# Skyscrapers on fire, not collapsing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541 "2010-09-12T22:53:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/402 "2010-09-27T03:54:19Z")
[QUOTE=Mozart1220] CAN’T? [/QUOTE] Nope…can’t. As in Can Not. As in Not Happening. > [@](#): > > Really? Something as tall and thin as the WTC could NOT tip over? What if the planes had hit the BOTTOM? You would have needed to be able to ‘look’ at the event on a very small time scale. Basically, the building would have begun to move out of true, then the side that was undamaged would have rapidly been crushed and collapsed, and the huge amount of weight above would have then started the same sort of cascaded collapse. Most likely you would have had even more material falling away from the building, but what you wouldn’t have seen, even if you used an alien chain saw to cut a large wedge out of the base of the building like you would fell a tree, is the building tipping over. It’s simply not possible given the scale of the building and the materials used. > [@](#): > > Actually, they can tip over, and I saw one do it. Not even a skyscraper, but about a 20 story building. In Salt Lake Ciity they weakened the structure just like they would in an explosive demolition, except they attached cables and “pulled” it over with bulldozers. It took them a couple tries, as the cables snapped the first time. The materials make a difference as well as the scale. I saw a brick smoke stack tip over once (though it didn’t quite fall like a tree…it tipped over and started to disintegrate before coming completely horizontal). The trouble is, steel framed buildings aren’t like brick smoke stacks…nor like tree trunks. Scale and materials. Also, I bet the building didn’t actually ‘tip over’…I bet once it fell out of true it started to collapse, and what you really saw was the cascade of debris as the building broke apart. > [@](#): > > Make a stack of lincoln logs the same relative size of the WTC and tell me you couldn’t tip it over. Two things. One, ‘lincoln logs’ (a.k.a. Lincoln Logs) don’t scale the same as steel beam construction. Otherwise people would make buildings out of the things, since they’d be cheaper. Two…seriously, Lincoln Logs? 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/403 "2010-09-27T04:17:03Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > Actually, they can tip over, and I saw one do it. Not even a skyscraper, but about a 20 story building. Deserves some kind of award for the single most exasperating thing ever posted on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/404 "2010-09-27T04:45:10Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > > [@Ale](#): > > > > Assuming that is so, why would _they_ want to straighten out the fall of the building by using explosives? > > So as to only destroy those buildings they intended to destroy, with the least amount of “colladeral damage” why do you think? > > You think terrorists would care if the WTC tipped over sideways? So there wouldn’t be collateral damage? How come you are privy to those details of the plot? Also, I would be interested in knowing how attacking the Pentagon as a rouse would fit in the “let’s avoid collateral damage” plan. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/405 "2010-09-27T05:01:04Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > Really? Something as tall and thin as the WTC could NOT tip over? What if the planes had hit the BOTTOM? “Thin” is a relative term. You do not appear to be aware that each of the WTC towers had a footprint that was roughly an acre in size. That would require a LOT of buldozers and cables. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/406 "2010-09-27T05:20:31Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > > [@Ale](#): > > > > Assuming that is so, why would _they_ want to straighten out the fall of the building by using explosives? > > So as to only destroy those buildings they intended to destroy, with the least amount of “colladeral damage” why do you think? > > You think terrorists would care if the WTC tipped over sideways? The first attempt to bring the buildings down involved a truck bomb in the basement hoping to do just that. It was in the paper and everything. