# An angle of the WTC collapse I'd never seen
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 19, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182 "2010-07-19T01:39:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 27
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/521 "2010-07-27T00:19:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#):
>
> JAQer
Something tells me if this were the Pit, you’d have appended that with a certain three-letter word instead.
---
### Author:  [@sparky\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sparky_1)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/522 "2010-07-27T00:24:27Z")
psik: your posts continue to show that you seem to be looking at this wrong. Again, do not think of the tower as a monolithic structure. In fact, do not even look at it as solid floors one built upon the other. Instead look at it as a collection of columns and beams.
Period.
Then look at the design of those columns and beams and at their functions.
Mix in statics, materials science and basic physics and you’ll understand how simple a thing it was for the towers to come down as they did. You’ll hopefully also appreciate how incredible it was that they stood for as long as they did.
I’d love to provide whatever clarification for you that I can, as it is very interesting.
So let me honestly ask if you understand why your model is flawed as a comparison to the towers? Would you be interested in an explanation beyond what has been posted earlier? I think if you got past your current way of looking at the collapse and instead focused on the simple principles of the tower design that you’d understand why the information you continually ask for is irrelevant.
---
### Author:  [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/523 "2010-07-27T00:49:45Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#):
> >
> > What, exactly, do you mean by this?
>
> It’s quite a simple concept. If gravity and the weight of the weakened structure above the crash sites were enough to overcome any resistance from the undamaged structure below, there shouldn’t have been anything left standing. Yes, no?
>
> This leads me to wonder whether some sort of explosive device could have been placed well below the crash zones - say somewhere in the middle third of the buildings core’s? As the building starts to crumble, amid the noise, would small explosions in the tower’s cores have really been noticed? If I recall correctly, there were plenty of explosive-like sounds prior to the collapses, so how do we know none of these were the effects of explosives placed specifically?
>
> So, I’m suggesting that had the cores not been deliberately weakened, there would have been even more of the cores left standing.
Having spent 13 years (most of my adult life) working as a construction inspector, I thought the collapse was “odd”. Then I thought a bit about it, and I realized that you can’t build a structure that tall that WON’T collapse in just exactly that manner. People like you are just calling on totally daft mechanisms to justify your lack of knowledge of structural engineering. NONE of what you propose is necessary to explain the collapse, or even rational. NO explosives are needed to explain that collapse. Only gravity and the structural strength of steel and concrete. On the contrary, once I thought about it, it is really hard to INCLUDE explosives placed ANYWHERE in the building, that wouldn’t mess up what I saw happen. There were NO explosives involved in the collapse. There COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, because they would have disrupted the actual gravitational collapse I saw, and every video I see released later, for that matter. Every new video released supports the gravitational collapse hypothesis. NONE support the “pre-planted explosives” hypothesis. You are either deluding yourself, or are only listening to other self-deluded fools. Why don’t you try actually learning something about structural engineering, before spouting your theories? I believe you will find you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. This new video doesn’t help you. Rather it supports what structural engineers, and professional construction inspectors (like me) have always been saying about what happens in massive structural failures like what actually happened. Give it up. You are wrong. The “official story” is also the most LIKELY story, just based on what we can see in the already released videos, and every new one that shows up. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/524 "2010-07-27T00:55:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> > [@psikeyhackr](#):
> >
> > The ultimate question is how did the north tower come down in less than 18 seconds.
>
> So, if this “ultimate question” is answered, you will be satisfied with the official version?
I really wonder why this point is still made.
The video in the OP does show that the exterior collapse was about 17 seconds or more, One has to realize that when one of the witnesses says “Oh my god” he notices the tower falling, the camera then jumps to get the collapse in frame (And still looks like some frames were missing, meaning that a second or two could be added) And this is even before adding the time it took the core to finally fall down.
Looking at other videos the other tower also collapsed in about the same amount of time.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ux49uMHDO84?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque&start=56
From the time the collapse is heard to the bangs of the last floors collapsing there are about 18 seconds or more.
One important thing to notice, no explosions, if others want to insist that the last bangs were explosions we need to ask then why the demolition men activated the explosives too late.
---
### Author:  [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/525 "2010-07-27T01:37:33Z")
Personally, I wonder why their own mothers didn’t strangle them as babies. It takes REAL stupidity to be a truther, or a twoofer…
---
### Author:  [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/526 "2010-07-27T02:00:26Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#):
>
> Personally, I wonder why their own mothers didn’t strangle them as babies. It takes REAL stupidity to be a truther, or a twoofer…
Knock it off.
Given that various posters to this thread have already been labeled “troothers,” your comment is clearly an insult directed against other posters.
Do not do this again.
