Question about 9/11 towers?

Question

How come the towers didn't fall slanted?

it fell like one of those buildings where they blow it up for demolishing reasons.

It's a very heavy steel tower, and if a plane were to hit it on the side, wouldn't it fall sideways instead of down systematically?

Answer 1

As you recall, the towers did not collapse immediately upon impact.   The momentum of the planes was dissipated in structural changes within the buildings, and did not exist when the buildings finally collapsed.

As for why the WTC collapsed vertically and quickly, that was the inevitable result of its design.

Unlike the design of most skyscrapers, the vertical strength of the WTC came from its exterior shell. The exterior shell of the building was comprised of interlocking pre-fabricated modular pieces.  These modular plates were made up of three of the exterior columns, each three stories tall, connected together by spandrel plates. These modular pieces that comprised the external walls of the building provided substantially all of the building's vertical strength.  To keep these girders vertically aligned, horizontal floor trusses connected the horizontal stress and strain of modular piece with the surrounding modulars, and prevented them from snapping their joints and slipping.

On 9/11, the high temperatures of the fire caused excessive strain on the floor trusses and they collapsed. Steel does not need to melt in order to collapse. Temperatures associated with burning jet fuel are sufficiently high to lower the tensile strength to a point of catastrophic failure.

When the internal floor trusses became unable to provide horizontal support for the exterior shell, girders became misaligned causing joints to pop. The modular pieces then slid downwards to the ground in a predictable telescoping fashion. Towers 1 and 2 collapsed quickly because, unlike the implosions of buildings that you watch on TV, they did not have internal support.

Answer 2

no. it's the way the tower was built.  What you saw was the result of "collapse points" in the tower.  They built it like that in case anything crazy (like what happened) ever happened.  Because gosh, if those things fell over instead of down, you'd have seen 10's of thousands of more deaths.  No, this was built into the design plan.

Answer 3

They didn't fall for over an hour after the planes hit. A plane hitting a building won't knock it over like a domino, they are built to withstand that. The reason they fell straight down was because that is the direction of gravity. The weight of the upper floors above the area where the planes hit was too much for the damaged supports. People who think that there had to be demolition explosives to bring them down have too much confidence in Americas or any other secret agency and have seen Mission Impossible too many times. It would be an 'impossible' task to covertly plant the explosives necessary without any of the dozens of maintenance, security or any of the thousands of people who worked there to never have seen anything suspicious. If covert agencies were so powerful to do such things they would already rule the World. No one would be safe anywhere and Bin Laden would have been captured or killed years ago. It's pure fantasy to think that this kind of conspiracy is possible and is the result of too much television.

Answer 4

This article published recently in The Open Civil Engineering Journal  may be helpful:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Click these words in the 2nd Paragraph " See Fourteen Points... (paper published in a Civil Engineering journal)".  That takes you to another page where you can download the report in PDF format.

The 14 points of agreement are interesting, but what is more interesting are the points for which further and better explanations are sought from NIST.

It's laughable to see people here at Yahoo Answers still defending the pancake collapse theory.  The government's own investigators cannot come to agreement--NIST debunks the pancake collapse theories of FEMA and Popular Mechanics.

What is interesting about NIST's hypothesis is that they take their investigation only up to the point where collapse is imminent, but not beyond that.   How is that a full explanation?

So far the only explanation I have seen that makes any sense is controlled demolition involving thermite.  Maybe a better explanation will come along in future, but for now that is the best of the bunch.

Answer 5

First of all, congratulations for using your brain. You have just swallowed the red pill. You have disconnected yourself from the lie machine. Your eyes are not misleading you. If you watch the tapes you will see puffs of smoke spritzing out of the windows before the collaspe of the buildings every 30 or 40 floors. Just like in a building demolition. You see them in Vegas all the time. In order for the building to come straight down, the whole substructure had to be weakened. We're talking 5-10 stories down! Read the other entries, because others know also, with plenty of details. My favorite is that Bush's brother was head of security for the towers. It would have taken weeks of prep time to get explosives properly set for 3 buildings. You would need total control of the access to sensitive areas to set and prevent discovery as you moved thru the buildings.

Now here's the really scary part...the people who did it are sitting in office right now, smirking. They had enablers who were probably well paid. Only top professionals could pull a job like that, and only insiders could prevent the American people from doing a complete CSI. The closer we get to uncovering the truth while they are in office, the closer they come to distracting us with another "circumstance", while they slink off in the confusion. To their chateau in the south of France (Cheney) or to their ranch in Argentina over the largest underground fresh water source on earth(Bush) with their own bought and paid for private army (Blackwater). They know something we don't? But that's later down the road for you, for it is a long and sordid road that should lead to arrest and imprisonment, impeachment is for wiretapping and/or oral s*x.

