What destroyed the Twin Towers?

What destroyed the Twin Towers?

  • Total voters
    120
it was definately nuclear weapons. you can tell by the mushroom cloud formed after the detonation. and we all know, only nuclear bombs can make a mushroom cloud.

=)
 
I chose 1, 2 and 'other' where 'other' represents loss of fireproofing, possible building and fire code violations, and design issues (specifically the long span truss system).
 
I selected structural damage and heat weakening from fire because "structural damage" pretty much covers everything.

In fact, you can't really think the towers were destroyed without structural damage.
 
I voted for "Other". This question needs to be addressed with a new investigation, not some Internet poll.
 
deep44 said:
I voted for "Other". This question needs to be addressed with a new investigation, not some Internet poll.
Click to expand...

So, get on it, deep44. What's stopping you and your fellow conspiracy fantasists from conducting the "new investigation" that you want so badly? Get going, already. Stop asking others to fund it for you, stop posting your blather on the Internet, and just get going already. Sheesh.
 
I voted for "heat weakening from fire" though, in my professional opinion, the structural damage from the airliner impacts certainly contributed to that. Still in each case, given the absense of the other, I think that it's far more likely that such fires would have eventually weakened the towers enough to fail, whereas it's more doubtful that they would have eventually failed due solely to the initial impact damage. It's difficult to ignore the Arup study.
 
Hmmm, why no mention of giant mutant badgers? :confused:

What are you trying to hide, eh? :boggled:


BTW my 'Other' is "building design". Have a nice day!
 
Hokulele said:
I think I am the only person to choose "Conventional Explosives". By this, I mean I think the jet fuel not only acted as an accelerant to the office fire, but the fireball added to the impact to dislodge fireproofing and possibly cause additional structural damage.
Click to expand...

[nitpick]Jet fuel isn't a conventional explosive, though, and the fireball was a deflagration rather than an explosion.[/nitpick]

I checked "other" because there is at least the possibility that sub-par installation and maintenance of fireproofing was a factor. And I've checked the last option because 1337m4n is probably a solipsistic autosycophant, so the whole thing only ever happened in his imagination anyway.

Dave
 
Lies I tell youy all Lies, they where destroyed by micro nukes carried on the back of Skwryl Space Marines that teleported in via the EMP device, this caused a magnetic disturbance that attracted the planes as a giant magnet,

The Skwryls had to go in to destroy the elves you see, wake up and smell the ether people.

The Elves, hee hee , elves evil nasty elves, mwuhuhaha
 
While the structural damage led to the collapse, the initial damage did not collapse the towers. The fires (aka the heat) destroyed the supports in the floors which were part of the structural support of the internal and external columns and that led to the collapse.

Firefighters see fire causes. :D

NIST's Findings On The World Trade Center Fire and Collapse

Slide 24
Relative Roles of Aircraft Impact and Fires
• Fires played a major role in further reducing the structural capacity of the
buildings, initiating collapse. While aircraft impact damage did not, by itself,
initiate building collapse, it contributed greatly to the subsequent fires and the
thermal response of the structures by:
Click to expand...


Slide 32
Critical Analysis Inter-Dependencies [see slide, it is a chart]
Click to expand...


Slide 36
The composite floor system with open-web bar joist elements, framed to provide twoway
flat plate action, enabled the floors to redistribute loads without collapse from
places of aircraft impact damage to other locations, avoiding larger scale collapse
upon impact.
Click to expand...


Slide 38
Innovative WTC Tower Structural System [see slide diagram]
Click to expand...


Slide 39
Fire Performance of Composite
Floor System
• Fire-protection of a truss-supported floor system with spray-on
fireproofing was innovative and not consistent with then-prevailing
practice.
• No evidence found of technical basis in the selection of
fireproofing thickness to meet 2 h fire rating:
• 1/2 in. specified when WTC towers were built to maintain Class 1-A (not 1-B) fire rating
requirement of the NYC Building Code
• 1-1/2 in. specified for upgrades some years prior to 2001
• 2 in. for similar floor system in an unrestrained test (model code evaluation service
recommendation in June 2001, unrelated to WTC buildings)
• No evidence that full-scale fire resistance test of the WTC floor
system was conducted to determine the required fireproofing
thickness; in 1966, the Architect of Record and, in 1975, the Structural
Engineer of Record stated that the fire rating of the WTC floor system
could not be determined without testing.
Click to expand...
In other words, this was the weak link and resulted in susceptible floor supports at a time when the floor supports in this case were part of the structural supports (they are not always). A new composite was used for fireproofing, it had not been properly tested, the structural design was unique, and the local government passed a law allowing themselves to ignore previous fire code regarding the burn time on the floor protection.

Sorry, I have that nerd impulse control problem sometimes that makes me post this stuff.
 
1337m4n said:
This should be a fairly easy and simple question. I'm including as many poll options as I can think of, including an "I don't know". I'd like to see everyone's answer.

Feel free to provide evidence supporting your choice in this thread. It will be subject to criticism however.



There's a Planet X option but its not labeled as such (guess:D)
Click to expand...

YOU!

Btw, I freakin' love that weegee avatar.
 
I chose Structural damage, Heat weakening from fire and other. The other would be impact from planes.

deep44 said:
I voted for "Other". This question needs to be addressed with a new investigation, not some Internet poll.
Click to expand...

A new investigation will not happen. Even if it did You would not get the answers you want.
 
Structural damage from impact of the planes, heat from burning fuel, and gravity.

No more and no less.
 
You guys are such sheeple. Everybody with any semblance of a brain knows that TOHO studios did it as retaliation for the blasphemous portrayal of Godzilla in 1998.

ETA - That's my story and I'm stickin to it :)
 
Last edited:
impact damage, damage from fire, weakened steel due to fire and initial damage, and finally....the weigth of a few thousand cubic yards of steel and concrete crushing down on floors that became too weak to hold them up.

what were you expecting...thermite??

by the way, I REFUSE to allow my hard earned tax dollars do into any 2nd investigation into why/how the towers fell. if they want to answer questions that were not tackled, like funding, saudi arabia, pakistan, thats fine. but NOT ONE DIME of my money will go to look at already answered questions.

=)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom