The Twin Towers: You Can't Have It Both Ways

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/cant-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too.html

You might assume that the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11 because of their design or because the fires were so hot or because of the damage from the hijacked planes. You probably assume that someone who knows alot more than you -- a structural engineer, or a fire expert, or a tall building designer -- has an explanation of why the towers collapsed, and that it all makes perfect sense. At the very least, you assume that you don't have the expertise to even think about why the Twin Towers collapsed, right?

Well, a contradiction in the way the towers collapsed shows that this is not so.

Specifically, there are two possibilities regarding the collapse of Twin Towers on September 11th:

EITHER the towers experienced virtually no resistance from their steel-reinforced concrete floors as they collapsed, in which case, how could the buildings have been pulverized in mid-air into massive dust clouds (see also this photo), and why how could heavy steel beams have shot out sideways up to 500 feet as the buildings collapsed?

OR -- if there was sufficient resistance from the floors of the buildings to have caused the dust clouds and sideways ejection of material -- how could the buildings have collapsed at virtually free-fall speeds?

Did I lose you? Okay, let's back up and start over.

The mid-air pulverization of tons of concrete indicates massive and competing forces -- incredibly violent collisions between objects. Concrete usually cracks when dropped or hit, it is not pulverized. Either the pulverization was caused by some type of explosion, or by the heavy tops of the buildings hitting massive inertial resistance in the form of the lower floors, which were steel-reinforced concrete floors solidly bolted into the steel core.

Likewise, the sideways ejection of heavy steel beams indicates either explosive forces or, at the very least, tremendous resistance by the floors to the downward collapses, thus forcing heavy objects to shoot out sideways.

If the buildings collapsed from any cause other than controlled demolition -- which violently blows out all supports of the buildings being demolished -- then there would have been a crumpling of the buildings. In that case, there might have generated dust clouds near the end of the collapse, but not towards the very beginning. And, clearly, the collapse would not have approached free-fall speeds, since the intact floors would have put up alot of resistance against the momentum of the falling floors.

Bottom line: There could not have been both beginning-of-collapse dust clouds (indicating huge, violently-competing forces) AND collapses at virtually free-fall speeds (indicating only small, minor competition of forces and little resistance).

The towers collapsed as fast as a house of cards, and yet produced enormous dust clouds from early on in the collapses.

The defenders of the official story of 9/11 can't have it both ways.

Instead, the towers had to have been brought down with explosives:

• The near free-fall speed is easily explained by the demolition of the towers' support structures, which took away the resistance which should have slowed the collapse time

And

• The tremendous dust clouds seen early in the collapses can be explained by the massive explosions caused by pre-set demolition charges which pulverized concrete and shot it out of the towers.

AttachmentSize
image.jpg218.54 KB

Bill O'LIEly -- Charlie Sheen Poll....

Poll Link : http://www.billoreilly.com/site

*** On far right of page *** lol

Best wishes

Absolutely right

You've hit the nail on the head -- this is the obvious crux of the argument, but corporate "news" apparently doesn't want to deal with reality, logic, reason, physics..... Cowards.
I worked for years as a welder, had some metallurgical science classes, and worked at a steel foundry. Anyone who tries to suggest that the steel structure of the towers instantaneously collapsed from the weight (of pulverized concrete dust????) because the steel was weakened by those oxygen-starved fires and relatively small holes has NO idea what they are talking about.
They might as well claim that if a man is punched in the stomach there is a good chance his entire skeleton will melt and turn his flesh to powder.
On the other hand, maybe I have just not watched enough Saturday morning cartoons or South Park to understand that this sort of thing happens all the time.

GW, I agree 100%... but a question,

which of the articles in scholars journal, or the original site or elsewhere do you think best defends (with phsyics and calculations) the contention/contradiction you described? I am trying to convince a colleague who oddly, is willing to believe the antrax was orchestrated by the ptb but has trouble with the buildings. I have read a few articles so far but solicit your opinion as well. Thanks, m.

i feel stupid

why i have not thought of this ?

absolutely excellent anylize !!!

the truth is simple, we cant imagine, to find it exactly in front of us.


"... a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind." (mp3)
Albert Einstein

Aw, c'mon GW...

All of your links came from that guy, Jim Hoffman of wtc7.net. Michelle Malkin just fingered him as being part of the kooky academic fringe. Malkin says all we need is a copy of the Popular Mechanics (or was it Lawn Mower Afficiando, I forget) book to debunk this nonsense.

Why do you want to open a can of worms with this stuff?

<:-P

--
"But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
~~ Dr. Shyam Sunder - Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)