Subject: WTC Imploded?
KUTV) PROVO, Utah A BYU professor has developed a new theory about the terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He believes planes alone did not bring down the world trade center. Both towers collapsed in place after the attacks, and later that day, 7 World Trade Center, which was never hit by a plane, fell in less than seven seconds.
BYU professor Steven E. Jones says that planes alone did not bring down the towers. http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html
The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
11/15/05 Kirt Responds -
Sorry, but there were no explosives at the base of the buildings. They collapsed from the point of impact down. Watch the videos.
Building 7 collapsed from the second or third floor down where there was a large tank of diesel for its generators. No firefighting efforts were being used on Building 7 - that is why it eventually collapsed.
The BYU professor doesn't know what he is talking about.
Don't buy in to the "bomb" theory.
11/16/05 ELCM writes -
I agree check this out!!!!!!!!!! http://messiahsbranch.org/articles/9-11-myths.htm
11/16/05 Kirt Responds -
Thanks for the article!
Finally, a well-researched article that goes fairly indepth and confirms everything I have been saying for 4 years!
Thanks for the "expert" reference!
11/16/05 Robert Cozine writes -
The Popular Mechanics article is more disinfo. Read this dissection of the PM smear piece by Jim Hoffman. http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
11/20/05 Kirt Responds -
This "dissection of the PM smear piece" is actually pretty pathetic. It does little to take away the pertinent claims that PM deals with.
While there may be errors in some of PM's various claims regarding plane intercepts, etc. that is not the point regarding collapse of the towers. This is a total separate issue. If one wants to argue complicity by the government, that is another issue. The cause of the collapse of the towers is a completely separate issue.
Mr. Hoffman makes reference to an "expert witness" from some obscure website that admits that steel loses 40% of its strength at 1022 degrees F and 80% of its strength at 1350 degrees F. He then tries to explain that the fire never reached either of these temperatures by citing a study done regarding the temperature of car fires in an open sided car garage. He leads the reader to believe that the length of time of the fire has no effect on the temperature of the steel beams. He also leads one to believe that these beams are open and exposed and "not covered by insulation". This is not true as all car parks have their beams buried in concrete (which is an insulator).
Fact - the temperature inside an enclosed structure fire with normal combustibles (no fuel load) reaches upwards of 1800 - 2000 degrees F.
Fact - the insulation on the steel beams would have been heavily damaged if not totally obliterated by the impact of the jet crashing into the building.
Fact - the steel beams themselves would have been heavily damaged with some of them totally destroyed by the impact of the airliner
Fact - the buildings collapsed from the point of impact - not from the basement area. The collapse was a pancake collapse which is typical of structural collapses (especially those of a fire related nature).
Most of these people writing these conspiracy sites have no knowledge of firefighting dynamics, crash dynamics, structural engineering, or any other profession that can explain such catastrophic events. Most have never witnessed a true accident, seen the destructive power of even a small car traveling at a mere 70 mph, seen the results of a plane crash, witnessed or investigated a structure fire, studied the effects of explosions, etc. To put it mildly, they are "shooting from the hip".
It becomes too laborious and time consuming to refute every portion of their twisted logic. Suffice it to say that my experience as a science teacher, firefighter, student of architecture, owner of a construction business, Emergency Medical Technician, Crash School graduate, Fire Investigation, and numerous other training courses relating to firefighting and rescue give me specific knowledge and analysis to determine what happened.
There were no explosives, the pulverized concrete came from tons of debris collapsing (including the concrete floors from above) on the concrete floors. Explosions don't pulverize whole floors of concrete, nor do they pulverize desks, file cabinets, etc. on every floor including the ones that fell wholly intact (the top floors) until they hit the pile of debris on the ground.
Talk about the lack of plane intercepts but leave the collapse out of the discussion. It is purely a waste of time to pursue any bomb theory!
Robert Cozine responds -
Here's a link to his paper. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
11/21/05 Kirt Responds -
The first fallacy of assumption by this "engineer" is that buildings collapse assymetrically. Buildings do NOT collapse assymetrically unless through careful planning. Bringing into play the Second Law of Thermodynamics is ridiculous and stupid. Building collapse under fire conditions usually involves a sudden and major collapse in the same structurally supported area. Structure collapse due to fire involves collapse around the building's "footprint". These buildings all had central pillars that essentially held the building up. No collapse would occur until all of the beams failed which would bring down the building rapidly. Also note that Building 7 essentially collapsed from the bottom whereas the towers collapsed from the point of impact.