[/Moderating]
---
### Author:  [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/527 "2010-07-27T02:10:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#):
>
> > [@Cheshire\_Human](#):
> >
> > Personally, I wonder why their own mothers didn’t strangle them as babies. It takes REAL stupidity to be a truther, or a twoofer…
>
> Knock it off.
>
> Given that various posters to this thread have already been labeled “troothers,” your comment is clearly an insult directed against other posters.
>
> Do not do this again.
>
> [/Moderating]
Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa… Knocking off, now. You are right, that was too far… Thanks…
---
### Author:  [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/528 "2010-07-27T02:45:03Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> No, you expecting some ordinary Joe on a messageboard to be able to provide such evidence, is just a method of hand-waving the proposal away. What we should be aiming for if we really want answers, is allowing someone trustworthy the authority to go through all Black Budget audits and find out exactly what they’ve been working on. Then, when you have all that information on the table, then, and only then, can you say what can and can’t be done.
I call this “demanding the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West,” i.e., asking for something you know won’t be supplied and then pretending this makes your position tenable. Except that, for reasons explained many times, the controlled demolition scenario is untenable even if we grant the existence of your magical explosives.
BTW, amusingly, there’s a very simple conspiracy theory which doesn’t require lots of people keeping their mouths shut (i.e., it requires only a few people). But it does require there to have been no demolition. The theory fails for other reasons (e.g., we framed the wrong guy), but it’s simple. And, no, I’m not going to tell you what it is, though I’ll confirm if you hit the nail on the head. But this would require you to start formulating an actual theory to explain what happened, which you have so far declined to do.
---
### Author:  [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/529 "2010-07-27T03:21:56Z")
> [@PBear42](#):
>
> > [@ivan\_astikov](#):
> >
> > No, you expecting some ordinary Joe on a messageboard to be able to provide such evidence, is just a method of hand-waving the proposal away. What we should be aiming for if we really want answers, is allowing someone trustworthy the authority to go through all Black Budget audits and find out exactly what they’ve been working on. Then, when you have all that information on the table, then, and only then, can you say what can and can’t be done.
>
> I call this “demanding the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West,” i.e., asking for something you know won’t be supplied and then pretending this makes your position tenable. Except that, for reasons explained many times, the controlled demolition scenario is untenable even if we grant the existence of your magical explosives.
>
> BTW, amusingly, there’s a very simple conspiracy theory which doesn’t require lots of people keeping their mouths shut (i.e., it requires only a few people). But it does require there to have been no demolition. The theory fails for other reasons (e.g., we framed the wrong guy), but it’s simple. And, no, I’m not going to tell you what it is, though I’ll confirm if you hit the nail on the head. But this would require you to start formulating an actual theory to explain what happened, which you have so far declined to do.
Well, ultimately there IS the one conspiracy scenario that only requires 19 conspirators. Maybe, just MAYBE it was done by the 19 assholes who actually are documented as HAVING DONE IT! Gee, ya think that might be true? Sure, it would have worked, but NAHHH! nobody would have ever tried that. It must have been thousands of government workers, instead. After all, that’s a MUCH more likely scenario.
---
### Author:  [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/530 "2010-07-27T04:15:16Z")
Well, of course, that’s the right answer. I’m offering **ivan** an opportunity to be more creative.
---
### Author:  [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/531 "2010-07-27T04:29:40Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> > [@Czarcasm](#):
> >
> > 1. If this question is answered to your satisfaction, will you be satisfied that it happened the way the official reports say, or will you have yet another question to ask? If not…
> > 2. How many questions have to be answered for you to be satisfied with the official reports?
> > 3. Please list these questions.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> The ultimate question is how did the north tower come down in less than 18 seconds.
>
> Dr. Sunder Dunderhead of the NIST says 11 seconds in this podcast.
>
> [NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | 9/11 Conspiracy Theories | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html)
>
> The people on JREF say he misspoke. Different sources give somewhat different numbers but most are below 18 seconds. The remnants of the core may have taken as long as 25 seconds but the majority of the mass got down in less than 18 as far as I can tell. But for a true collapse that means more than 50% of gravitational acceleration since the official theory is that the top portion crushed the rest under its HUGE MASS.
>
> But the mass relates to horizontal motion also.
>
> The vertical lines on the building in this video are the exterior columns of the south tower. They were 3 ft 3 in center to center.
>
> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0)
>
> You can’t see it directly because of the dust but if you draw a line on the frame the bottom of the upper block had to move at least 20 feet horizontally in a few seconds.
>
> When the plane impacted the building fifty-some minutes earlier the entire mass only deflected about 15 inches and oscillated for four minutes. One concrete floor slab alone weighed 600 tons. So what energy source could break the building in two and rotate the bottom 20 feet when the plane’s impact only moved it a little over a foot?
