Please go to
here and watch the "Big Blue" crane collapse video.
As the base of the crane fails (the operators were not using it in windy conditions properly), it begins to fall sideways. When the main boom of the crane encounters some of the steel roof structure that's already been installed, there is so much momentum involved that the steel folds like paper.
The structure of The Twin Towers, while certainly stronger, had
orders of magnitude more mass involved in their collapse. With the sheer momentum involved here, it hardly matters if the Towers' support structure was magically changed to titanium, balsa wood, or tissue paper when the impact from the floor above arrived. The changes in the speed of collapse would've been within observational error (after all, we didn't have any high-speed cameras pointed at the towers, and things were getting occluded by dust anyway) at the scales involved.
I completely agree. It's unreasonable to assume the towers would, or could topple past a certain point. As another poster on BAUT forum correctly pointed out, physical models don't always scale well. For instance, you couldn't take an 11' steel model of the towers and expect it to behave similarly to the 110 story real thing. The blue crane video you linked is evidence of this.
I would also point out that there is video evidence which tends to corroborate the OCT (official conspiracy theory). There are video angles of the south tower in which it appears to topple, collapsing asymmetrically before failing to do so and then falling straight down. After some searching, I found a link to the video:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse update/--=Close-up of south tower collapse.mpg
I do not think this negates the likelyhood of a controlled demolition (in light of the multitude of other evidence), but it certainly strengthens the idea that the towers fell asymmetrically as would be expected from asymmetric damage (kinetic energy of jets + hydrocarbon fires).
I think because of this, it's also somewhat more difficult to ascertain whether a collapsing skyscraper on the order of the twin towers is collapsing symmetrically, or asymmetrically, based on video evidence.
Another interesting video I found is this:
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/Shaking before WTC-1 collapse.mpg
Note the static position of the camera (probably due to the use of a tripod), then note the tremor that occurs moments before the collapse. Could you offer an explanation as to what this is?
As for 'slowly' buckling and toppling buildings, that's because controlled demolition teams WANT them done that way. It spreads out the energy of the collapse and reduces vibration.
Most 'natural' building collapses are on a much smaller scale. Loads gradually change as a piece of the structure fails, so they slowly buckle until they reach a complete failure point.
The loads in the Towers changed instantaneously, beyond their failure point, so they failed instantaneously.
I've learned more about controlled demolition recently. An interesting site to visit is
Implosion World. They offer lots of video plus the history of controlled demolition. Some of their demolition videos feature buildings that are much closer in scale to the WTC 7 building. These buildings can be seen crumbling, toppling, and imploding in various fashion. The collapse of the WTC 7 building strikes me as a prime example of an A+ controlled demolition. In fact, if asymmetric fire damage can cause such a breathtakingly symmetrical near free-fall collapse and implosion as witnessed of that building, then perhaps I should consider a career in demolition. After all, if random fires can cause such a tidy rubble pile, how hard can it be?
Some will cite eyewitness testimony that the south face of WTC 7 was severely damaged by debris from the collapse of the north tower, and the testimony is credible (it's from a fire captain as i recall). There is little to no video or photographic evidence of this. However, if you accept this, then you should also accept other firefighters video testimony that they heard what they thought were bombs going off in the towers, and you should accept this without interpretation. If one firefighter is capable of making the reasonable observation that the building was severely damaged, then certainly other firefighters can make the reasonable observation that they heard what they thought were bombs going off. Structural engineers are more qualified in ascertaining severe damage, and demolitions experts are more qualified in identifying explosive detonations aurally, but this doesn't mean firefighters can't do a decent job of either.
The Bankers Trust building deserves attention. Here is a satellite photo of the World Trade Center complex pre-9/11:
The WTC 7 building appears just southeast of 12 o'clock, to the northeast of the WTC 6 building. The Banker's Trust building appears just north of 6 o'clock directly south of the South Tower (WTC 2). Bankers trust suffered damage similar to what was claimed by the firefighter about WTC 7, and there is photographic evidence:
So what is the difference between Banker's Trust and the WTC 7 building? Well, Banker's Trust was closer to the south tower than the WTC 7 building was to the north tower. Banker's Trust also didn't have the WT6 building in between it and the north tower. WTC 6 is a miraculous story by itself. After receiving the full brunt of the north tower's collapse, plus fire damage, it failed to collapse! It was later admittedly "pulled" according to the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds". Note that WTC 6 is visible as the small structure in the northwest corner of the WTC complex. Finally, Banker's Trust wasn't leased by Larry Silverstein.
So, what indeed is the difference between these buildings that caused the spectacular, unprecedented (well, unless you count the twin towers) collapse of WTC 7, but left Banker's Trust standing tall?
One shouldn't select evidence at all, let alone in a crime the scope of 9/11. While there is an overriding emotional, and by the mainstream media's account, evidential reason to accept the government's OCT, that doesn't justify the selection of evidence as many so-called "skeptics" on this thread have done. Consider all the evidence, with an open mind. There is much, much more.
