The load balancing that you are talking about comes into play primarily in the case of earthquakes. Structures are designed to sway with the earthquake tremor slightly by means of a flexible base movement arrangement at the foundation. This allows the building to slightly sway and distribute the shock rather than staying rigid and risking collpse at weak points in the buildings.

If WTC was as meticulously planned as you believe, don't you think it should've balanced the weight properly and avoided the collapse of the undamaged parts? Only a few top floors were damaged, a well designed and engineered builing, you'd imagine would cope with it, wouldn't you? A well designed building should allow as minumum damage as possible, not get the whole stucture down.


What about fires due to explosions? Gas cylinder and other fuel related explosions can cause major fires. Are you telling me that these scenarios are so unimaginable that they wouldn't be a part of a good fire disaster recovery plan?


You couldn't have predicted it:yes. You couldn't prevent the plane crashes:yes. You could've still saved a considerable part of the buildings:oh Yes!


You're saying an explosion at one corner of a squarish structure would distribute fuel to all the portions evenly(in such a huge area that too), causing even and regular damage to the top floors by weakening all the steel structures equally and evenly, causing them to give way simultaneously and bringing WTC straight down? Wow! This wasn't the case as we already know: the fires were irregular, the top floors burnt irregularly and the damage was irregular, and it amazes me that you still think that the fall would be regular. It also amazes me how easily you undermine the huge resistance that the outnumbering intact floors would offer to prevent the collapse.


Exactly! In the case of WTC, they wanted it to come straight down to minimise huge quantities of scattering rubble and prevent damage to other buildings around.


Gravity off course aquatus1 but common sense tells us that irregularly damaged tall buildings would see a good portions of it fall sidewards down when an unplanned collapse occurs.

Take four long pins, arrange them(standing up) as in a square and place some weight on the top. Now, snap one of the pins at the top using pliers. Still expect the weight to come straight down?

No, the load balancing that I am talking about is inherent to the building, not designed primarily around a base structure. The visco-elastic dampers at the Base of the towers were passive in nature, intended to deal with the sudden jolt of an earthquake. I am talking about the regular sway of the buildings, which in high winds was measured at 3 feet.



And it did so in a magnificent fashion. A passenger plane crashed into it, for crying out loud, and still it remained standing! That is pretty darn good engineering. Within milliseconds, it rebalanced the remaining weight through the remaining supports. Heck, if it hadn't been for the fire, the WTC would quite possibly never have collapsed.



That is correct, and they still are. No gas cylinder explosion could ever have done what the passenger jet did. What the jet did is so beyond the scale of anything that engineers had ever had to deal with that even today there is no feasible solution for preventing a flood of jet fuel from igniting the entire floor all at once.

Remember, we are talking about a huge floor area here. A gas explosion would certainly have done damage, but the actual fire resulting from such a thing would have still been limited to the area of explosion. With the jet, the fuel flooding through the entire floor caused a major fire over the entire floor simoultaneously.



How do you figure? You are essentially saying that, despite not being able to perceive a level of damage above and beyond any we have ever experienced before, we should still have designed the building to survive it. Nonsense.



You did get some of it right, but you don't know which. What you write isn't what I described, and you did not read what I wrote carefully enough. I would be happy to explain it to you again, and answer any questions that you might have, but I suspect you aren't interested.



It amazes you because you don't have a concept of the incredible amount of energy created by the collapsing avalanche. If you did, it wouldn't be the slightest bit amazing. We are dealing with a force so dispropotionate that the closest parallel I can think of is the old Bugs Bunny cartoons where Wile E. Coyote attempts to protect himself from a falling boulder with a tiny little umbrella.



They failed miserably.



Common sense? What is common about the collapse of a high-rise? I don't know what you are basing your common sense on, but to me, a sideways collapse would have been utterly baffling. There is simply no way that such a thing could have occured, not with explosives, not with ten planes hitting the building, simply no way without violating the laws of engineering and material science, to say nothing of several physics ones as well. If all you are working with is common sense, I recommened you start getting a little more technical, because you are not going to find answers to this using the same common sense that tells you that the sun revolves around the Earth.



