Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Could the "spire" have collapsed gravity-only? (35 posts)

  1. paulkenyon
    Member

    Hello.

    Could the "spire"--that part of the north tower left standing 20 seconds or so after the "global collapse" of the tower around it--have collapsed with gravity the only energy provider...no meddling from "other parties"?

    Put another way: I have been looking for a non-human intervention mechanism of collapse for the spire. It's behavior, as seen on the CNN, ABC and Fox News video clips shows unusual behavior if one thinks about it a minute. It appears to get wobbly or soft and slink straight down to the ground. This has been seen as evidence of DEW's used but late firing explosives could also have caused this behavior. Could this behavior, however, have simply been caused by gravity, as we have been lead to believe? I think the demise of the spire--which was not hit by an aircraft and was not subject to fire or any other "softening" agent (or so we've been repeatedly assured by the fedreal agencies tasked with discovering how the WTC buildings collapsed) and that has been relieved of the weight it was designed to support....all the floors sripped from it as it stood there after the dust cleared...odd.

    Such a structure could topple, or buckle in either mode 1 (bend over from the top (unlikely but possible)) or mode 2 (bulge out from the center (less likely)) but should not have fallen straight down as though the earth opened up under it or it had been melted from the bottom by fast acting acid.

    Actually, as we look at it in the best videos we have of it, it is not a single column but several columns solidly tied together. The top slender section rose above the several columns below. This made for a strong structure. It stood 20 seconds and I think it should have stood for 20 years...or 200 years of the calm clear weather of that morning if left alone to do so.

    Does anyone have a natural scenario that could have made the spire collapse as we see it collapse in the videos? Does anyone have an interpretation of the videos that shows it actually toppled or buckled only we couldn't see it do this?...though the images, though not great, certainly show that it goes straight down.

    And, last but not least: Where did it land and how do we know? It was possible to identify where pieces of debris in the debris piles came from on the towers from which they fell. Was any of the spire identified on the top of the WTC 1 debris pile where it should have ended up if it really did fall, in pieces (perhaps...delayed explosives every few feet throughout the structure?) after the rest of WTC 1 had fallen?

    Thanks,

    Paul Kenyon

    Posted 7 years ago #
  2. JohnA
    Member

    ROFLMAO!!

    Posted 7 years ago #
  3. paulkenyon
    Member

    JohnA, Thanks for your enthusiastic reply. I assume by that you mean there's no chance at all that the spire could have come down as we see it coming down in videos of the event by gravity alone. That's the answer I'm looking for, of course. I'd would like a few more people to chime in on this...especially someone with extensive knowledge of the physics that would be involved. To me, it's simple: the spire stood for 20 seconds or so after the rest of WTC 1 fell. Most of the loads the members that made up "the spire" had been relived from it so it was very strong. There also is no reason to assume that those columns could have been damaged or weakened: no fire, not aircraft impacts, etc. Steel, over the short run, doesn't get tired like an animal could so 20 seconds should have stretched to hundreds of years standing like that. In other words, in straight down collapse of the spire after the 20 second existence of it after the WTC 1 collapse, we have proof of human hands in the spire's collapse. This would be proof positive of foreknowledge, for example, and access for some time to set charges all along those columns...or of some other mechanism deliberately planned and deployed. What we have, then, is inarguable proof that the WTC collapses were not due to the aircraft impacts but that the whole thing was set up as a made for television event for public consumption...The buildings were rigged to collapse...no question. So, where do we go from here? Can we take this to court?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    actually i was laughing at how weak your case is.

    and how you pile one assumption on top of another - while peppering your posts with comments like:

    "What we have, then, is inarguable proof..."

    I was laughing for two reasons:

    1 - you don't have proof of anything

    2 - your posts do not even APPROACH a serious discussion of physics. you offer no math, no facts regarding weight and momentum, no formulas, no blueprints, no engineering degree, no inside information, no knowledge of the damage done to the spire in the course of the collapse, no new evidence.

    nothing actually. you offer us nothing. maybe that is why no one else here has 'weighed in' as you have requested.

    but - don't let me stop you. take it to court. maybe Captain Kangaroo is available to represent you.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  5. paulkenyon
    Member

    You offer nothing toward answering the simple, original question yourself, just invective. Why should it have fallen? It's an honest question. From my second post: "I'd would like a few more people to chime in on this...especially someone with extensive knowledge of the physics that would be involved."

    Posted 7 years ago #
  6. emanuel
    Member

    The liar required no spire (just fire) to mire the choir.

    Emanuel

    Posted 7 years ago #
  7. truthmod
    Administrator

    Sorry, I am not going to weigh in on this, I don't have the energy to read the original post. I think many of us here aren't too interested in the spire. We usually take a broader approach not dependent on physical evidence. The technical details often take us further from a shared, logical, truthful understanding.

    Many of the discussions of arcane details or constant rehashing of possibilities seem designed to suck energy out of the movement by sowing distraction and confusion.

