Im digusted...

[prymetyme]

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[StrikerCW]

If they had hit it lower it would have come down sooner.. not that thats important. Just a simple common sense conclusion I came up with.

[prymetyme]

yeah which is why the south tower came down first, there was more weight on the buckeling I beams holding the core togather.

[johno]

I can't read through the entire thread and I don't usually go for conspiracy theories but I never completely rule them out either.

My main problem is the implosion of the buildings. People work long and hard setting proper demo charges to get buildings to implode like that. I'm far from being a whiz in physics but I'm not a fool, I'd like someone better qualifyed to explain to me why/how it was so easy for a plane to take out a tower each, in much the same fashion with as much precision and ease as was apparent.

[SirManchester]

I can't read through the entire thread and I don't usually go for conspiracy theories but I never completely rule them out either.

My main problem is the implosion of the buildings. People work long and hard setting proper demo charges to get buildings to implode like that. I'm far from being a whiz in physics but I'm not a fool, I'd like someone better qualifyed to explain to me why/how it was so easy for a plane to take out a tower each, in much the same fashion with as much precision and ease as was apparent.

I'm with you on that, the designer of the twin towers said it himself in an interview, they were specifically built to withstand such impact. In other words, no plane would make it implode or collapse, but somehow that happened. And from the replays, It appears that the towers started imploding from bottom up, which also doesn't make much sense at all.

[prymetyme]

Im not better qualified, but from my knowledge heres what happened?

The way the twin towers were build was basically all of the pressure (being wind, or any type of blow such as an explosion) is put on the core of the tower. The I'beams and trusses are suppose to sustain that. When a plane struck the tower, the intense heat loostened the bolts on the Ibeams holding them to the core, and made them buckle. Instead of the weight of the tower being distrubited on the core, it was straight down all over the tower and the core (which had no support). That caused the towers to collapse.

Correct me if Im wrong I watched the video a while back, but I think I got the general picture right.

[Achtung]

I'm with you on that, the designer of the twin towers said it himself in an interview, they were specifically built to withstand such impact. In other words, no plane would make it implode or collapse, but somehow that happened. And from the replays, It appears that the towers started imploding from bottom up, which also doesn't make much sense at all.

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Saying "no plane would make it implode or collapse" is just ridiculous, not to mention impossible. The planes that hit were larger and travelling much faster (they reportedly were close to disintegrating before hitting the towers). And that's before you account for the fire that severely weakened the main structure.

The initial explosions would have occured where the structure first gave way. That would be more likely to be at the bottom, where the greatest downward force was applied.

[prymetyme]

Yes, and with the amount of jet fule it carried over a trans american flight the predicted explostion was much less then what it actually was.

[SirManchester]

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Saying "no plane would make it implode or collapse" is just ridiculous, not to mention impossible. The planes that hit were larger and travelling much faster (they reportedly were close to disintegrating before hitting the towers). And that's before you account for the fire that severely weakened the main structure.

The initial explosions would have occured where the structure first gave way. That would be more likely to be at the bottom, where the greatest downward force was applied.


I simply don't agree with anything you've just said because none of your points apply to what actually happened and that's fair enough, ultimately its your word against that of the designer of both buildings.

[prymetyme]

I simply don't agree with anything you've just said because none of your points apply to what actually happened and that's fair enough, ultimately its your word against that of the designer of both buildings.

How can you not agree with a plane being bigger then what they thought would happen with a smaller one? This wasnt a 707 it was a 757. Thats bigger.

[prymetyme]

Someone also said the Titanic Couldnt Sink, look what happened there.

[SirManchester]

How can you not agree with a plane being bigger then what they thought would happen with a smaller one? This wasnt a 707 it was a 757. Thats bigger.

don't you get it?! it was designed with all aircrafts in mind. Let me say it again, all types of aircrafts were taken under consideration with its design and construction.

Regardless, the buildings came down way too quick and just look at the way in which they did, if it indeed came down from bottom up, then how in the hell did it happen so quick? If they were designed to withstand such impact, surely they'd taken longer to actually collapse. Historically speaking, many other buildings were hit with such force, and some with even more force and it took them days at times to collapse. Now mind you, the WTC is the largest of them all and they came down the quickest.

[johno]

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707. Saying "no plane would make it implode or collapse" is just ridiculous, not to mention impossible. The planes that hit were larger and travelling much faster (they reportedly were close to disintegrating before hitting the towers). And that's before you account for the fire that severely weakened the main structure.

The initial explosions would have occured where the structure first gave way. That would be more likely to be at the bottom, where the greatest downward force was applied.

That's helpful and good to know, but the problem is that for the buildings, BOTH of them went down SO cleanly. I mean the chances of the plane striking the building so perfectly that leftside wasn't affected more than the right side by the impact or that a fire didn't start due to jetfuel or electrical means on one side of the support frame and as such cause ANY kind of imbalance is miniscule.

I think there's a chance that it happened that way, but I'm very skeptical.

[johno]

Also, I'm not going to get into a serious argument about this because a) its time for Rugby and b) I'm really not qualifyed to make assumptions about these things, like I said, physics isn't my thing and I like everybody on this forum way too much to disagree about anything other than football.

[prymetyme]

I agree, and the way I see them come down cleanly is that the core just couldnt support the tower so everything fell straight down the middle.

SirManc- It couldnt have been tested for a 757 going nearly 600mph with that much fuel. It was just a impossible cenario to picutre. On the radar they thought the hijiacked planes were us fighter jets the way they were moving, and like somone said the plane was almost about the discintigrate in mid air.

[MtP07]

I'm not going to name names, but there are some really, really, really dumb things being said in this thread. I'll leave it at that until my sanity forces me to do otherwise.

:D :D :D

[SirManchester]

SirManc- It couldnt have been tested for a 757 going nearly 600mph with that much fuel. It was just a impossible cenario to picutre. On the radar they thought the hijiacked planes were us fighter jets the way they were moving, and like somone said the plane was almost about the discintigrate in mid air.

Oh ok, so in designing and constructing these gigantic monuments, keeping in mind how important they would be to the country's economy, you don't think they took ever precaution neccessary? Because they did, the WTC weren't like any other sky scrapers you know. And that thing about the planes nearly disintegrating in mid-air, sorry but I'm not buying it.

[prymetyme]

Im just saying what Ive read and what Ive been told. What I learned and experienced that day changed me and from that day I became a strong Bush supporter. I just dont think the goverment came up with some large plot to make this happen. Nobody except Bin Laden and his terror network are responsible for this.

[SirManchester]

Im just saying what Ive read and what Ive been told. What I learned and experienced that day changed me and from that day I became a strong Bush supporter. I just dont think the goverment came up with some large plot to make this happen. Nobody except Bin Laden and his terror network are responsible for this.

I'll just say one last thing; you're a prized possesion for Bush and his administration, so I guess it works out for ya, and also; propaganda loves you my friend.

[Stud83]

don't you get it?! it was designed with all aircrafts in mind. Let me say it again, all types of aircrafts were taken under consideration with its design and construction.


The only problem with your logic is that the construction of the WTC was finished 10 years before the first ever Boeing 767 was produced.