Of course not. Gravity pulls this downwards through the path of least resistance. Your pins are solid objects, ergo trying to pull things down through them would not be the path of least resistance; gravity, instead, would do a go around, making it fall sideways.

A building, on the other hand, is not a solid object. Anything from 75% to 85% of it is air. If you want to talk about examples, then instead of pins, use playing cards. Try removing one of the top cards now. The weight, no longer supported, now falls straight through the path of least resistance, namely the air that compromises the vast majority of the structure. There is no way that you can make the structure topple sideways; it simply doesn't have the strength to support itself any other way then at its base, and it pretty much tears itself apart in mid-fall, at which point it once again resumes the path of least resistance.

Common sense is going to be of little value to you here. This is way beyond anything common.

And they would also be smart enough to know that there is no way a plane striking the towers near the top would ever cause the whole tower to instantly collapse from the top down! That's why they had to CD the towers.

When Wile E. Coyote defies gravity by suspending himself in mid-air after running off the edge of a cliff, we don't need "experts" to tell us that this is quite impossible to do in the real world. Our basic common sense is quite sufficient. But with 9/11, our basic common sense is expected to defer to the claims made by the Government "experts".

In the magical world of NIST, it's perfectly reasonable for steel framed skyscrapers to look like erupting volcanos as they completely collapse in seconds.

But don't expect them to be able to replicate this effect in the real world, because it's impossible. Unless they've managed to convince you to forget about thinking such things are impossible just by using your basic common sense.

Can anyone explain what caused WTC 7 to just fall down?...I cant wait for this

That makes no sense. A controlled demolition at the base would have made the tower collapse instantly, which you just said would be never happen.



Because seeing what happens to single objects when they attempt to defy gravity is a very common experience for us, something we see on pretty much a daily basis. Seeing the effects of gravity on a multi-component object the size of a high-tise, on the other hand, is beyond anyone's, other than a select handfuls, experience, and therefore not common sense.,



Yes it is, and if you think it is magical, it is no wonder that you can't grasp why it happens. Regardless, your personal incredulity that the NIST report is the most likely explanation supported by the existing evidence is not going to make the explanation any less valid or likely.



Actually, no, it isn't. There isn't a single claim described in the NIST report that cannot be supported and replicated independantly.



Like I said, it has to do with knowledge, not common sense. You seem to be ignoring both, and simply deciding to go with a statement of faith. "Because I believe I am right, all those who do not believe as I do must be wrong."

Try supporting your claim, instead of just making it and pretending that it is strong enough to stand on its own.



No, because WTC7 didn't just fall down. Beyond that, why would anyone take the time to explain something to you when you make it so clear that no matter what they explain, you stand ready to not believe it already?

The topic is the use of thermite and controlled demolitions. Try asking a question around that, and try to at least pretend that you might listen to an answer.

It is great that Americans have the sensitivity to care and argue the finer points of the disaster, bringing people together is the most positive outcome of any disaster. But the truth and details are perhaps incomplete enough for proper debate. Only speculation drives us. Especially when body parts are only just being discovered so long after the event.

No, I meant that a plane impact anywhere would not cause the buildings to completely collapse.



Nobody is an expert on the collapses, because they were unprecedented. But to tell us that they fell as they did from fire and plane damage alone defies common sense.

In the magical world of NIST, it's perfectly reasonable for steel framed skyscrapers to look like erupting volcanos as they completely collapse in seconds



The NIST report HAS no evidence to support their conclusions! Claiming it's the "most likely explanation" is a claim without a shred of proof.

But don't expect them to be able to replicate this effect in the real world, because it's impossible



Wrong. The physical models don't support their claims. The evidence doesn't support their claims. The Laws of Physics contradict their claims. The only thing that supports their claims are their computer models, tweaked past the point of reality until they got the results they wanted. Computer models can also prove that pigs can fly and cats can speak Swedish...



What does NIST actually have as evidence to support their[/i/] claims? I mean real evidence. The standard requirement for proving a theory is the Scientific Method:

[i]The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as [*] belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.

