have put in explosives when it was built.   The odds of some kind of accident triggering a collapse would be too high.

But as too your first question, it is something we all have wondered about.  If you look closely in the video's, the building did start to slide in one direction.   But then the whole thing collapses underneath the collapse.

The result defied the laws of physics.  The momentum of the slide towards the weakened side should have carried a stronger push of debris and collapse on that side. 

But of coarse, the sheeple, side with the 911 commision and Popular Mechanics, in that pancaking caused it!
Ya...... right.

[firefly]

I've thought that for years, you can actually see it starting to fall at an angle, and then vaporizes into the dust. I think it's more of a smoking gun, than building seven (not to belittle anything). Because the building is off balance, you can't use the pancake theory to explain it.

[tjw3128]

the building collapsed in on it self cuz it was built to watched a history channel thing of a pro construction guy and he said most tall buildings are made so they collapse in on themselves so if blown up or hit it wont cause damage in like mile radiuses. think of it like a pyramid if it took any major structural damages the way its built it would collapse in on itself insted of toppling over cuz of how it is built with the opre parts in the middle and the peak. the world trade center towers were built like a reg building with steek and all but that steel was placed at certian specific angles pointing inward even small angle could make it collapse in on itself and being they were sum the highest buildings in ny it was made to do that so it didnt possibally crash onto over 10 blocks of buisnesses and all. look up how it was built that will explain it better

[firefly]

No, the top section of the building was leaning and was on the verge of going off the side when the demolition began.

[tjw3128]

ya it prob hit the fall point where it falls in. home experment. take a big bod thats sturdy. put a peice of wood inside and cut a door into the box on 1 side. put a chair on where the door is and the wood holding that door chut then lean the chait on 2 legs and pull the wood out. chair falls in box (sry to give away the answer to the test but meh) the hole building aint set to implode only certian points on it certian floors so when it hits that implode point rest coems down in on that giveing that the building didnt start falling on ground floor

[themadness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjMLLTKlc5w


if you have seen this vid it seems at around 1:30 you can see an explosion just above the plane's entry point and then one just below the entry point. the tower does lean a little, but it just seems to me that it would have fell all the way to that side.

i also found this vid interesting (may be old news). a building demo from top down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CsSXPCGjww


9/11 frustrates the shit out of me, seeing as all the red flags and obvious lies are right in front of everyone and most of the country buys the bullshit story. even 9 years later with all the evidence people still dont get it.

[tjw3128]

it aitn the falling that matters though look up any skyscraper building design they are all designed to fall in on themselves to minimizedamage to surroundings

but for the blowing up theory here ya go food for thought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion

In the controlled demolition industry, building implosion is the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds, minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings.

[themadness]

does a top to bottom detonation produce a different result as from bottom up as far as falling in its own foot print?


i also came across this from loosechange forums. seems questionable and maybe old news but its an interesting image i havent seen b4.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1967037/1/

any thoughts?

[firefly]

You can see the tilt in these pics

[themadness]

not to beat a dead horse....

but those pics IMO are proof of explosives. my simple mind thinks that leaning section should have just slid off. it doesnt seem that part of the building would be enough to pancake the rest.

[jimd3100]

the building collapsed in on it self cuz it was built to watched a history channel thing of a pro construction guy and he said most tall buildings are made so they collapse in on themselves so if blown up or hit it wont cause damage in like mile radiuses. think of it like a pyramid if it took any major structural damages the way its built it would collapse in on itself insted of toppling over cuz of how it is built with the opre parts in the middle and the peak. the world trade center towers were built like a reg building with steek and all but that steel was placed at certian specific angles pointing inward even small angle could make it collapse in on itself and being they were sum the highest buildings in ny it was made to do that so it didnt possibally crash onto over 10 blocks of buisnesses and all. look up how it was built that will explain it better

Office buildings are not made to kill the people inside in case there is a fire.

These buildings were made to be hit by large aircraft......

"Saturday, February 27, 1993

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

"We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer."

"Skilling, based in Seattle, is among the world's top structural engineers. He is responsible for much of Seattle's downtown skyline and for several of the world's tallest structures, including the Trade Center."

"Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707."

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."

Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

Skilling was the lead designer and strongly implies in this quote that the fires were analyzed, when conducting the building study.