    If you're trying to prove to yourself or others that 9/11 was an inside job (or that there has been a massive coverup, lies, etc.) is your personal train of thought about the spire really going to make a difference?

    I'm not sure if you have a history in the movement that the others posters know about, but if you are an honest activist, you are welcome to continue this and other conversations on our board. But be prepared for sometimes harsh responses from some of the veterans of the movement.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  8. Victronix
    Member

    I think many of us here aren't too interested in the spire.

    I just had to laugh at this . . .

    I never read anything on the spire anymore given how I've seen years wasted on nutty claims about it.

    In this movement there are the bodies of evidence and hypotheses that are moving forward and increasing in strength over time or remaining strong from the start, and there are the virtually baseless claims about pods, missiles, holograms, DEW, "no planes", "swapped planes", fake phone calls, etc., that only keep people going in circles.

    For each of these we can pretty much understand right away that each of these has gone nowhere, however much handwaving there has been about them.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  9. beactive
    Member

    I am upset by the tone of these replies to paulkenyon. They are as derisive and contemptuous as those I get from my mainstream friends when I tell them the 3 WTC buildings were explosively demolished. Paulkenyon does not make any claims "about pods, missiles, holograms, DEW", nor do I see him attempting to "suck energy out of the movement by sowing distraction and confusion".

    He's asking a real and honest -- and obviously very unpopular -- question. It's unnecessary and deeply unkind to respond scornfully, when there are so many polite and respectful ways to tell him that you don't want to engage in that particular line of inquiry (which in itself is discouraging enough, since he is asking an important question, however "unfruitful" it may seem to those on this forum).

    If we can't do this for each other, we have no right to expect the mainstream world to do it for us.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  10. truthmover
    Administrator

    Paul,

    I think you are speaking with undue certainty about something outside of your experience that is no better than a distraction in the context of all those actionable facts we have available. You may not be aware of this. I find that possible but hard to believe.

    Beactive,

    Honest questions are very different than useful or relevant questions. And asking what happened to the spire is just as silly to me as speculations about any of the other silliness you've listed above.

    To both of you,

    TruthMove has been a firm and consistent critic of 'big tent' thinking within the 9/11 truth movement. By that critique not every line of speculation or inquiry is important to the movement, and some are directly distracting and/or destructive to our ends.

    There's nothing positive about making naive people feel bad about it. That's not an educational attitude. But I very strongly doubt that either of you are all that naive. Paul speaks with confidence about evidence, and you speak with confidence about behavior. So, if you aren't new to this, the comments above suggest that both of you may be supportive of the 'big tent' approach.

    If that's the case, this might not be the best forum for either of you. If one or more of us has misunderstood your position or intent, we hope you will clarify. We also hope you will consider the reasons for the misunderstanding.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  11. paulkenyon
    Member

    Truthmover,

    Thanks for your reply. I don't understand the "big tent" reference and am at some risk of repeating my earlier errors in that regard but would like to clarify my question and reason for asking it. Forgive me if I miss your point and repeat a mistake I've made above, here. It's not intentional.

    What is silly about the question I'm asking?

    Why do you think that I am asking about something outside my experience?

    What are the actionable facts pertinent to my question?

    Note: none of the three above questions are rhetorical.

    I am not trying lead answers and I am not trying to start a long discussion. I do not intend a philosopical distraction for the group. This group was suggested as a place I would find people who would have the kind of information that would answer my specific question. I want physics facts, that's all. The answer could be short. I've worked on the spire motion issue and am trying to be thorough. There may be something I've overlooked. This step is just a part of problem solving. Maybe there is a good, reasonable, natural, physical way for the standing core remnant to fall down as it did.

    I am a mechanical engineer and have worked as a design engineer for 40 years or so. I know steel fairly well and the way things tend to work and happen in the real world on a classical physics level.

    The core remnant stood, stable, for 20 seconds. It then suddenly falls, apparently in instantly derived small sections straight down. But that is abnormal. It should have toppled over...or, actually, it should have simply stood there. The majority of the forces it was designed to withstand had been removed, the floors gone, the upper structure gone, the energies of the greater, surrounding collapse subsided. It was not struck by an aircraft. That was far above. It had not been heated. That also happned only far above. If it was worked by the collapsing material that would only strengthed it. Mild structural steel work hardens and can double in strength.

    But the core remnant fell straight down as though it came instantaneously to bits. I thought to ask, how could that happen? It is not a rhetorical question. I mean to assume no answer here. I am not leading anyone into re-opening an old inquiry...unless I have...but if I have, the answer to my question will be available to someone who took part in that discussion and it would help me to have that answer.

    This is not the first group of people I have asked. So far, no one has come up with an answer. I'm looking for a natural means, gravity only, that would make the core remnant fall straight down into it's own footprint as we see it doing in the films of it. It would appear, at this point, that there is no natural, gravity only, mechanism that explains its motion. This may not be the fact.