I'll say it one more time: NIST's theory is untenable because their tests completely failed to reproduce the collapses, even once. How can anyone considered to be qualified as an "expert" accept and agree with the conclusions of a theory which is entirely impossible to replicate??

Let me relate a story:

You need to relocate to a city for your job. But you find out that only two buildings have any vacancies! So you check out each building before deciding which one to move in to.
They seem to be about the same in size and quality at first glance. Nothing you notice makes one a decidedly better choice than the other.

So you talk to the manager of Building A. He tells you that the building has never had any problems. In fact, he says that before they even built it, there were models constructed that succesfully withstood several rigorous fire tests, with little to no structural damage. The building was then constructed identically in structure to those models.

Then you talk to the manager of Building B. He says that there had been the same modeling tests done as the owners of Building A had done. But the Building B models failed every fire test, with massive structural damage. Despite that, he says, they went ahead and built it identically to those models anyway.

With that, you realize Building A would be much safer to live in if a fire ever breaks out. So just as you start walking out the door, the manager of Building B calls out to you to wait a minute. He says "I forgot to tell you - they did create computer models for Building B. And two of the models withstood fire tests just as well as Building A did!!"

Question: Would you now consider Building B to be just as safe as Building A? Would you honestly move into Building B if this was a real-world situation?

NIST's computer models are touted as "proof" for their theory, despite their physical models completely failing to replicate the progression of failure that they wished to achieve for support of their theory.

A passenger plane it was but really, how big is it when you compare it to the size of WTC? Pretty small! You'd expect such a collosal structure to withstand a crash like that.


You keep talking about the explosion and even distributon of fuel to all parts of the floor but really, wouldn't the area nearest to the explosion get soaked with maximum amount of fuel? Wouldn't the damage be maximum at the point of impact? Wouldn't the structure at this specific point weaken and give way first? I keep repeating this again but it is common knowledge and fairly obvious that the damage was only partial, the fires did not engulf and burn all the top floors evenly to damage all the support structures evenly to make them snap simultaneously. Also, an explosion is not an equal fuel distributon system, how the fuel spreads depends on the location of impact, feasiblity of spread, power of explosion and several other factors. You just keep ingoring these obvious facts or is just plain denial on your part?


What? Level of damage above and beyond any we have ever experienced? Just because you closely followed the WTC disaster, doesn't make it the worst disaster ever. There were far more bigger fires and fuel realted explosions before and there will be more in the future too; welcome to the real world! You only tend think that the damage is big because you associate it with the loss of human lives; we are talking about fires here.


Care to reply specifically? I just summarised, what you said essentially means, and you did not address what I said. If I wasn't interested, I wouldnt be in this thread in the first place. Alleging your opponent of not showing interest, when posed with questions, doesn't get you ahead in a debate.


There is a huge difference between an avalanche and a building collapse. For an avalanche, there is very little resistance in it's inclined path so it keeps on growing and gathering momentum, unlike a collapsing building which is constantly met with huge resistance from the floors beneath.


Baffling? When an almost free falling structure hits a rigid resistance, it bounces off and scatters in several directions. It can't come down straight, because of the resistance, so the rubble kind of bounces off and follows the path of least resistance.


What are you talking about? Have you ever seen any building collapses other than WTC?
If somebody fires a powerful missile at the base of a huge building snapping (say) 2 out of four main supports, would you still expect it to come down straight down? The weight of the structure above would lean on the snapped portions due to gravity and cause the building to lose balance and cause a considerable collapse sidewards.


I get the feeling, you're conveniently leaving out and ignoring the flaws in your own arguments. Ok, let's talk cards: try arranging a tall structure of cards, just like the WTC building, heck you can even use dominos. Place four cards together forming a square base and place a card over it to make the roof. Follow the same pattern and create several floors, say 10 . Now flip a card(supporting the roof) in the 8th floor with a sideward force, then come back and tell me, if the structure still falls straight down?

i believe this video will explain alot-- funny how they knew it was gonna "blow up"
WTC 7 evidence of premeditated demolition

more interesting details surrounding the WTC demolitions

link with much more detailed evidence

WTC 7 didnt fall down?...why are you so hostile?..I just asked a question..I guess you've lost all objectivity? your so sure your argument is correct. that you vehemently deny anyone else's theories as pure fantasy...sorry I butted into your topic. I was in the wrong conspiracy I guess.