Skilling:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698


The Port Authority released a white paper in 1964 referencing the analysis done on the structure of the WTC.

"Salient points with regard to the structural design of The World Trade Center Towers" was the low-key title on the white paper in the Port Authority's files. Below the title were eleven numbered points on the structure, beginning with ..
1. The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings." At the end of the three page document was the notation "MPL:fg" above the date "2-3-64" meaning that the white paper had been typed for Malcom P. Levy by his secretary, Florence Grainger, on February 3, 1964.

...halfway down the first page, the paper contained this astonishing statement:

   "3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8)traveling 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage to the building and would not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." page 131
http://www.amazon.com/City-Sky-World-Trade-Center/dp/0805074287

The buildings were made to withstand plane impacts, and a detailed study was done, explaining why.......

1. The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington Skilling Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1,200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings."
http://www.amazon.com/City-Sky-World-Trade-Center/dp/0805074287

So what does NIST say about this study?.....

"However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[tjw3128]

does a top to bottom detonation produce a different result as from bottom up as far as falling in its own foot print?


i also came across this from loosechange forums. seems questionable and maybe old news but its an interesting image i havent seen b4.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1967037/1/

any thoughts?

an explosion at the top of a building gives it a better chance to catch it self and fall in on itself. a explosion at the bottom gives a better chance of the building falling say a wind gust catches with just enough force to push it 1 direction just 1 degree then it all starts goin on. my idea on 9/11 was they hit it with something just in the place so it would fall the way it did if it was a terrorist act then they woulda flown in the country and made a bomb in nyc walked in on diff days hidden the stuff in parts of 1 floor and put it all together at once to set it up and done it low to ground floor causeing the most destruction possibal insted of just a few buildings y not lay the towers over on half of ny and killing all in the towers and others arround them for miles? insted it was hit at the top in a place where the fall in on itself effect would work and not cause miles of devistation and its easier to make a bomb here or sumtin than just happen to coordnate takeing over like 4 planes at once and crashing them into a building. killing the flight ppl haveing a piolt and co piolt that knew the specifications of that plane model as all are diff to fly in sum ways. all that would take years and years of planning or more and money to train ppl on it and all sorts of stuff and notice b4 9/11 ya never herd of the taliban or al quida or any of that really

[tritonman]

Office buildings are not made to kill the people inside in case there is a fire.

These buildings were made to be hit by large aircraft......

The buildings were made to withstand plane impacts, and a detailed study was done, explaining why.......

[

This ::)as I look up to a voice of reason finally/

[poncho]

tjw3128 Riddle me this:

If you believe the pancaking theory, explain how the collapse was uniform all the way down for both buildings?

Specfically, the meat of the riddle to me, is that with the pancaking, the force exherted on all floors would be uniform, if not linear.
Think of it this way:  The floor being hit by debris, is absorbing the force from above.  But it is also passing down this force along the guirders to the beams below as well.  And that means the the bottom floors beams are completly absorbing the impact blows of each floors collapse, without collapsing themselves (at least until the debris arrives.)  Now compound the bottom floors absorbing this impact of all the debris, including some of the debris hitting at terminal velocity, with the fact that those same bottom floors are still supporting the weight of all the floors that haven't collapsed.   

This, logically to me, makes no sense.   If the pancaking theory was true, we should see some other floors collapsing before the debris arrives.  This would be even more so, if there were any places of defect in the buildings.

[jimd3100]

I would like to point out that when the Government wanted these buildings built on land donated by the Rockefellers, they were telling people who made concerns known that these buildings would be able to take passenger jet hits.
When the buildings were hit with passenger jets on 9-11 the Government then said, "yup, that's what happens due to the fires"

Gov pre 9-11 speaking through the Port Authority....

The Port Authority released a white paper in 1964 referencing the analysis done on the structure of the WTC....

"3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner  (Boeing 707-DC 8)traveling 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage to the building and would not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." page 131
http://www.amazon.com/City-Sky-World-Trade-Center/dp/0805074287

Gov speaking through NIST after 9-11...("Study? What study? We can't find any study").....

"However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

What would be interesting is if Skillings firm could be contacted and see if their records have a copy of this study.....one would assume NIST tried that though......right?