# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/422 "2010-09-27T16:57:01Z")
> [@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. 😛 I can’t see the video right now, but Judy Wood is certainly special. All the Truthers _loved_ her because she has a PhD in engineering and thought the towers were brought down by demolition. But then a few months after she became famous in those circles, she started advocating the idea that the specific mechanism of that demolition was directed-energy weapons beamed from space. The less-insane Truthers dropped her and her buddy Jim Fetzer\* like a hot potato, many saying that they thought Judy was planted by the government to discredit the movement. - Yes, that Fetzer, the one who made his reputation by claiming that the Zapruder film was fake. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/423 "2010-09-27T17:15:57Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > But then a few months after she became famous in those circles, she started advocating the idea that the specific mechanism of that demolition was directed-energy weapons beamed from space. The less-insane Truthers dropped her and her buddy Jim Fetzer\* like a hot potato, many saying that they thought Judy was planted by the government to discredit the movement. Now if she’d claimed that the WTC towers were brought down by a team of commandos who used dental drills to cut the support columns at least she’d be getting closer to her actual area of expertise. “Now in photo 18 you can plainly see fluoride residue on the girders!” It’s a man’s life in the BDA… ---
**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, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/424 "2010-09-27T17:16:07Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@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. 😛 > > I can’t see the video right now, but Judy Wood is certainly special. All the Truthers _loved_ her because she has a PhD in engineering and thought the towers were brought down by demolition. > > But then a few months after she became famous in those circles, she started advocating the idea that the specific mechanism of that demolition was directed-energy weapons beamed from space. The less-insane Truthers dropped her and her buddy Jim Fetzer\* like a hot potato, many saying that they thought Judy was planted by the government to discredit the movement. > > - Yes, that Fetzer, the one who made his reputation by claiming that the Zapruder film was fake. No matter how absurd I believe I can write, Truthers are always stranger than fiction. ---
**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, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/425 "2010-09-27T17:27:35Z")
> [@sparky\_1](#): > > “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.” I would call a 767 traveling in excess of VNE a high-energy weapon. On a different note, I’m surprised Boeing hasn’t been sued for misrepresenting the speed rating. ---
**Author:** ![Mozart1220](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/426 "2010-09-27T17:35:29Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=Mozart1220] > CAN’T? Nope…can’t. As in Can Not. As in Not Happening. 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. 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 [/QUOTE] It was ana example…something a normal person could relate to. I could have said bricks, or cinderblocks. I knew someone would obsess on “lincoln logs”. The idea was ratio..hight to width. Tall thin building as opposed to a shorter wider one. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/427 "2010-09-27T17:38:04Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > The idea was ratio..hight to width. Tall thin building as opposed to a shorter wider one. You’re comparing a building to a pile of stuff. That’s not how buildings are made. ---
**Author:** ![Mozart1220](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/428 "2010-09-27T17:38:28Z")
> [@42fish](#): > > > [@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. Go figure someone on the internet would obsess on the lincoln logs, instead of the ratio I was referring to. I just used those as something anyone might have around the house to demonstrate how easily something that tall and thin could “tip over”. ---
**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, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/429 "2010-09-27T17:41:05Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > > [@42fish](#): > > > > Maybe **Mozart** and **psikey** can have a debate on the merits of Lincoln Logs vs. paper and washers. > > Go figure someone on the internet would obsess on the lincoln logs, instead of the ratio I was referring to. I just used those as something anyone might have around the house to demonstrate how easily something that tall and thin could “tip over”. Your gedanken experiment fails because a stack of Lincoln Logs (or bricks, or cinderblocks) does not scale up to a skyscraper. Really. ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/430 "2010-09-27T17:44:36Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > It was ana example…something a normal person could relate to. I could have said bricks, or cinderblocks. I knew someone would obsess on “lincoln logs”. > > The idea was ratio..hight to width. Tall thin building as opposed to a shorter wider one. It is overwhelmingly clear that you’re just preaching religion at this point, Mozart. You have no clue about physics or engineering. Not a clue. I barely know jack shit about them, but you know far, far less than jack shit. This is like listening to a creationist talk about geology and biology. Lincoln logs are your banana and 20 story “skyscrapers” tipping over are your crocoduck. I’m just flabbergasted that you’re shooting off at the mouth in other threads about how important education is. The average 10th grader could absolutely demolish you in a moderated debate about this. ---
**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, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/431 "2010-09-27T17:47:54Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > > [@42fish](#): > > > > Maybe **Mozart** and **psikey** can have a debate on the merits of Lincoln Logs vs. paper and washers. > > Go figure someone on the internet would obsess on the lincoln logs, instead of the ratio I was referring to. I just used those as something anyone might have around the house to demonstrate how easily something that tall and thin could “tip over”. You seriously believe a structure constructed like the Twin Towers could tip over? You can see the top of one of the towers tip quite a bit, then you can see it shear apart and fall into itself. A building is primarily designed to withstand vertical loads (gravity) acting through the long axis of the columns. As soon as you introduce other loads, such as those gravity loads acting other than through the long axis, you introduce bending loads that the columns can not handle. ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/432 "2010-09-27T17:54:54Z")
> [@sparky\_1](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > Go figure someone on the internet would obsess on the lincoln logs, instead of the ratio I was referring to. I just used those as something anyone might have around the house to demonstrate how easily something that tall and thin could “tip over”. > > You seriously believe a structure constructed like the Twin Towers could tip over? > > You can see the top of one of the towers tip quite a bit, then you can see it shear apart and fall into itself. > > A building is primarily designed to withstand vertical loads (gravity) acting through the long axis of the columns. As soon as you introduce other loads, such as those gravity loads acting other than through the long axis, you introduce bending loads that the columns can not handle. As far as I can tell, he believes they SHOLD have tipped over, and the fact that they collapsed vertically instead is a sign that there is something rotten in Denmark. Instead of saying “Well, my expectations did not match observation, what was wrong with my expectations” he is tying himself into knots trying to force the observations to agree with his prejudices. When they start multiplying entities so much, Ockham would need a daisy-cutter bomb instead of just a razor. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/433 "2010-09-27T17:55:04Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > It was ana example…something a normal person could relate to. It was a bad example. Why don’t you provide some evidence that there were explosives in the buildings? ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/434 "2010-09-27T18:00:13Z")
