Reply #1: Good questions

[DoYouEverWonder]

Welcome to the DUngeon :hi:

I'm sure the OCTers will show up soon enough to distract and discredit your observations, but don't let someone tell you not to believe what your own eyes see.

In answer to your questions:

1. Yes, I agree, there be some irregularities based on how the collapse began. The damage from the planes and the fires were not the same in each tower, yet they both fall in almost the same exact way. That does not make sense, does it?

2. It does appear that the pulverization began inside the building before the outer walls started falling away from the buildings.

In this picture of WTC2, you can see the east wall pulling away from the top of the building in one piece and the interior appears to be pulverized already.



In this picture of WTC1, you can see the east wall pulling away from the top of the building in one piece and the interior appears to be pulverized already. (I seem to be repeating myself?)




3. Isn't the debris moving away from the building too quickly? Here's NIST attempt at an explanation:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

4. Why do the corners stay intact longer then the sides? The corners would be the strongest parts of the outer walls of the buildings. In a progressive collapse you would expect them to break apart with the floor they were attached to, but that does not appear to be what happens.

In many ways, we seem to be in the same boat. I am not a structural engineer either but I do know that a lot of what I see when I look at these images does not make sense, and that these building could not have possibly collapsed in the manner that they did, just from the damage from the airplanes and the fires that resulted.