No announcement yet.

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?

    Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? By Morgan Reynolds - Former Member Of The Bush Administration
    For More Information Concerning 9/11 Visit:


    "It didn’t seem real… There are thousands of these steel beams that just fell like pickup sticks."

    ~ John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer

    "What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."

    ~ Michael Henderson (p. 93),
    General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE

    To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–1Cool offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

    First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.

    Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199–200) the same thing.

    Third, the impact opening was 15 floors lower in the South Tower than in the North Tower, where core columns were thicker, so the South Tower fire had to produce more heat to raise the steel temperatures to soften up (thermally weaken) the steel columns. Yet its fires were considerably smaller and 30 minutes shorter in duration. The Tower collapsed after burning only 56 minutes. A prime candidate to explain why "the wrong tower fell first" is that the small dying fire in the South Tower forced the hand of the mass murderers who decided to trigger demolition earlier than planned in order to sustain the lie that fire caused the collapse. The North Tower stood for another 29 minutes and its core steel was thinner at its upper stories. The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors. It did not collapse.

    Fourth, implicitly trying to explain away these difficulties, the current NIST investigation, conducted by "an extended investigation team of 236 people," makes "dislodged fireproofing" the key variable to explain the collapses. Supposedly, "the probable collapse sequence for the WTC towers are (sic) based on the behavior of thermally weakened structural components that had extensive damage to fireproofing or gypsum board fire protection induced by the debris field generated by aircraft impact" (p. 111). "Had fireproofing not been dislodged by debris field," this team of government-paid experts claims, "temperature rise of structural components would likely have been insufficient to induce global collapse" (p. 108). Perhaps acknowledging the lack of direct evidence for its conjectures, the NIST admits that "a full collapse of the WTC floor system would not occur even with a number of failed trusses or connections" and it "recognizes inherent uncertainties" (pp. 110 and 112). The NIST will have to boost its creativity to plausibly explain the WTC 7 collapse because it won’t have the benefit of tales of aircraft and debris fields.

    Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:

    * Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).
    * By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
    * The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires.
    * FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
    * Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.

    Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts:

    1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
    2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
    3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
    4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
    5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
    6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
    7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

    Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

    1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).

    2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
    3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
    4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.
    5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
    6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
    7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
    8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
    9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
    10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
    11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).

    Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.

    A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret.

    Why would the killers destroy WTC-7, especially since a collapse would arouse suspicion in some quarters? A logical if unproven theory is that the perpetrators used Mayor Giuliani’s sealed OEM "bunker" on the 23d story of WTC-7 to conduct the twin tower implosions and then destroyed the building and evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a murderer might set his victim’s dwelling ablaze to cover up the crime (one in four fires is arson). Giuliani’s "undisclosed secret location" was perfect because it had been evacuated by 9:45 a.m. on 9/11, it enabled unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could withstand winds of 160 mph, necessary protection from the wind blasts generated by collapsing skyscrapers.

    There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.

    If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up.

    It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely prove to be sound. Revised engineering and construction practices, for example, based on the belief that the twin towers collapsed through airplane damage and subsequent fires is premature, to say the least.

    More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall." Unfortunately, getting it right in today’s "security state" demands daring because explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.

  • #2
    anyone who believes that fire caused "structural damage" that led to a perfect rapid collapse is ignorant to the facts and gullible enough to take a government agency report for granted... Does anyone really believe a vague theory about the effects of the crashes and the presumption that "collapse initiation" automatically lead to "global collapse"? Must have been the rapid spread of "column instability" in perimeter columns straining the core columns and the TREMENDOUS ENERGY of the floors above the collapse zone which led to the "global collapse"!!!

    Building 7:

    Windsor Building (an older building with less thick steel beams, and it burned for 48 hours with flames shooting up hundreds of feet into the sky):

    Last edited by Cryptic; 09-03-2005, 11:56 PM.


    • #3
      why doesn't everyone hate the Suadi's yet?
      the last vet.before everyone got vetted
      Originally posted by MarshallArts
      Who's got you quoted in their sigs? Are they as equally worthy as those that have sigged me? I just can't imagine it.


      • #4
        you believe saudi's got NORAD to stand down? do you know that 7 of those 19 'saudi hijackers' are ALIVE?


        None of the hijackers' names even appeared on the passanger lists!!! You don't believe me? Here... :


        And in September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."

        FBI names 19 'hijackers' RIGHT AWAY and people believe it like it's 100% true.. that became the official story merely by constant repition...
        Last edited by Cryptic; 09-04-2005, 12:23 AM.


        • #5
          I get attacked for paying respect to the late Chief Justice during a Natural Disaster, but your aloud to keep posting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory's. I'm never responding to one of these threads again, Payne you are a lost individual with absolutely to concept of reality.


          • #6
            didnt know CNN was conspiracy.


            • #7
              don't believe those Communist News Network LIES!!! BLASPHEMY


              • #8
                Originally posted by Delinquent Fait
                didnt know CNN was conspiracy.
                lol you know how mindless this idiot is... we're the ones whos out of touch with reality when in his reality a few fires can cause an overengineered building to collapse within a couple of hours and a passport of a 'hijacker' can be just magically found next to the WTC wreckage.


                • #9
                  I was the second guman on the grassy knoll, believe that.

                  “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 260).


                  • #10


                    Post ad widget 300x250


                    LATEST POSTS


                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Steve--O, 08-09-2005, 06:30 PM
                    52 responses
                    Last Post OlmanGrand  
                    Started by Deborahlanker, Today, 10:52 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    Last Post Deborahlanker  
                    Started by vibration, Today, 12:21 AM
                    0 responses
                    1 view
                    Last Post vibration  
                    Started by vibration, Today, 12:19 AM
                    0 responses
                    Last Post vibration  
                    Started by Deborahlanker, Yesterday, 12:27 PM
                    0 responses
                    Last Post Deborahlanker  
                    Started by Deborahlanker, Yesterday, 11:16 AM
                    0 responses
                    Last Post Deborahlanker  
                    Started by Deborahlanker, Yesterday, 10:26 AM
                    0 responses
                    Last Post Deborahlanker  
                    Started by Michenldlsan, 06-19-2019, 12:39 AM
                    5 responses
                    Last Post davidwalker4152  
                    Started by qgjaplgs, Yesterday, 06:11 AM
                    0 responses
                    Last Post qgjaplgs  
                    Started by FrankCobalt, 11-25-2020, 10:47 PM
                    1 response
                    Last Post Doro
                    by Doro