9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
23 Dec 2007

Photos added by travellerev

This is the Windsor tower in Madrid a steel framed building similar to the Twin towers which  burned for over 24 hours in a raging fire and did not collapse. As you can see the heat was much hotter than the fires in the Twin Towers. yet it did not collapse in 10 seconds into pulverised dust. In fact it was strong enough to carry a crane on top.

This is the plane impact hole of the North Tower, the tower that got hit first. In the red box you see the minute figure of a human being.

She died in the collapse but she left us something valuable. She testifies to the fact that the fires were not hot at all. She could stand in the hole, with her clothes and hair not being on fire, and she could hold on to the metal. (travellerev)

Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre
could not have collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause asserted in the NIST report,
namely damage from plane impact and fire.
1
The bases of these arguments include the rapidity
and symmetry of collapse,
2
the adequacy of the steel supports,
3
and the finding of incendiary
residues in the dust.
4
It has also been argued that the initiating event in the official explanation,
the sudden collapse of one storey,
1
could not have occurred because the steel was not hot
enough.
5
This argument is based on data set out in the NIST report itself.

There is another argument, as will be described here, that is based simply on the behaviour of
hot steel under load. No calculations are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the
steel is required.

In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two stages. In the first stage one storey,
damaged by plane impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the section of the tower
above to fall freely down and hit the lower section. In the second stage the energy of this
impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the lower section to disintegrate. This material
adds to the falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to continue in a rapid sequence
all the way to the ground.
6
Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage. There are some damaged columns,
some fire, and a claimed lack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor in the building
design, the number of damaged columns is far too few to put the buildings at risk without the
fire. This is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.
1, 7
We will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its
conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume the strongest case for the official
theory: the fire was uniform over the whole area and very hot.

Read more

About these ads

6 thoughts on “9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

  1. Pingback: A free website. Type your name and see what alphabet pictures would come up

  2. Pingback: Edna Cintron the Waving Woman of 911 « Aotearoa: a wider perspective

  3. Commontater,

    I just Googled 911 truth one day over two years ago for a bit of a dare. I didn’t take it serious at all but as I started to watch the movies and finding out more it became increasingly clear that there was something terribly wrong with the official version of the events on that day.

    It took me about four months before I could admit to myself that I could not believe the official Conspiracy theory any more. I has been one of the most scary and lonely transition periods in my life. I knew Governments lie and cheat and that sort of goes with the territory but this is just pure evil and it is getting worse. So I understand that it shook you. At least you are willing to look at the evidence. So many don’t. So thank you for that.

    As for the other face, Yes I see it too.

    In this post I wrote as a reaction to your legitimate question I have a link in which you see Edna actually wave at the helicopter who filmed her.

    I had a look at your blog and like it. In fact I used the same template for a blog called http://creazyrichguy.wordpress.com about Cheney, Blackwater and 911. I had to stop that one because am now a full time 911 truth activist and this blog is all I have time for.

  4. ‘ello again. Thanks for the video link which I’ll be watching shortly. I must follow-up by asking you if you saw the other face in the “still” down (floor level?) to the left of Edna Cintron? The other “face” is to the right of the 2nd building strutt (?, or whatever they call ‘em). It appears to be the face of a partially bald man with a double chin and open-mouthed? Like I said, I had to use a magnifying glass to see both figures’ faces. The other face is also flesh-colored in the “still” above.

    Thanks for commenting on my response so quickly. This really shook me up. I’m of the mind that the “report” is pure bullsh*t and another attempt to distract and deflect from the awful reality of the truth.

  5. I used a magnifying glass to see if there really is a woman standing there and indeed it looks like there is – and there’s also a face to the left of her down near where the floor would be. I’m interested in whether this photo is an actual photo or a photo that has been photoshopped. If it’s genuine, then sure raises questions about the official outcome of this investigation, IMHO.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s