I think aquatus is a touch tense because he's been futilely attempting to infuse intelligence in this debate for so long, and the same basic questions just keep popping up.

I think what he meant WTC7 didn't suddenly fall down, as in it wasn't unexpected. Firefighters cleared the building hours before and helplessly waited for it to inevitably drop. Coupling the knowledge that the damage and fires were so extensive with the fact they couldn't achieve the proper water pressure at the site to douse the flames, they knew the building was doomed to complete failure. It was just a matter of when.

Seek out some pictures from the south side of WTC7 prior to collapse (not just the exclusively north-sided pictures that CTists will invariably parade about) and you'll see what I mean.

thanks I will.....

Nope! that is grotesquely underestimating the genius of the enemy, their many years of planning, driven motives, and becoming familiar with the designs of the buildings was all a crucial part of that genius... Im not referring to US govt.. but radical muslims aka; Al qaeda. They knew the perfect weapon to bring these bldgs down was going to be jets as bombs----

When the impact occurred do you honestly think the jet just stopped on impact inside- dropped fuel on the floor it landed- and then so be it, it burned from there...? I may be mistaken but it seems to be quite apparent you are not digesting the magnitude or force of this entire ordeal. The size of these towers being very large, of course, but with that is the size of jet & amount of fuel it contained, the speed, velocity, gravity itself, dynamics of type of fire, location of where this jet landed (core of building (tower 1)), etc,. all play a major role. Not to mention other things, fuel on impact ignited moved across floors, and downward thru shafts....heat from this type of fire, is catogorized as a "hot fire" heat it moved upward...many factors played into this collapse... nothing was by the book as most of you seem to play it out as..

maybe it's b/c when you attempt to explain to folks who absolutely can NOT rationalize/ or too blinded to see the truth for what it is, it will make someone a bit "tense."

The sad sad truth of the matter is the average American does not want to face that a government could pull off such a Conspiracy and get away with it ...Which is what this government did .This is a monumental point in our history everything that is happening now is meant to happen by the master elite .These **EDIT** have a plan trust me you can't expect to do something like this and think the whole population will just except it .They obviously new they had some time before people would start to catch on and thats what frightens me they have managed to do alot of damage to our most basic freedoms in just 5 years .Our leaders have done more harm to our country then any terrorist could ever do .The only question now is what else do they have in store for us because the Average American is not buying there **EDIT** war ,I sense another disaster coming in the not to distant future ...

**Chris, you are reminded of the forum rules regarding the use of foul language. The filters are there for a reason, and your attempts to by-pass them are not appreciated.**

You are quite right, and I apologize for losing my temper.

I am going to be backing off from the issue for a little bit, as I have been getting a little to close to it and losing my objectivity as a moderator.

That being said, I remind everyone that the topic is about the use of thermite or controlled demolition techniques, not a general rant against the government or random Conspiracy theories.

Can one of the mods close this ridiculous thread already, I have an idea, ban all 9/11 conspiracy threads for a few months, maybe something new will emerge.

I fail to understand why we constantly see people getting so touchy about this subject? This subject doesn't say the government planned the attack, just that the firefighters cleared the buildings, saved as much life and property as they possibly could before pulling them down, and I don' t think it was such a bad idea, my only issue is that they wouldn't come out and admit it .

One of the reasons why they pulled it down was to avoid an unpredictable collapse over neighbouring buildings, preventing more loss of life and property damage, the other purpose it served was to help US further justify their future wars.

Since when do Firefighters Demolish Buildings?

That would mean they were admitting that the building had been pre-wired with explosives before 9/11, since it would have been impossible to wire it that day.

And they would hardly want people to know that.

You know what I meant. X, Y or even Z pulled the building down, does that sound better?
Who pulled the buildings hardly matters, who was behind it does.


Why couldn't they, after evacuating everybody from the lower floors?

Or maybe he has a hidden agenda?....

