Did the World Trade Center towers fall too quickly for the damage done to them?

Question

I am not asking about the delay (several minutes) between impact and collapse, which was very different for the two buildings. That is exceedingly complex. The first building hit was the last to fall. What I want to know is from initial movement toward the ground to the pile of rubble (less than 15 seconds), was the time involved consistent with building failure in your judgement. Plenty of time. Way too fast. Your thoughts, please.

Please continue to answer however you may. I just think, personally, that the structures involved in the collapse behaved strangely. A tower by its very nature is top-heavy. If it were not anchored it would fall over much like a pencil that you stand on end and let go. So if the WTC has buckling of some frame members which sets off subsequent total buckling/collapse why does the building go straight down. There was a huge airplane smashed up into one side of each building yet it did not list to one side or the other or appear chaotic. The airplane's weight is not significant to that of the building, but it carved out a hole in the building. I would think that would produce failures just above and just below the impact zone first. So the collapse would tip the structure toward the impacted area. The 9-11 commission report might as well have said the WTC buildings were assembled like Jenga blocks and the plane knocked one out and it fell down. Jenga however doesn't fall that way.

Answer 1

you bet your hooty patooties they did..

them towers just crumbled much the same way Tower 7, later crumbled.. that is after Larry Silverstein the towers owners.. admited on fox that he "pulled it" in other words.. the owner of the twin towers, admitted after they collapsed that a smaller tower, had to be "pulled" .. this footage was later removed and never shown again.. BUT for Tower 7 to have been "pulled" it had ot have been rigged with explosives first!! Obviously Larry overlooked that bit.. and no wonder Fox have NEVER shown that footage again.. but you can buy it on any number of 9/11 DVD's.. the footage is available for all to see.. and believe me.. Larry says " we pulled Tower 7" I heard it!!

so you bet your hooty patooties that them towers defied a few laws of gravity, growth and decay principles, chaos theory too.. they just fell nicely into a neat pile.. one after the other.. then tower 7 was "pulled" by Larry Silverstein the owner.. nice one.. oh and Bush's brother was chief of security at the twin towers till two days before they fell.. just thought i'd add that in..

Answer 2

the official government line.
The floors weakened and fell like domino's pancake style and by some oddity of phyisics that is yet undiscovered, fell at free fall speed while turning into dust before it even got to the ground.

What any common person saw on video.

As the fires burned themselves out, the buildings were vaporized by explosives in a chain going off starting around the impact area and working down. This blasted the concret into dust before it could even reach the ground and caused the suction that brought what was left down at freefall speed.

The people in power in our country right now are NOT public servants..they are corrupt rulers and they wanted justification to remove our rights so they could start their worldwide domination.

Sorry, the truth hurts...it hurts me as well.

Answer 3

The trade center buildings were designed like hollow tubes. The outside of the building was steel and concrete, there was more steel and concrete in the center of the building where the elevator shafts were, and everything else was held up by that. It was a great design for it's time, but it was also a design that caused the buildings to fall very quickly when the top of them started to collapse.

The top of the building fell into the "tube", and the tube expanded outward. This allowed them to fall very rapidly.

Just because we have never seen a building that big fall doesn't mean those buildings were rigged from the inside...

Answer 4

Way too fast? Basically the buildings should not have collapsed at all. Especially not straight down, at nearly the speed of gravity. They were designed to withstand multiple collisions by aircraft roughly the size of a 767. They had 47 massive steel columns at their center core, and these, at least should have remained standing; no reason for these columns to have been sliced into pieces as the were, along with all the other supporting steel columns and side beams. How could fire from the top floors (which burned away in a matter of minutes and were small enough that firefighters said they could be put out with one water line) have melted ALL the hundreds of steel columns from the bottom floors, in addition to the central columns I have mentioned? In order for the buildings to fall at the speed they did, the bottom floors would have to collapse slightly before the upper floors, removing all resistance for the top floors as they come down, as is done in controlled demolitions with explosives (in which the purpose is to have buildings fall straight down, so as not to harm other buildings in the area)

Here is what buildings look like which collapse from reasons other than controlled demolition:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/060705compareandcontrast.htm

The 911 Commission report, which was micromanaged by an insider from the Bush administration, who controlled what information was released, and withheld a lot of testimony which was troubling. The Commission reported that the WTC Twin Towers were hollow at their center, which was a blatant lie.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html?main=/mindx/show_thread.php?rootID%3D35452%26o%3Ddate

Furthermore, watching the videos of the WTC buildings collapsing, you can see billowing clouds of fine dust spew out. This is all of the concrete on the outside of the buildings, plus all of the office equipment, furniture, computers, etc. inside the buildings, being pulverized into fine dust, in mid-air, before it even hits the ground. Analysis of the rubble found no pieces of concrete or office equipment bigger than 2 inches square. How did the fire on the top floors of these 100 plus story buildings disintegrate all the concrete on the floors below, as the buildings collapsed?

There were large quantities of molten metal in the basement of the rubble, which smoldered for MONTHS. The burning fuel from the airplanes was used up in seconds after the impact, the fires on the top floors were not hot enough to keep people off of those floors, people are seen standing in the openinigs made by the planes, waving for help; if it was hot enough to melt steel, it would have been intolerably hot, and the people themselves would melt from heat.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU&search=911%20revisited

The official story does not explain what happened to those buildings. Controlled demolition with pre-positioned explosives does.

FOR THE PEOPLE CLAIMING THE CENTER OF THE BUILDINGS WAS "A HOLLOW TUBE": (one can understand them claiming this; since it is a central lie of the 911 Commission report): here is a picture of the towers being constructed with the massive central core columns that I have mentioned, being visible)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

P.S. I have not even mentioned the WTC7 building, a 47-story building (tall, in any town) which collapsed the same way, later that afternoon. It was not hit by any airplane, and had only small fires burning on a couple of floors. It housed offices of the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, Rudy Gulliani's emergency response center, and the IRS. Financial records relating to the Enron scandal were destroyed in the collapse of this building.

Answer 5

No, it didn't. Tall skyscrapers are mostly empty space and built with light materials in order to conserve weight. Amount of materials also keep adding as each floors caved one by one. Hitting next floors with more weight each time. And the design made it easy to pancake like the way it did. WTC designers, architechs did not see anything unusual. As you know it is their reputation and they would be the first to say something if they saw their own building go down in unusual way. Actual frame by frame calculations did show it fell very fast, but not at free fall speed as some claim.

Answer 6

If there was a conspiracy, the who exactly is in on it? The tower that was hit second was hit on a lower floor, which created the conditions that caused it to collapse sooner than the tower hit earlier. Btw, I was a few blocks away when the first tower collapsed, and crossing the Manhattan Bridge with thousands of people when the second one collapsed.

Answer 7

All that you have to do is check the number of floors involved and compare it to the gravitational pull of the earth to get your velocity.Those buildings fell from a direct hit by two fully fueled passenger jets smashing into them, it is that simple.

Answer 8

Please consider the fact that until 9/11/01, we had no experience with the unplanned collapse of very tall buildings. Thus everything that happened that day was something that had never happened before. I was surprised at how it looked, but I have no doubts that things happened pretty much as stated.

Answer 9

What is the "correct" way for it to fall? Who in here is an expert on building collapse?

Answer 10

when the first plane hit it hit about the 95th floor 2nd plane hit about 90th floor fire weaken the steel beams they got super hot melted collapsing the floors above the fires causing a domino effect the buildes fell down