Answer 6

yeah. It would.

Thats one of the 'bush did it' theorys

Answer 7

The reason it fell as it did was because the heat from the fire weakened the girders and it collapsed from the top down. Ie the top floor fell on the next which started a domino effect. Got it ?

Answer 8

apparently it's not the only thing that doesn't add up and only one of the questions people are still looking for answers to

Answer 9

The buildings would have fallen sideways.That's the very reason for controlled demolition technology.

Americans cannot face the truth. They would rather remain in their hypnotic delusion than to admit what their eyes tell them. The rest of the world have no such delusions. They know it was an inside job.

Answer 10

Weren't there explosions in the buildings already. Because if the plane cause the towers to collapse the way it did that isn't right they wouldn't have fallen straight down. Esp if they are made out of heavy steel. Some things don't add up. Therefore i sum up with my opinion that Bush did it whilst he was at a school on the day! Only God knows,and the truth shall come out soon!

Answer 11

It's not the impact of the planes that knocked the World Trade Center towers down, but the HEAT of the fire and the explosions.  Those were 'steel and glass' buildings, and that steel had a 'burn temperature' that was well BELOW the temperature of that heat ... the fires started in the 'middle' of the buildings, and the 'holes' left by both planes were actually very 'small' in comparison to the size of the buildings ... so the buildings IMPLODED from the top straight down to the bottom, thus presenting us on the outside with the 'look' of what happens when a building is properly and professionally demolished.  Please note that people tried to do the same thing before, but the 'bomb' at the bottom of the buildings did little damage in comparison to the two planes near the top.  The planes were actually 20+ stories DOWN though, so the heat could go up, get hotter, and the 'steel frame' at the top focused it back down, all the way down ...

Answer 12

Those massive planes were only tiny in comparison to the HUGE scale of those buildings. You can see in some of the pictures, that the planes wing span wouldn't even reach from one side to the other.

So how on earth would the plane be forceful enough to knock the building down sideways.

And it would be like chopping a tree, they hit at the top, so if that was the case only the top part would have 'leaned' and fell over. The entire building fell down so it couldn't have been caused by the plane unless it hit at the bottom.

The buildings collapsed because the intense heat caused the steel frames to melt and buckle.

RIP all those lost 9/11

Answer 13

it wasn't the impact of the plane that knocked it over, it was the huge gas tanks in the jets that melted the steel frames of the towers. That's why it didn't just fall directly over.

Answer 14

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

Answer 15

Here's the deal- 269 scientist testified that there was no way the steel girders were burned, melted, destroyed or whatever by the jet fuel -  The melting point of the steel girders was 600 degrees higher then the hottest point that jet fuel could burn

  There has been no skyscraper in history that burned down- there has been no fire in any other building in the world that melted steel girders

   Check out the third building that burned down and collapsed in the exact same manner a short block away on the same day the other two did- no plane hit it , or was there any reason given for the fire. Or any reason that it could have burned pure steel girders in the absence of jet fuel . Remember the jet fuel was given as the reason the other two buildings collapsed- Key in WTC 7 and look at the video of it coming down in the exact same fashion as a controlled demolition- in the same fashion the other two went down in

  Over 60 firefighters said they heard explosives taking place as the buildings fell- There was a man that filmed the fall from a neighboring building- you could see the flashes of the explosions when they went off.

  8 weeks prior to 9/11 there were exercises carried out on a daily basis that were supposedly for the purpose of hunting out bombs in the buildings- they would evacuate entire floors at a time as they carried out the exercises- the odd thing about it , they did this every day for 8 weeks and on the day of 9/11 they never showed up- kind of a strange thing there.

  The reason- several political, but I wont go there - I'll go straight to the point- The nation of Kuwait had 3.2 billion dollors in gold bars stored in vaults under the WTC. when the clean up crew got down to the vaults, they only recovered, according to the them mayor of New York, a little over 2 million dollars worth of them- what happend to it?