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/407 "2010-09-27T05:39:36Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > > [@Valgard](#): > > > > I’m still trying to understand **why** you think it’s impossible or unlikely for those buildings to fall down as they did, given the damage that they suffered. I’m assuming that you don’t have any kind of background in structural engineering or some related field (since that question has been asked several times and not answered), so what’s your basis for that statement? Does it just “look wrong” or is there something in particular that stands out? > > The problem is the collapse TIME. > > Dr. Sunder of the NIST says it was 11 seconds of the north tower. > > [NOVA | Building on Ground Zero | 9/11 Conspiracy Theories | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html) No, Dr. Sunder said it took approximately 11 seconds. > [@psikeyhackr](#): > > If the towers accelerated downwards at 50% of gravitational acceleration it would take 18 seconds. A magical collapse assuming masses floating in space with no supports would take 12 seconds simply due to the conservation of momentum. > > Her is a Python program for it: > > [Crush-down models - Page 21 - The 9/11 Forum](http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post10572.html#p10572) > > So how does that core not make it take longer than 18 seconds? In fact, why didn’t the core cause the top of the south tower to fall down the side? > > psik You posted a estimate by someone on the internet who starts by saying he/she kludged together a program to estimate a building collapse (for which the author couldn’t begin to have the data necessary to run such a simulation beyond cartoon status). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/408 "2010-09-27T05:47:41Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > > [@psikeyhackr](#): > > > > One floor slab weighed 600 tons and the NIST admits the building move 12 inches 130 feet below the impact so it had to move more at the impact. So there were 10 floor slabs in that distance > > > > It takes energy to move 6000 tons in less than 2 seconds but you dismiss and ask what am I contesting. > > Yes, it is hard to explain that movement in the absence of a large plane traveling at 600MPH and exploding on impact. Good thing there was one, or the engineers would really be puzzled. Clearly the terrorists hid thermite in their luggage with gps units that detonated when the luggage reached precise coordinates upon impact. The purpose of which was to accelerate the building 3 more inches. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/409 "2010-09-27T11:51:09Z")
Dammit people, you are missing the SCALE of this thing. No one saw the explosives being installed because they were already there. Have YOU seen any of the original blueprints for the Towers? Can you say that there are no places a series of explosive devices could have been built into the structure? Remember, these were built just after the famous documentary “The Towering Inferno” was produced. Safety concerns were such that a fail-safe demolition system must have been installed to prevent the Towers from tipping over and taking out half of lower Manhattan. Of course they couldn’t tell anyone who worked there that their offices were inside a giant bomb. And admitting that the Towers were designed to be destroyed would negate any insurance claims. QED ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/410 "2010-09-27T12:05:32Z")
I once played a game of Jenga and therefore am an expert in how tall thin things fall over, and I tell you that the WTC was brought down by releasing metal-eating beavers into the air ducts. Wake up, sheeple! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/411 "2010-09-27T12:52:32Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Dammit people, you are missing the SCALE of this thing. > > No one saw the explosives being installed because they were already there. Have YOU seen any of the original blueprints for the Towers? Can you say that there are no places a series of explosive devices could have been built into the structure? > > Remember, these were built just after the famous documentary “The Towering Inferno” was produced. Safety concerns were such that a fail-safe demolition system must have been installed to prevent the Towers from tipping over and taking out half of lower Manhattan. > > Of course they couldn’t tell anyone who worked there that their offices were inside a giant bomb. And admitting that the Towers were designed to be destroyed would negate any insurance claims. > > QED Some of the 911 nutcases have proposed exactly what you have written, only not in jest. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/412 "2010-09-27T13:26:19Z")
But it’s the only way to explain the automatic anti-toppling or sliding process! They could not know before hand what side on which floor would need to be blown to bring the collapse back to a vertical fall, so they had to have all sides of all floors rigged. (And don’t use complicated words like “fulcrum” with me. Sounds Communist.) ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/413 "2010-09-27T13:42:01Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Dammit people, you are missing the SCALE of this thing. > > No one saw the explosives being installed because they were already there. Have YOU seen any of the original blueprints for the Towers? Can you say that there are no places a series of explosive devices could have been built into the structure? > > Remember, these were built just after the famous documentary “The Towering Inferno” was produced. Safety concerns were such that a fail-safe demolition system must have been installed to prevent the Towers from tipping over and taking out half of lower Manhattan. > > Of course they couldn’t tell anyone who worked there that their offices were inside a giant bomb. And admitting that the Towers were designed to be destroyed would negate any insurance claims. > > QED I should point out that the Corbomite Maneuver was first aired November 10, 1966, and the groundbreaking for the Twin Towers took place on August 5, 1966. They had plenty of time to add an explosive framework to the buildings, inspired by Kirk’s bluff, so that if there were a threat, they could blow the towers and any attacking spacecraft. The terrible events of 9-11 were the logical conclusion of Kirk’s method of diplomatic relations. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/414 "2010-09-27T13:50:11Z")
I must post a correction to an earlier statement. I was deliberately misinformed by my memory. “The Towering Inferno” debuted after the Twin Towers were completed, therefore the real-life architectural marvel inspired the artistic depiction. However-- filming of “The Towering Inferno” completed on – get this – September 11, 1974. Coincidence? I trust we are past that. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/415 "2010-09-27T14:39:57Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > Make a stack of lincoln logs the same relative size of the WTC and tell me you couldn’t tip it over. Maybe **Mozart** and **psikey** can have a debate on the merits of Lincoln Logs vs. paper and washers. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/416 "2010-09-27T14:47:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > So as to only destroy those buildings they intended to destroy, with the least amount of “colladeral damage” why do you think? > > > > You think terrorists would care if the WTC tipped over sideways? > > The first attempt to bring the buildings down involved a truck bomb in the basement hoping to do just that. It was in the paper and everything. That bomb would have worked, too, had they had parked up against the supports. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/417 "2010-09-27T14:50:49Z")
Since linking to a video is considered ‘evidence’, thought I’d link to [this](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934#) Google Video. It’s got some humor in it, but some interesting information as well. Give it a whirl if you have the time. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/418 "2010-09-27T16:03:22Z")
Just watching the video again and getting a good chuckle. 9/11 Mysteries host (I can’t remember what her name is off the top of my head but she’s been on a number of 9/11 shows on cable recently): What force acts upon the core to make it all of a sudden disappear?? Response: Gravity. Most people learn about it in the 3rd grade. That’s just classic. 😛 I loved the part where the lady doing to voice for 9/11 Mysteries says something like ‘demolitions brought down the building faster than gravity’…too funny. And people actually take this stuff seriously. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/419 "2010-09-27T16:30:20Z")
Curse you for making me watch that. Once you start watching them debunk the idiotic it’s hard to stop, and the damn thing is 2.5 hours long. My productivity is shot. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/420 "2010-09-27T16:40:31Z")
Her name is Judy Wood btw…and I loved her interview. She sounds like a complete idiot. Also, I love the fact that she claims to be an ‘engineer’. It’s true, but only tells half the story. The other half? She is a DENTAL engineer. 😛 [QUOTE=Gyrate] Curse you for making me watch that. Once you start watching them debunk the idiotic it’s hard to stop, and the damn thing is 2.5 hours long. My productivity is shot. [/QUOTE] Sorry about that. Worth it though, right? 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![sparky\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/77aa72/32.png) [@sparky\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sparky_1)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/421 "2010-09-27T16:56:38Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Her name is Judy Wood btw…and I loved her interview. She sounds like a complete idiot. Also, I love the fact that she claims to be an ‘engineer’. It’s true, but only tells half the story. The other half? She is a DENTAL engineer. 😛 > > [QUOTE=Gyrate] > Curse you for making me watch that. Once you start watching them debunk the idiotic it’s hard to stop, and the damn thing is 2.5 hours long. My productivity is shot. Sorry about that. Worth it though, right? 🙂 -XT [/QUOTE] I googled her name and got this: “Ambrose I. Lane talks with special guest Dr. Judy Wood about her evidence for the use of high-energy weapons in destroying the WTC Towers.” [Google](http://www.google.com/search?q=Judy+Wood&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) Now I _HAVE_ to watch the video. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541.md?page=22)