If some of the main beams failed, then the resulting load that they were holding would then be transferred to the "good" beams which in turn would overload them and cause them to collapse. Even if half of the beams were no longer holding their weight and the other half were supporting the weight, there comes a time when the failure of one more beam results in the failure of all of the beams simultaneously because they are unable at that point to hold the weight of the building. This results in the sudden collapse.
Molten metal in a fire such as the twin towers should be no surprise. Number 1, the planes were made of aluminum which melts at extremely low temperatures compared to steel, i.e. aluminum readily melts at temperatures present in structure fires of normal combustibles. Also, the debris pile of the towers created a perfect kiln in which steel can easily be melted.
Also, regarding the quotes of people seeing "molten steel". These are not experts but people who witnessed a molten metal. Was it steel, or was it aluminum? The type of metal is extremely significant since gallium (a metal) melts in the warmth of your hand, and mercury (another metal) is liquid at room temperature (and lower).
The reference to "multiple, loud explosions" is the sound of floors collapsing. I have been in a structural fire as a firefighter with floors, ceilings, etc. collapsing above me. It sounds like explosions.
Throughout this article the author references inaccurate statements made by a variety of people including - within 20 minutes all of the furnishings in an office will burn up - NONSENSE! If this were the case there would never be a need to call the fire department because within 20 minutes the fire would self-extinguish (interesting that the Twin Towers were still burning long after this mythical 20 minutes); within 10 minutes all of the jet fuel burned up - another figure pulled from thin air. Flammable liquids don't burn up that fast - in fact, they are absorbed into the concrete, the carpeting, the furniture, wall coverings, ceiling coverings, nooks and crannies, etc.
Irregardlous of all of the supposed "evidences" of explosions, these are easily explained by more simple methods of normal building collapse. The author's reference to an article that shows the radio tower collapsing before the outside of the floors start collapsing destroys his explosives and squibs theory. The "squibs" do not occur until well after the floors are evidenced to collapse which proves that it is the compression of the air that is forcing out the squibs. Also, there are no "squibs" before the collapse of the tower, indicating that no explosives took it down. The center column of support beams finally gave way, which supported the tower and the floors. The center of the floors collapsed first (evidenced by the collapse of the tower) followed by the outward collapse of the visible part of the floors. Remember, the outside walls had some structural support but not enough to support the building once the center supports failed.
The author of this paper may be in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU but what position does he actually hold? Most professors have doctorate degrees and he doesn't identify himself with Dr. as most would if they had that title. Also, being a professor in physics doesn't mean he understands the dynamics of structural collapse. I took Physics in college and we didn't deal with building collapse due to fires.
Research shows that the author, Steven E. Jones, is a professor (no doctorate) and teaches Physics 121. His specialty is "metal-catalyzed fusion, Archeometry (early horses in Americas), Solar Energy". Doesn't sound like he knows much about building construction, fire-load, structural collapse during fires, etc.
11/21/05 - Robert Cozine responds -
The three buildings that collapsed on 9-11-2001 are the only steel framed skyscrapers ever to collapse from fire, which is quite a coincidence, but the FEMA "investigative" team was given $600,000 and basically told to stay out of the way while the steel and other debris from the WTC was taken to smelting furnaces in India and China.
You make all kinds of assertions, but you don't back any of them up with any real facts; your analysis is as much "shooting from the hip" as those you criticize. The real fact is that the FEMA report and a subsequent report from NIST make educated "guesses" about what really happened, but we'll never know because all the evidence was removed before it could be analyzed. The collapses at the WTC on the day of 9-11 represent the three most unusual structural collapses in history, but no real investigation ever took place. The FEMA team had a shoestring budget and limited access to the evidence and the NIST report is based on suspicious manipulation of a computer model. It strikes me as odd that the FEMA team was given so little money, but the NIST team spent $20,000,000 to come up with a computer model after all the physical evidence had long been disposed of.
You lump all those who question the official version of events together and then summarily dismiss them, ignoring expert testimony that events didn't transpire according to the official version. You ignore guys like Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories who wrote a letter attesting that the steel used in the towers had been certified by UL and that it would not have failed from fires of such short duration. http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 Mr. Ryan was fired a few days after he wrote this letter.