  Not a single scrap of steel was ever inspected -it was salvaged immediately and shipped overseas for recycling- Bush did not have the FBI, or the CIA investigate, but rather got Fema to do it- Fema, who has no investigative arm had to create one - they had agents stationed at the dumps they hauled the trash off to and did no tests or see any steel that came from the buildings

  There was a stop watch that timed the buildings fall once it started down.  A fraction over 10 seconds- the rate of free fall is a fraction over 9 seconds- this proves the building did not weaken and fall on its own- it was took down by explosives.It is impossible for every steel girder to give out at exactly the same time, from top to bottom at the very same instant, within 10 seconds of each other- To believe othewise disregards the laws of physics and to disbelieve your very own eyes, when you watch the buildings go down.

Answer 16

IF  I  remember  the  reports  it is  because  the  fuel  MELTED  the  beams  as  it burns  extremmly  hot.  *mamatx

Answer 17

The towers didn't fall from the plane hit - they stood for quite some time after that.  The actual cause of the towers falling was that the steel beams that supported them weakened because of the high temperature fire from the jet fuel in the planes.  The actual collapse was the result of the explosion - hence the fall of the towers was more consistent with an demolition explosion.  Hope that helps.

Answer 18

the reason i believe

is that there was a HUGE pillar in the middle of the tower

called reinforced concrete thats when a giant piece of steel is in the middle of the concrete and what happened was the steel heated up from the oil of the plane and compressed so hard it blew out the concrete all at once thats why it fell straight down.

thats my opinion anywayz

Answer 19

the fact that silverstein admitted on national television that he gave permission to demolish WTC7 is enough evidence for me. to demolish a huge building neatly like that needs enormous preparation & therefore he must have known about it before 9/11:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV1...

the WTC was also no longer viable.

its construction had already begun before the use of asbestos was banned in 1971, so spray-on asbestos fire retardant was used up to the 64th floor & a different insulating material was used for the remaining floors.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/12/...

permission to have the towers demolished had been refused & the cost of the alternative, to dismantle it floor by floor, was enormous.

despite this, silverstein decided to lease the WTC six months before 9/11 & promptly insured the buildings against 'terrorist' attacks. he put a down-payment of $125 million for the lease, then claimed for two separate attacks (2 planes) & was rewarded $7 billion. german insurer, Allianz, put up a fight & took the longest to pay up.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/march20...

the WTC Construction Manager stated that the towers could have withstood multiple plane crashes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0e...

the firemen heard the thermite explosions when they were inside the towers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5Qg...

a typical thermite reaction could be seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSk...

& here's a fun experiment on how thermite can dissolve a car!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

this isn't people's usual idea of a 'bomb' so they can't comprehend it.

finally, if anyone starts quoting the NIST official govt report of 9/11, please scroll down to the very end where they admit that their whole theory is merely a 'hypothesis'.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs...

3000 deaths & that's all they can give us - a hypothesis.

Answer 20

there is a documentary made called 911 controlled explosion that has "experts" from the controlled demolition field that say they are sure they were demolished.  There are hundreds of conspiracy theory's on this subject.  Here's a couple concerning demolition

Answer 21

You're right, they would have fallen slanted.  Some say the buildings were designed to fall that way.  That's BS.  The buildings were designed to sustain multiple jet-liner crashes and still be standing.  Taking into consideration the jet fuel which burns no hotter than kerosene.  

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/inde...

Here's a pic of the towers under construction.  They were said to be constructed like a mosquito net.. with steel!  

They fell because of the thermite melted the steel.  AKA explosives!

http://www.ae911truth.net/omnitv_intervi...

EDIT:  Dutch.. that's the worst piece of disinformation I've heard so far on YA.   What was it you said.. the strength of the wtc towers were in the outer shell?  Okay, before anyone even considers this propaganda please click on my first link.. above to see a picture of the towers under construction.

[Frank A. Demartini:] The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/feb...

Answer 22

The momentum of the plane isn't significant compared to the weight of the towers.    A very small bird landing on your head isn't going to knock you over.  

If you could remove the foundation and maintain the structure of the building, and hit it on the side with an incredibly heavy weight, it would act more like what you're thinking--like a popsicle stick falling over.  

Think of it more like a pyramid of stacked paper cups.   If you remove one of the cups, you weaken the structure, and the cups will fall straight down.  

In the case of the towers, this is what happened, the burning jet fuel exposed a flaw in the structure of the buildings, and the incredibly heavy steel fell straight down...

Answer 23

As the steel (which melts in fire) Gave way the towers floors did what is called pancaking, one floor falling onto the next cuasing that floor to fail do to the weight. If you watch the colapse of the towers the top did fall off to one side while the floors at and below the impact point did pancaked, pulling the halfhinged tops back inline to the ground