A question concerning the towers and them coming down

[johnnie]

I was wondering if the WTC towers might have always been rigged to be brought down the way they were on 9-11 for the purpose of the way they came down. It's not a theory or anything like that. I was just thinking of it the other day and watching the first tower start to tip and then come straight down got me to thinking.

It seems like it would have been a good idea to have them rigged in the first place like that in case anything happened where they might want to bring them straight down instead of letting them fall willy nilly all over everything else.

So I just wanted to get other's thoughts on this. It might have even been mentioned before, but I haven't seen it.

[MervinFerd]

1. It's a dumb idea.

Leave explosives around--all wired up--so somebody could bring the building down 100 years later? Or maybe sooner, if the bad guys find the switch.

And nobody knows about it? Even though many thousands of workers were building the thing?

Think, dude.

[MervinFerd]

2. They fell because they were hit by very big airplanes and caught fire.

[johnnie]

3. Hmmm..

I didn't think of that. Thanks :hi:

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Except for WTC 7

but the OCTers have all kinds of excuses for that one.

[greyl]

6. Not excuses - explanations. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. So what's your explanation?

What do you think happened?

[greyl]

11. After becoming very familiar with the CT angles,

I think they are all wrongheaded and baseless.

Damage from the Tower collapse & fires that burned for hours is the most reasonable explanation.

[DoYouEverWonder]

12. Of course there is no photographic evidence of either

but for arguments sake let's assume that is what happened. Where what the fires and how did they cause the complete failure of a 47 story steel building?

[greyl]

14. Invincible Ignorance.

I can't take your post seriously because I know damn well that you've seen the pictures.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. Is it so hard to post a link

if there is actually a picture of what you claim.

Every picture I've seen shows smoke from an undetermined source and I have never seen any pictures of flames coming out the south side of WTC 7.

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. Back to the personal insults?

Is it possible for you to have a discussion without them?

[Ezlivin]

21. Damage and fire didn't seem to work the same magic on WTC 3

What I find interesting is that this building has been nearly split in two, yet the two heavily damaged "halves" are still standing.

Notice that they do not collapse down, despite the incredibly heavy damage.

Pictures of the WTC 7 show three nearly pristine sides. Regardless of what damage it may have incurred, it pales with that suffered by WTC 3. And yet WTC 3 stood until it was demolished.

[greyl]

23. Different construction & different damage.

There is no reason to believe that all buildings that are damaged and have fires will collapse, just like there is no reason to believe that all car accidents end with a head through the windshield.

[Ezlivin]

29. That's why no one expected WTC 1 and 2 to fall in an identical fashion?

Despite receiving different types of damage?

Your arguments seem to go like this:

WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and damage. That was expected because of fire and damage.

WTC 3 didn't collapse due to fire and damage. That was expected because it was somehow different than WTC 7.

And I can just as easily argue:

WTC 3 didn't collapse due to fire and damage. That was expected because it was built to standards.

WTC 7 collapsed due to fire and damage. That was unexpected because it was built to standards

[Ezlivin]

33. Reposting of image

[Make7]

34. Can you post some pictures of the fires in WTC3? ( n/t )

[Ezlivin]

35. My camera was crushed during the fall of WTC 2

Okay, it wasn't but didn't that title make you want to read the rest?

:)

I don't have any pictures, but this description is provided on the site the photo is supplied on:

The following account was developed through interviews with Marriott Hotel staff.

Small fires on the top floor were ignited as a result of projectiles through the roof, most likely after the impact of the aircraft with WTC 1. At least one of these fires was located in the health club on the top floor. Some jet fuel was reportedly involved in these fires.

Evacuation of the hotel guests and staff was initiated shortly after ignition of the fires. Building occupants were initially directed to the hotel lobby. Later, the building occupants were instructed to evacuate the building. It is unknown whether the fire alarm system was activated in the building. Hotel staff and fire service personnel alerted other building occupants while moving in the corridors on the guest room floors.

All of the building occupants were evacuated from the building. However, two members of the hotel management team had each re-entered the building to check on the safety of guests and firefighters, and incurred fatal injuries on the guest room floors upon collapse of WTC 2.

....

The response of WTC 3 to the September 11 events is complex and noteworthy. WTC 3 was subjected to two loading events. The first event involved the collapse of WTC 2, which stood immediately east of WTC 3. Due to its proximity to WTC 2, substantial amounts of debris fell directly on the roof of WTC 3.