Or maybe you missed the story about demolitions expert Van Romero, who stated on the day of 9-11 that it was apparent to him that the buildings were brought down by explosives and then later changed his story without explanation. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html
You question Dr. Steven Jones' credentials without even bothering to find his bio. It took me about ten seconds to come up with this. http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/bergeson/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm
Frank DeMartini, construction manager for the WTC, stated before 9-11 that the buildings were designed to take multiple hits from airplanes without collapsing. DeMartini was killed on 9-11. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm
What about the article written by James Quintiere, a Professor of Fire Prevention Engineering at the University of Maryland, who questioned why the buildings fell? http://www.newworldpeace.com/coverup5a.html
Or another written by Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, decrying the destruction of evidence at the WTC site and calling the FEMA investigation a "half-baked farce".
Many of the firefighters themselves made statements about bombs "going off all over the place." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html The firefighters' transmissions were suppressed by the Department of Justice for over a year. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html
How about some pictures of what really happens when a skyscraper is engulfed by fire. This building in Madrid burned for 20+ hours with flames leaping hundreds of feet into the sky. This fire was much more severe than those at the WTC. Not only did the building not collapse (as conventional wisdom said it would considering the collapses of the buildings at the WTC) but the construction crane on top of the building didn't budge. There are dozens of examples of skyscrapers burning for many hours and emerging structurally sound. Even if you believe that the impacts of the airplanes contributed to the collapses of towers 1 and 2 (which I don't), it still leaves the collapse of WTC 7 unexplained. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html Maybe we should ask Larry Silverstein, leaseholder to the WTC, exactly what he meant when he said in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" that building 7 was "pulled", which is a demolition industry term for implosion.
Steel framed skyscrapers don't collapse from fire, even from fires much more serious than those at the WTC. It may be true, as you say, that it is a waste of time to pursue a bomb theory, but that doesn't mean that's not what happened.
11/23/05 Kirt Responds -
I wrote the rebuttal quickly without going into great detail because time is important for me. Wasting it on nonsense is tough for me to do, but certain people as yourself and some of these "experts" do not have enough knowledge about all of the circumstances involved so they miss the big picture. They are like the blind men describing an elephant - one (holding the tail) says it is skinny and light-weight, another (feeling the leg) says that it is large and immobile, and a third (holding the trunk) says that it is flexible but strong but not overly large. While each has knowledge of one item, they miss the big picture and therefore can't properly interpret or explain reality.
As for the professor's bio - he may have a doctorate in physics (which he doesn't acknowledge in his title as most do) but his bio shows that he has no training or experience in structural engineering, fire firefighting, or any other related field. If you want to compare "Awards", then I can list my many (and more than the good professor's) accomplishments - but I won't for this article.
"three buildings that collapsed on 9-11-2001 are the only steel framed skyscrapers ever to collapse from fire" - They also happen to be the only three buildings in history to have undergone such catastrophic and unique circumstances! So this is a totally fallacious argument! No other building has ever had a jet airliner of that size and flying at that speed loaded with that much fuel fly into it! NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The forces involved are PHENOMENAL!!!!!! Those buildings were NOT designed to handle such a load! Bulding 7 burned without firefighting efforts on it. That is one reason why it collapsed PLUS in later analysis they determined that it was more heavily damaged by debris from the collapsed towers than they had originally realized. ALL other steel building fires have ALWAYS had firefighting efforts which saved the buildings.
"Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories who wrote a letter attesting that the steel used in the towers had been certified by UL and that it would not have failed from fires of such short duration." - NUMBER 1 - I couldn't care less if the steel was UL Certified or not! Number 2 - this idiot has no clue about failure of steel! Exposed steel beams can fail under fire load situations (normal combustibles - no jet fuel!) in less than 20 minutes! So much for that "expert"!
"demolitions expert Van Romero" - Maybe it is YOU who are ignoring the facts. Mr. Romero has said that he was "misquoted" and that he didn't really say that. Maybe he's trying to cover his rear for such a stupid remark, or maybe he was misquoted. Can you find other demolition experts who are NOW saying that the Towers were definitely brought down by explosives and this is how it was done? Why would demolition experts concoct a reverse demoltion of a building for the Towers? That IS what happened you know! They collapsed from the top down - NOT from the bottom as is the method used by demolition experts! Coincidentally, the collapse happened at the point of impact. Now that is precise placing of explosives! Or do you think they were placed there afterwards? ALSO, do you realize that to take down these buildings, demolition experts go in and cut out a lot of structural supports BEFORE they set the explosives? When did they do this in the towers? COME ON - GET REAL! IT'S BOGUS!