> [@sparky\_1](#): > > A building is primarily designed to withstand vertical loads (gravity) acting through the long axis of the columns. As soon as you introduce other loads, such as those gravity loads acting other than through the long axis, you introduce bending loads that the columns can not handle. I saw it in a movie once so it must be true. And if the aliens would just take off their cloaking device I could prove it. ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/435 "2010-09-27T19:15:00Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > > [@sparky\_1](#): > > > > A building is primarily designed to withstand vertical loads (gravity) acting through the long axis of the columns. As soon as you introduce other loads, such as those gravity loads acting other than through the long axis, you introduce bending loads that the columns can not handle. > > I saw it in a movie once so it must be true. And if the aliens would just take off their cloaking device I could prove it. See! Again and again it all comes back to Captain Kirk. ---
**Author:** ![Mozart1220](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/436 "2010-09-27T19:27:43Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > It was ana example…something a normal person could relate to. > > It was a bad example. > > Why don’t you provide some evidence that there were explosives in the buildings? The video of the collapse speaks for its self. Comapre it to that of a controlled demolition. Very simple if you aren’t looking for excuses why it’s NOT a controlled demolition. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/437 "2010-09-27T19:32:57Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > The video of the collapse speaks for its self. Comapre it to that of a controlled demolition. Why would they have done a controlled demolition anyway? Did Silverstein have some kind of interest in making sure other buildings _weren’t_ destroyed- even though that would cast additional suspicion on him? In what world does this make sense? ---
**Author:** ![Strassia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Strassia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strassia)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/438 "2010-09-27T19:34:03Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > It was ana example…something a normal person could relate to. I could have said bricks, or cinderblocks. I knew someone would obsess on “lincoln logs”. > > The idea was **ratio..height to width**. Tall thin building as opposed to a shorter wider one. Bolding mine. This is where your assumptions and day to day experiences fail you. You are assuming if you build something shaped lie the twin towers but smaller out of similar materials it will act the same. It won’t. I don’t want to get to specific, but if you have 1:500 ratio model of the WTC would have (1/500)^ **2** the structural strength but only (1/500)^ **3** meaning its strength to weight ratio would 500 times higher than the full size tower. Also, consider this. Why would any engineer design a building strong enough to hold together while it topples over? It would be hugely expensive, and reduce the usefulness of the building for with the only upside being to reduce the chance of something that is already extremely unlikely. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/439 "2010-09-27T19:40:32Z")
[QUOTE=Mozart1220] The video of the collapse speaks for its self. Comapre it to that of a controlled demolition. Very simple if you aren’t looking for excuses why it’s NOT a controlled demolition. [/QUOTE] It only looks the same to people who don’t know what they are talking about. Yourself, for instance. Controlled demolitions start from the bottom. The Towers collapsed FROM THE IMPACT POINT (unsurprisingly, since they were hit by fucking air planes there). Bottom. Impact point. Bottom. Impact point. Bottom. Impact point (the repetition is from the movie JFK…figured maybe it would work getting this information through the meter of so of bone you call a skull). Bottom. Impact point. See the difference? There are, of course, myriad other differences that a trained observer could see (which is why trained observers overwhelmingly favor the ‘official story’ over the BS Truther non-sense), but this is one that even someone who doesn’t know much about the subject can see and understand the difference. Let’s go through it again, since you seem to be having trouble grasping the basics. Controlled demolitions start where? At the bottom of the structure? Good, good. And the bottom is where? That’s right! At the bottom of the building! Very good. Now, the Towers collapse began where? No…not at the bottom. _smack smack_ Where? Top? Close, but no. Try again. Where? That’s right! They started at the impact area! And what impacted the building? That’s right! A big ass air plane traveling at several hundred miles per hour! Very good. -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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/440 "2010-09-27T19:45:44Z")
> [@Strassia](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > It was ana example…something a normal person could relate to. I could have said bricks, or cinderblocks. I knew someone would obsess on “lincoln logs”. > > > > The idea was _ratio..height to width_. Tall thin building as opposed to a shorter wider one. > > Bolding mine. > > This is where your assumptions and day to day experiences fail you. You are assuming if you build something shaped lie the twin towers but smaller out of similar materials it will act the same. It won’t. I don’t want to get to specific, but if you have 1:500 ratio model of the WTC would have (1/500)^ **2** the structural strength but only (1/500)^ **3** meaning its strength to weight ratio would 500 times higher than the full size tower. This has already been explained to him in this thread. Instead of explaining it again so he can ignore it again, shouldn’t we be directing him back to where it was explained the first time and asking him why he ignored it then? Because if we explain it 100 times, he will ignore it 100 times. I promise you that. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/441 "2010-09-27T19:53:05Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > This has already been explained to him in this thread. Instead of explaining it again so he can ignore it again, shouldn’t we be directing him back to where it was explained the first time and asking him why he ignored it then? Because if we explain it 100 times, he will ignore it 100 times. I promise you that. And just to expand on this: The problem is clearly not that he doesn’t have all the information. He clearly does. The problem is that he is choosing to ignore it. If you don’t get to the bottom of why he’s doing that, you can literally hand him the book on 9/11 and it’s not going to do him (or anyone else) a picofuck of good. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541.md?page=23)