Your instistance upon using the word "pull" as if it means something remotely close to "detonating pre-planted explosives" is not unnoticed. However, redefining the word after the fact doesn't change the fact that neither firemen nor demolitionists ever used that word to mean "to destroy a building using controlled demolition" before or after 9/11.

To use it in context, you're saying that after the building was cleared of personnel (incidentally, that would be "pulled"), workers attached cables to the buiding and pulled it down with machines. I didn't see that on 9/11, did you?

Also, "who demolished the buildings hardly matters"? How can you attempt to gloss over that? Maybe because it's the huge wrench in your entire works? Who planted the explosives? When? How? With what? But, getting back to who - who was this group the government hired to wire up the buildings? They had to be freely willing to kill thousands of innocent Americans (including women, children, babies) as well as hold such experise in the field of controlled demolition that they could actually wire up and detonate 6x the world record, plus a 47 story building, without the use of det chord and right under the noses of the 50,000+ people working there, as well as security with bomb-sniffing dogs. Who were these people? Let's not gloss over this fact. I'd like to know who these people were. There are only a handful of companies worldwide that actually perform controlled demolition, and all of there employees are accounted for. So who did this?

That would mean they were admitting that the building had been pre-wired with explosives before 9/11, since it would have been impossible to wire it that day.



A controlled demolition is not something that can be achieved from scratch to any building, under the best of conditions, all within a few hours after the suggestion was first brought up.

There is extensive planning beforehand. They need to know the structural layout for critical support locations within. They need to know the construction materials- ie: steel, concrete, or a combination of both. Then they can decide on the type(s) of explosives and amounts required.

That's all before they even acquire the explosives and other materials they need!

Then consider the far from ideal conditions a demo crew would have had to work under at the WTC site on 9/11. The entire area was comparable to a war zone, with massive dust clouds and smoke enveloping half of Manhattan, and debris littering the streets for blocks. Thousands of people were running around in sheer panic, many others injured, or worse. Hundreds of emergency personnel were scrambling around in every direction trying their best to help.

But even if the WTC complex was not a complete disaster zone at the time, the sheer logistics involved to CD the building from planning to wiring would take days, not hours.

Don't get the wrong impression from all this on what I believed actually caused the collapse of WTC 7. I am convinced WTC 7, along with the towers, were brought down with explosives planted in the buildings. But it takes much more time to properly complete the task than you seem to think it would.

I'm not the one trying to play with words here. When I say pull, I mean bringing down.


I never said they used cables and machines to pull WTC. I said they used explosives placed at strategic locations.


You speak as if no building has ever been brought down in a controlled manner using explosives. Tell me why can't an experienced team of professionals set up explosives at strategic weight balancing points after the lower floors have been evacuated? I mean, come on! They don't need to plant an explosive at each and every seat location, in front of everybody's eyes, they just need to identify the critical locations, evacuate people from there and place the explosives. Also, you must be aware that not all parts of a well planned building on each floor are accessible to the employees and everybody else, like places where the cables, pipes and maintenance stuff is present. They could've easily used those places too so that nobody notices.

Also, amidst chaos, not every individual group understands the activity of the other group.
For instance, do you expect the firefighters to know exactly what the data recovery team is up to? Everybody has their orders and enough on their hands, only a few people know what's actually happening.

The authorities in charge of the recovery plan have some difficult choices to make and they also have their orders. At the end, what priorities the government has, is what actually matters.


Do you expect the government to reveal or the people themselves to come forward and speak up? It's called classified information.

You'd be amazed, to see how fast things move if the government is really ON it.

im convinced the explosives were planted as well.. it would take more planning than I think the terrorists could have done..It's an inside job to start the war; and to gain political clout..all the way!

But when anyone in the demolition business says pull, they mean to pull down with cables and heavy machinery, not explosives. And when firefighters say pull, they mean pulling their people out of a structure. So you making up a new meaning for it is you playing with words.

Do you understand how contradictory those sentences are? Pull is a demolitionists term for bringing down a building WITH CABLES.

"Pull" does not mean "detonating explosives".



No, that's how you're interpreting it. I really think you'd rather just use broad, sweeping generalities rather than actually looking at the logistics. You'd just rather believe that the government can routinely pull off the impossible just because they're the government.