Go back and watch the video you linked to. then watch the first 7 seconds or so 3 or 4 more times. Then watch it again paying attention to the right side of the frame.
At about 4 seconds you will see the out column on the left side of the structure pull inward and fail, just like NIST said it did. Over the next few seconds The rest of the upper sections falls to the left, where there are no longer any columns to hold it up. You will note that yes the left side of the building has displaced about 20 feet, but not because it jumped 20 feet to the right, but rather a couple of floors had collapsed on that side allowing the top of the building to pivot that way.
> [@](#):
>
> Gravity just pulls down and the fire could just weaken the steel. But how much steel was in the vicinity that it could be strong enough to support 29 stories but weaken in less than one hour?
This one is too easy. What amount of steel? The amount they used to build the building with. :rolleyes:
> [@](#):
>
> Accurate answers about the data regarding the building is just stuff we should have gotten eight and a half years ago. That alone would not make me believe the official story. I just point out the absence of a number on the weight of the floor assemblies because so much has been written about their pancaking or not pancaking but we aren’t even told what they weigh. Rather absurd not to have it after EIGHT YEARS.
>
> We call this SCIENCE? 😃
>
> It’s more like, “Shut up and believe what you are told!”
>
> psik
Accurate answers have been out there for years, the problem is the trrothers refuse to believe them.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/532 "2010-07-27T12:57:04Z")
> [@Rick](#):
>
> > [@psikeyhackr](#):
> >
> > Gravity just pulls down and the fire could just weaken the steel. But how much steel was in the vicinity that it could be strong enough to support 29 stories but weaken in less than one hour?
>
> This one is too easy. What amount of steel? The amount they used to build the building with. :rolleyes:
I assume if there was more steel, the building would have lasted longer and less steel, shorter.
Relevance - unknown.
---
### Author:  [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/533 "2010-07-27T14:20:16Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> > [@Rick](#):
> >
> > > [@psikeyhackr](#):
> > >
> > > Gravity just pulls down and the fire could just weaken the steel. But how much steel was in the vicinity that it could be strong enough to support 29 stories but weaken in less than one hour?
> >
> > This one is too easy. What amount of steel? The amount they used to build the building with. :rolleyes:
>
> I assume if there was more steel, the building would have lasted longer and less steel, shorter.
>
> Relevance - unknown.
Maybe, maybe not, one of the points of failure was the bolted joints between the pieces of columns. (One of the troother claims is that explosives were used since so much of the steel was in about 30 foot sections. The column pieces that were bolted together were 38 feet long.) So if you made the columns 50% stronger, but left the bolted joints the same the end result would be the same. The amount of time? Who knows?
In auto racing we have a saying. Guy says, “X blew up on my engine, I am going to reinforce X”. The comment that always comes back is “Well then you will find out what is the second weakest part of your motor.”
In any event this is a typical troother if frogs had wings\* question.
\*If frogs had wings, they would not bounce their ass all over town. but the problem is frogs don’t have wings.
---
### Author:  [@glilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glilly)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/534 "2010-07-27T14:22:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> I assume if there was more steel, the building would have lasted longer and less steel, shorter.
>
> Relevance - unknown.
That would only be the case if the steel were absorbing a significant amount of the heat from the fire, but it looked like here was lots of excess heat.
A much more significant factor in speed would be the thickness of the steel and materials around the steel that would slow the heat transfer (insulation, building materials).
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/535 "2010-07-27T14:58:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> I assume if there was more steel, the building would have lasted longer and less steel, shorter.
>
> Relevance - unknown.
The WTC was demolished by Rikti?
---
### Author:  [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/536 "2010-07-27T15:14:01Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#):
>
> > [@ivan\_astikov](#):
> >
> > > [@Mr.Miskatonic](#):
> > >
> > > What, exactly, do you mean by this?
> >
> > It’s quite a simple concept. If gravity and the weight of the weakened structure above the crash sites were enough to overcome any resistance from the undamaged structure below, there shouldn’t have been anything left standing. Yes, no?
> >
> > This leads me to wonder whether some sort of explosive device could have been placed well below the crash zones - say somewhere in the middle third of the buildings core’s? As the building starts to crumble, amid the noise, would small explosions in the tower’s cores have really been noticed? If I recall correctly, there were plenty of explosive-like sounds prior to the collapses, so how do we know none of these were the effects of explosives placed specifically?
> >
> > So, I’m suggesting that had the cores not been deliberately weakened, there would have been even more of the cores left standing.