"article written by James Quintiere, a Professor of Fire Prevention Engineering at the University of Maryland" - This professor is merely calling for an investigation to see why they collapsed so that firefighters will be better protected in the future. I fully agree with him on calling for a full investigation, unfortunately, someone removed the building materials and resold them for scrap. The jet fuel alone didn't cause the collapse, but the combination of the fuel, the massive structural damage from the impact of the jets and the resulting explosion, the normal fire load of the building, and numerous other factors contributed to the collapse - SANS bombs! Also, he's wrong about the jet fuel having burned up in a matter of minutes (BTW, how long is that "matter of minutes"?)
"written by Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, decrying the destruction of evidence at the WTC site" - Once again he is upset that there was no real investigation with the materials. He's not claiming any bombs, he merely wants an investigation to determine exactly what collapsed when, why, and how, so that future buildings can be designed to avoid those short comings. Unfortunately, that's kind of like wanting to make a car safe to be in when it crashes into a train traveling at 70 mph.
"firefighters themselves made statements about bombs "going off all over the place." - I answered this in my other email reply. As a former firefighter, I have been in a structural fire where collapsing floors, ceilings, etc. above my location sounded like bombs going off. It is very loud (and a bit scary), but that's part of firefighting. Also, some of the firefighters were hearing the impact of jumpers before the towers collapsed. This is documented in several spots in video, etc. In fact, the movie by the French (?) brothers who were doing a documentary (and actually filmed the first plane crashing into the first tower) has instances in it in which jumpers can be heard hitting the roof above where the firefighters are.
"Even if you believe that the impacts of the airplanes contributed to the collapses of towers 1 and 2 (which I don't)," - Then you are a hopeless idiot who defies all evidence, logic, analysis, and common sense, and it is a complete waste of time talking to you! WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT A LARGE JET AIRLINER FLYING AT NEAR THE SPEED OF SOUND AND CRASHING INTO A STRUCTURE IS NOT GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE COLLAPSE? ARE YOU NAIVE OR JUST STUPID ON PURPOSE?! Have you seen the pictures of the gaping holes caused by the airplanes in the side of the buildings?
"it still leaves the collapse of WTC 7 unexplained." - There actually was a significant amount of damage to WTC 7 from debris from the other towers, it had large fuel tanks of diesel to run the generators for the building, AND it was a fire that was allowed to burn without any fire suppression. It WILL collapse!
"Steel framed skyscrapers don't collapse from fire" - Interesting that the VERY ARTICLE that you use to prove this completely blows your little theory TOTALLY out of the water! Too bad you didn't actually READ the article! You would have learned the truth! Let's quote from that article - "Firefighters shot jets of water onto one of Madrid’s tallest office buildings...fighting to control a blaze that burned all night and threatened to bring down the 32-story skyscraper." NOTICE that they were using ACTIVE fire suppression on this building!!! "The top floors were little more than charred steel twisted into destroyed shapes." EXCUSE ME!!! I thought you said that steel can't collapse in one of these steel skyscrapers? "STEEL TWISTED INTO DESTROYED SHAPES" does not sound like it is structurally sound to me!!! Additionally, note that this is on the TOP floor. If it had been at the 80th floor of the Twin Towers, then the top floors would have come CRASHING DOWN because that "steel twisted into destroyed shapes" couldn't have held them up!!!! Can I rest my case yet????!!! No, I think I shall not because it gets even BETTER! I love this article - thanks for providing it because it is MY smoking gun! "At about 3 am (0200GMT), at least six of the upper floors collapsed in a shower of flaming metal debris." BUT HOW CAN THAT BE SINCE THESE STEEL SKYSCRAPERS HAVE NEVER COLLAPSED IN A FIRE? Someone must have lied - it's a coverup - it's a conspiracy... Don't you hate it when the evidence blows away your theory??!! Oh, and I like this statement, too - "At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)" - Such a hot temperature and only with normal combustibles. Oh, one other thing, this building wasn't even occupied, so it's fire load (those items that contribute to the fire) would have been dramatically reduced and would have lessened the severity of the fire.
Suffice it to say that my experience as a science teacher, firefighter, student of architecture, owner of a construction business, Emergency Medical Technician, Crash School graduate, Fire Investigation, and numerous other training courses relating to firefighting and rescue give me specific knowledge and analysis to determine what happened.