Go look up the stats of the tallest building ever to be brought down with controlled demolition (roughly 450 feet high). See how many miles of detonation chord (wiring) was used and how they cut the supports up to 90% prior to wiring them up. Then ask yourself how in the world did they did this to the towers, which were each 3 times the height of the world's record, and not one of the 50,000+ workers reported anything suspicious in the weeks beforehand, not one scrap of det chord was found in the rubble, and the towers somehow held their integrity for days or even weeks while 50,000+ worked within them and it's supports were severely weakened because they were cut.



WHO???? Who is this mysterious team, when all the experts in the field IN THE WORLD were accounted for?



Oh, is that it? My fault. I had no idea pulling off 6x the world's record in complete secrecy was so easy.

By the way, don't forget (did you ever know?) that bomb-sniffing dogs were brought into the towers a week or so prior to the collapse in perhaps the most idiotic move in Super Secret Squirrel history.



Sure, makes sense. I'd think there would be nothing suspicious at all about someone wiring up explosives while everyone is running by him, screaming.



Well, maybe in the world you live in, that may be the case. I think the innocent victims are the heart of this matter.



Ah, so then you're off the hook I guess. It was just "the almighty miracle performing government" that did this. Obviously in your world people never speak up against the government but here on our planet it happens all the time. Check out CNN sometime.

The only sad truth in this matter is you refuse to except who the real enemy is.

I used the word pull in its general sense. I've made clear what I meant, shall we go forward now?


Detonation cord is neither bulky nor easily identifiable in millions of tons of piled up rubble.
Hell, they could not find all the bodies and you expect to find pieces of cord? Pieces of detonation cord could've also easily gone by as pieces of electric wiring. You speak as if you have access all the categorized data of all the items found in the rubble to confidently say as to what was found and what was not.

Again, I repeat, I do not think CD of WTC was pre-planned, please read posts carefully before coming to conclusions.


Are you conveniently ignoring what I said? I said the explosives might have been placed after evacuating people from the specific areas.


For you, for me, for a lot of people:yes. For everybody:no.



Dude, you really flatter yourself. You are welcome to believe that your government is run by all-revealing, citizen-loving goody-goody people. You are welcome to believe that whatever shown on CNN is bible truth. You are also welcome to believe that US IS the world and that there's no world beyond it, but just one thing: don't expect too many people to agree with you, ok?

Also, this is not a US Vs INDIA thread, so let's just stay on topic, shall we?

Are you kidding? It's bright yellow, it's got a jacket that survives having an explosive flash inside of it, there are quite literally miles of it used in any conventional detonation, to say nothing of one the size of a high-rise...there is no way, and I mean that it would be for all intents and purposes impossible to avoid having someone find a piece of it.



Detonation cord is quite easily recognizable, and anyone in law enforcement and firefighting has seen it on more than one occassion. That doesn't include the thousands that would recognize it merely from seeing it on TV, and that doesn't include all the explosive experts that were in the immediate area.



Please state your position a bit more clearly. Are you suggesting that demolitionists rigged the impact area for explosion during the fire?



The specific area we are talking about is the impact site. That is where the collapse occurred.



How the heck do you go from "People speak up against the government" to "Our government is all-revealing, citizen-loving goody-goody people"? How do you go from "Check CNN for anti-gevernment news" to "You beleive CNN is the bible truth"?

Man, you need to get some perspective. A person who says that not everyone loves the government is not saying that they believe the government is all-revealing or goody-goody. If CNN is running views speaking against the government, which is what you are saying no one does, it makes you look foolish to accuse them sarcastically of being "Bible Truth". At that point, it becomes obvious that you are no longer listening to what anyone is saying, but rather are simply lashing out at anything you perceive to be contrary to your opinion, regardless of whether it actually is.

It's called selective perception. There is no discussion/ argument when one person refuses to open the possibility for truth.

LOL.. well, I don't trust my gov.t as far as I could pick it up and throw it... I also don't believe they played any part on 911's attacks-

put's a rather big whammy in that theory of yours doesn't it?