>
> Having spent 13 years (most of my adult life) working as a construction inspector, I thought the collapse was “odd”. Then I thought a bit about it, and I realized that you can’t build a structure that tall that WON’T collapse in just exactly that manner. People like you are just calling on totally daft mechanisms to justify your lack of knowledge of structural engineering. NONE of what you propose is necessary to explain the collapse, or even rational. NO explosives are needed to explain that collapse. Only gravity and the structural strength of steel and concrete. On the contrary, once I thought about it, it is really hard to INCLUDE explosives placed ANYWHERE in the building, that wouldn’t mess up what I saw happen. There were NO explosives involved in the collapse. There COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, because they would have disrupted the actual gravitational collapse I saw, and every video I see released later, for that matter. Every new video released supports the gravitational collapse hypothesis. NONE support the “pre-planted explosives” hypothesis. You are either deluding yourself, or are only listening to other self-deluded fools. Why don’t you try actually learning something about structural engineering, before spouting your theories? I believe you will find you don’t know what the hell you are talking about. This new video doesn’t help you. Rather it supports what structural engineers, and professional construction inspectors (like me) have always been saying about what happens in massive structural failures like what actually happened. Give it up. You are wrong. The “official story” is also the most LIKELY story, just based on what we can see in the already released videos, and every new one that shows up. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Okay, you’ve convinced me that towers I and 2 didn’t need additional sabotage to fall down. Now convince me regarding tower 7, a totally differently designed building, albeit one with a vulnerable column that could only withstand so much heat before its failure caused the entire building to collapse in a manner that a professional controlled demolitionist would be impressed with?
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/537 "2010-07-27T15:18:02Z")
> [@glilly](#):
>
> A much more significant factor in speed would be the thickness of the steel and materials around the steel that would slow the heat transfer (insulation, building materials).
I know, but psikey is specifically focusing on the steel and why this quantity remains unknown, even to this day (conspiracy!). I’d guess that as soon as this information (or a plausible and accepted estimate) comes to light, _then_ he might focus on asking how much insulation was around the steel, and why this quantity remains unknown, even to this day (conspiracy!).
Or maybe not - I’ve seen him and others repeatedly come back to other points of refuted relevance like “near free fall” speed and such, so even if a firm figure for steel quantity became widely known, there’s no gaurantee he would incorporate it into his argument, such as it is.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/538 "2010-07-27T15:23:06Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> Okay, you’ve convinced me that towers I and 2 didn’t need additional sabotage to fall down. Now convince me regarding tower 7, a totally differently designed building, albeit one with a vulnerable column that could only withstand so much heat before its failure caused the entire building to collapse in a manner that a professional controlled demolitionist would be impressed with?
And just what sort of professional controlled demolitionist would be impressed with a collapse that caused irreparable damage to a shorter building across the street, which happened to be undergoing a complete renovation?
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#):
>
> 7 initially started falling to the north; the northeast corner crossed the street and [clipped the CUNY building at 30 West Broadway](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg). A few seconds into the collapse, which lasted at least 15 seconds starting with the Penthouse (even Dylan Avery has acknowledged this), the southwest corner separated and slid into the Verizon building.
>
> Being a Port Authority building, it was exempt from building & fire codes, which allowed 9 generator fuel tanks–up to 12,000 gallons–in the building. It was built over a ConEd substation on a site that had been prepped for a building with a much smaller footprint, leaving the southern façade with no direct ground support. Debris from 1 severed the sprinkler system, which had already been suffering from low pressure due to everything else that had been going on.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/539 "2010-07-27T15:30:11Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#):
>
> Okay, you’ve convinced me that towers I and 2 didn’t need additional sabotage to fall down. Now convince me regarding tower 7, a totally differently designed building, albeit one with a vulnerable column that could only withstand so much heat before its failure caused the entire building to collapse in a manner that a professional controlled demolitionist would be impressed with?
Building 7 suffered significant physical damage in addition to an unfought fire which, combined with the building’s somewhat unusual design, led to its collapse. I’m not sure which professional demolitionists were impressed by said collapse, but as I understand it, the pros try to cause the same effect, but much faster, using explosives to cause critical failure at multiple points simultaneously (or near-simultaneously) for a tidy, predictable and complete result with gravity itself doing most of the work. Compared to that, the fire was actually pretty messy.
---
### Author:  [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)
#### Post date: [July 27, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/540 "2010-07-27T15:50:26Z")
I just don’t see why people who ask questions like, “Okay, so how do you prove that a small nearby building wasn’t the focus of a massive government conspiracy after two giant skyscrapers fell due to terrorist action” never ask themselves “why?” Why on earth would the Great Government Conspiracy do that? What’s the _point?_
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=26)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=28)