Debris from WTC 2 struck the building with sufficient force to crush approximately 16 stories in the center of the building, as shown in Figure 3-7. In spite of this extensive damage, the collapse did not continue down to the foundations or extend horizontally to the edges of the structure. In fact, the two northernmost bays (approximately 60 feet) remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays. Even in the center of the building, the collapse stopped at approximately the 7th floor. This arrested collapse implies that the structure was sufficiently strong and robust to absorb the energy of the falling debris and collapsed floors, but at the same time the connections between the destroyed and remaining framing were able to break apart without pulling down the rest of the structure. This complex behavior resulted in the survival of large portions of the building following the collapse of WTC 2.

[johnnie]

5. I think it is a legitimate question

They do put safeguards in building you know. I don't think that a bomb would be laying around for the bad guys to get to. I would think it would have been planned out better than that. I think it would more than a switch that would set them off too. What do you think this is? Scooby Doo?

[greyl]

7. Not quite.

Not all questions are legitimate, first of all. Don't believe the hype.

Second, what evidence leads you to posit this question?

[johnnie]

8. There is no evidence

If you read my OP you will see that I thought about it after watching the towers go down again for the 1,000th time. I just wonder what other people thought about the possibility of the towers being set to go straight down instead of falling across most of NYC.

I said in my OP that it isn't a theory or anything like that, just asked for thoughts. You don't need evidence to ask a question, do you? Ooops, I just asked another question without evidence.

[greyl]

10. I didn't think there was.

That's my point, really. There is no reasoning behind the question, just like the vast majority of "unanswered questions" that permeate conspiracy theories.

What do you think makes a question legitimate?

[treestar]

13. Interesting thought

Apparently it takes a long enough time to set up that it couldn't be done (rigging to explode) after the crashes. I had wondered if the government could have brought them down in fear other planes were going to be crashed into them. It is exactly the type of thing Bushco would rather not be responsible for, even if arguable necessary.

The insurance companies might have thought it too big a loss or too expensive a loss to deal with damaged towers. Though for that, they could have brought them down later.

Another thought was that Al Qaeda agents could have done it, but that almost seems less possible than CIA/MIHOP agents doing it.

But something sure defies common sense about both buildings happening to go down. Jet planes are big, but compared to those buildings, they were tiny. The fires alone seem not enough to have the buildings come down. Or at least, it would be more believable if it was only one of them. And Building 7 just absolutely adds to the smoke that something is not as presented.

What was in WTC 7 that it had to come down? Or was it just convenient that it be blasted then?

[greyl]

15. "something defies common sense about both buildings collapsing"

Define common sense, please.

What did the buildings have in common?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnnie]

16. My question on this isn't meant to support any particular theory

It would seem to me that a building that size would have had safety guards planned in case of earthquake, cracks in the foundation or any number of thing that could happen to those buildings if it was in jeopardy of toppling over instead of straight down.

I would think it would be a smart move on the initial construction of building that large. That is all I was questioning.

[greyl]

18. The building couldn't topple over, thus

no safequards like what you are imagining were necessary.

[johnnie]

19. Strange

In every single video I saw of the first tower starting to fall, the top started to topple over before the rest of the building went down.

[greyl]

20. Did the top topple over?

No. In your own words : "the top started to topple over before the rest of the building went down."

[johnnie]

22. Wow

Please don't tell me you get paid to come here and refute anything anyone says? They are getting ripped off.

[greyl]

24. I presume you're taking the ad hominem route

because a contradiction has been pointed out to you?

[johnnie]

25. No

I just have no idea where you are going with anything. You ask me if the top toppled and then say no, but in my own words "the top started to topple". I'm confused as to what you were pointing out to me.

I don't come here often, but I thought I would ask what people thought on this and so far all you basically said is that I am wrong. I didn't even state any facts. Everything you have said on here is pointless, so I figured you are paid to come here and make no sense.

I don't come here to prove or disprove anything. I don't understand why people like you are obsessed over this whole thing. If you think it happened the way it happened, why do you come here? Obviously it isn't to state any facts, it just seems to me you come here just to say everyone else is wrong.

Have fun

[greyl]

26. To me, "started to topple over" doesn't equal "toppled over".

Do you see where I'm going with that now?

[johnnie]

27. I see

But it still toppled over in my opinion. It doesn't matter.

[greyl]

28. It definitely tilted for a time.

I think we can agree on that word, at least.

Thing is, because of their construction, the WTC towers couldn't topple over. They cannot be compared to tree with a wedge cut out of the bottom of the trunk. The buildings were designed to stand straight up. Any tipping will redistribute the weight onto structure that was never meant to handle the extra weight.

[savemefromdumbya]

32. bombs planted in them brought them down in 8seconds