Pardon me for getting upset, but face it - the conspiracy theories on the collapse of the towers don't hold water. Instead, spend your time finding out when and how much the government knew about these attacks before they happened! Now THERE is where research needs to be done!
11/24/05 - Robert Cozine responds -
Obviously I'm not going to change your mind. You make many assumptions you can't prove and your argument is long on emotion. Using bold capitalized letters and exclamation points doesn't make your argument more forceful. The information is out there.
It is obvious to me that 9-11, like OKC and the 1993 WTC bombing, was a government operation from start to finish. In the 1993 bombing it was admitted in courtroom testimony that the FBI made the bomb. In OKC, just like 9-11, the government commandeered the site and suppressed the overwhelming evidence of additional bombs inside the building and quickly removed all the debris to prevent a real investigation, so it's certainly not a stretch to say that the government is capable of doing something that heinous.
I agree that more emphasis should be placed on exactly what prior knowledge the government had. Somehow I doubt that information is forthcoming in light of the fact that the government has hijacked (pun intended) hearings on Able Danger and slapped gag orders on two principal Able Danger members, Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer and James Smith.
11/26/05 Kirt Responds -
If you could show me real evidence that holds up under intense scrutiny, you could change my mind - but you can't. I've looked at all of the arguments for your side and they all fall short of the observable facts. My argument is NOT about emotion, it is based on facts and facts alone, and I CAN prove them. Show me ONE that I can't! The emotion comes to play ONLY when people such as yourself refuse to look at the facts , but instead rely on THEIR emotion of "the gov't did it so it must have happened the way the conspiracy nuts said it did".
The Murrah Building at OKC is a completely different circumstance than 9/11. Explosives experts have shown and offered documented proof regarding destruction there - there was more than one bomb there. Such is NOT the case for 9/11, but rather, just the opposite.
Gov't complicity and coverup are NOT equivalent to the gov't setting explosives in the Twin Towers to take them down! You are merely facilitating those disinformers who wish to divert the attention and action of those who don't trust the government's answers. Spend your time researching and searching into things such as Able Danger but FORGET bombs taking down the towers. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
The disinformers love people such as yourself because it makes you and everyone else questioning the gov't's knowledge about 9/11 look like looneys.
It makes it extremely difficult for people such as myself who wish to expose the gov't foreknowledge of 9/11, complicity in it, etc. to convince skeptics when they point to the lunacy of bombs in the towers causing their collapse and equate all of us together as nut cases.
I notice that you still fail to admit that the Twin Towers or WTC 7 could have collapsed from a fire alone even after I PROVED that this is a lie foisted upon the gullible by those who have an agenda. I even used YOUR article to prove it! No admission that I'm right on this? It's tough when your house of cards is destroyed, isn't it?
I have used evidence to disprove your convoluted theory, but you fail to acknowledge it. I use facts, but you are based TOTALLY on emotion.
11/28/05 - Robert Cozine responds -
We're gonna have to disagree Kirt. Again, I agree that there are probably more important aspects of the events of 9-11 than whether or not bombs were inside the buildings. I have read most of the articles posted on your website and I agree with most of them, but I disagree on this point.
And, no, you haven't proven anything. You haven't used any "evidence." Before or since 9-11, no modern skyscraper has ever suffered total collapse from fire, which is the "official" cause for the 3 collapses on 9-11. Never. Not once. No one ever said the building in Madrid wasn't extensively damaged, but it burned for 20+ hours with fire much more intense than any of the WTC fires, and it was still standing. The main structural members were intact. The construction crane on the top floor was intact. Nothing about the damage to the building even remotely resembled the global, symmetrical collapse that occurred on 9-11 from smaller fires of shorter duration.
Like you, I am only interested in the facts and the truth. Your assertion that you can infer my emotion of "the gov't did it so it must have happened the way the conspiracy nuts said it did" is laughable and insulting to those of us who have thought about the collapses on 9-11 and have come to a different conclusion than you have. Sorry if "nutcases" like me are making it difficult for you to expose government complicity in 9-11. Reps. Curt Weldon and Cynthia McKinney don't seem to be having much luck, either.
12/5/05 Kirt Responds -
How can you say that I haven't used any evidence? I have used fact after fact after fact, but you fail to acknowledge any of it. You are the one who has not presented any facts. Your only "evidence" is opinions by people that have no expertise in what they are talking about. Evidence that you have presented has been refuted, but you fail to admit it. Case in point -- Even after I pointed out that your article "proving" that "no modern skyscraper has ever suffered total collapse from fire" actually proved that modern skyscrapers do actually collapse from fire was discarded by you because it did not suffer "total collapse".
Excuse me but the part that was on fire DID totally collapse even though active fire suppression was being performed. The whole structure did not suffer "total collapse" because (and ONLY because) fire suppression was being performed. Saying that the skyscraper burned with fire more intense than that of the WTC towers is not accurate nor does it take into account the massive structural damage experienced by all three buildings that collapsed (the Twin Towers from planes and WTC 7 from the debris from the Twin Towers).
Saying that there was no similarity between the collapse of the Twin Towers and the Madrid building is number one NOT proven since nowhere is that described and therefore cannot be compared. There also were no floors above the area that collapsed to come crashing down as happened with the WTC. Once again you try to equate what you claim are "smaller fires of shorter duration" (not the case - the heavy smoke coming from the WTC Towers indicates massive and heavy fire involvement. You wouldn't know this because you are not and have never been a firefighter - I have been.) Even more importantly, you keep discounting the massive damage inflicted on the structural members that are holding up more floors above them than the combined height of the building in Madrid.
The only remaining supporting members in the Madrid building appear to be concrete columns that held up under the fire load. They are not steel beams. All of the steel exposed to the fire collapsed even though according to WTC conspiracy theorists this can't happen. They should watch the videos on this page to observe what can and does happen under fire conditions to steel. It doesn't hold up!
If a jet had crashed into the main concrete pillars that survived the Madrid fire, they would have been heavily damaged and the entire top of the building would have collapsed because those concrete pillars would have been taken out. Now I know you will ask how I know this...because...my experiences have included observing a mere semi taking out concrete pillars on bridge overpasses. The force involved with a semi traveling at 70 mph or less is minimal compared to a jet flying at over 500 mph and crashing into that same pillar. If the semi and the jet both had the same mass, the force involved would be over 50 times greater; however the mass of that airplane is many times greater than the semi and the force would be magnified even more. (For example, if the plane were only 5 times the mass of the semi, then the force of the plane hitting that pillar would be over 250 times that of the semi.)
The force of impact of a fully loaded 757 traveling at 500 mph on an immovable object varies greatly depending on a number of factors, but the least force would be approximately 17,000 tons (or 34,000,000 pounds). It is surprising that the towers withstood the impact, not that they collapsed.
In the collapse, the top floors of the towers would have traveled a minimum of twelve feet (the normal distance between floors in tall buildings). At that first impact the approximate force on the floor below, IF the floor hit perfectly on all points (a perfect pancake)(which did NOT happen on the first impact), would have been anywhere from a minimum of 28 tons upwards to 45 tons per square inch! The concrete was designed to withstand a compressive strength of a maximum of probably 2 to 2-1/2 tons per square inch. Note that the force on the first impact is upwards of 20 times the designed strength. As the building fell and it gained additional momentum, the forces rapidly escalated. One second after the initial collapse the impact force would have nearly doubled. By the end of the second second of collapse the force would be quadrupled the force of the first second. It massively increases for every second of fall.
No structure is designed to withstand those forces. That is why buildings are able to be imploded. The bottom floors are destroyed and the resulting weight of the building above those destroyed floors crushes the building. It is not the explosives that actually destroy most of the building, they are merely used to start gravitational forces which do the rest.
BTW, I just saw a video of an implosion of an old grain elevator. The problem, though, was that they didn't get enough gravitational force working in their favor on the solid, concrete vertical walls and it didn't collapse. It simply tilted.
I deal only in facts and you have yet to disprove even one of them although you claim I don't deal in facts. Tell me which one of the many facts in this reply are not facts. Prove that any of them are not true. Prove that any of the many facts I have always used aren't true. You aren't able to. You are only able to rely on your feelings and beliefs.
I base my feelings and beliefs on observable facts, laws of physics, experience, and repeatable and observable results.
One last thing - ALL buildings collapse within a set perimeter based upon their height. It is something that firefighters are taught. That way they know where the "safe" zone is at if the building should collapse. The WTC Towers were no exception to this rule.
If we disagree, then it is only because you will choose to be willingly ignorant and ignore the indisputable facts that I have presented.
"We will stand, fight, and die to defend our country; but we will not blindly trust it. Even our Founding Fathers distrusted a large, centralized, all-powerful federal government -- so should we. Always be on guard to discern the truth and defend it at all costs."