    I have made some assumptions but I think they are reasonable. That it stood as long as it did suggests the assumptions (that it was strong, for example.)

    I'm not pushing for a conclusion of the use of futuristic technologies. Known technologies will do...such as delayed explosives. There's plenty of evidence of explosives and cutter charge use throughout the buildings. It's reasonable to think that that structure, too, had them and that they just hadn't gone off.

    I wonder also if the sectioned core remnant was found in pieces on the debris pile as it should have been. Perhaps someone in this group knows and can point me to the study or evidence.

    Again, if I misunderstand the purpose of this forum, forgive me. I don't wish to misuse it or waste anyone's time.

    Thanks.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  12. paulkenyon
    Member

    Truthmover and others. I have read the truthmove.org background and theory. I agree wholeheartedly with your directive and also see that my question might not be appropriate to this site. If someone on the site can offer information that might lead to an answer, that's great. If not, I understand and thank you. Paul Kenyon

    Posted 7 years ago #
  13. JohnA
    Member

    well - you're the engineer.

    what relevance would our opinions have to an engineer? wouldn't you be more concerned with facts?

    i could give my opinions - but i would then be guilty of doing what i criticize others of doing - giving opinions on issues of physics, engineering and architecture that i am not qualified to provide.

    but - (and do have to apologize if this seems harsh) - but i frankly find it slightly unbelievable that a mechanical engineer would be having such a hard time with this issue.

    you want my non-qualified opinion?

    ok

    how many tons of debris fell from the towers on 9/11 - and how much momentum did they carry when they hit the earth?

    you make it sound as if the spire was in pristine condition and collapsed in a vacuum on a bright and sunny day.

    how is it that a mechanical engineer schooled in the sciences and emperical thinking could claim that the spire was unaffected by fire - and was not hit by a plane - while IGNORING the hundreds of thousands tons of debris that fell on it that day?

    How can an engineer even raise this question without blueprints that illustrate exactly what the BASE of this spire looked like - and how it may have been compromised?

    gee - do you think it is possible the base of the spire was damaged, key joints weakened - and gravity simply brought it down?

    is this impossible?

    look - people do not mince words around here. i am going to be painfully honest with you. i, for one, do not believe you. nothing personal. i just have to put that out there. i do not believe your questions are honest.

    you are of course free to continue to discuss and debate this matter - but if you are canvasing this forum for opinions - you have received mine.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  14. truthmover
    Administrator

    Paul,

    I don't enjoy this, but I agree with John. Your comments above are not all that logical and they don't convey any significant degree of education. You have no reason to be asking us these questions as more appropriate resources are readily available. And your statements about what happened at the WTC are simply not true while you convey a significant degree of certainty.

    It just doesn't add up. You might be an expert at engineering of some kind. We here are experts at detecting deception. That's not a perfect science, and so I apologize if you have been misjudged. But trolls always pull the victim routine when they are being challenged, so it will do you little good to accuse us of being unfair.

    This movement is about globally significant issues that exceed the important of anyone here or their opinions. John and my statements might seem harsh, but false flag terror is a lot worse.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  15. beactive
    Member

    Paul, I do agree with your feeling that you need to take your questions to another forum. You gave it a good shot here, but there's no point in going on with it. I hope you get the answers you're seeking somewhere else.

    I am disheartened by the reaction of the people on this site. Apparently they either think both of us are disinfo, or that we are just deluded people who are trying to disrupt this forum.

    It's too bad.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  16. truthmover
    Administrator

    Paul, I do agree with your feeling that you need to take your questions to another forum. You gave it a good shot here, but there's no point in going on with it. I hope you get the answers you're seeking somewhere else.

    I am disheartened by the reaction of the people on this site. Apparently they either think both of us are disinfo, or that we are just deluded people who are trying to disrupt this forum.

    It's too bad.

    One of the mantras for the more discerning people I know in this movement is that speculation about motive is not important. What is important is behavior. In other words, I don't care whether or not you are an agent if you are acting like one.

    I've seen the post above so many times in different forms, it's certainly become a cliche. The cheesy hand wringing. "I am disheartened by the reaction of the people on this site." The sly insults and turnabout. 'There's no point in going on with it.'

    So, stop acting like a troll and you won't be treated like one.

    But one step further, because I'm not in a great mood, and John inspired me to be honest. This looks like totally transparent trolling to me. Is it 911movement, or screwloosechange? What rock did you crawl out from under?

    It then suddenly falls, apparently in instantly derived small sections straight down.

    Apparent to whom? I've seen the video. This is crap.

    You gave it a good shot here, but there's no point in going on with it.

    Who the hell are you? You register here just to defend Paul, and your only two posts are critical of this forum? That's crap.

    Here's the usual purpose of what I'm seeing here. Push buttons to provoke a response that allows for criticism. I offered the official response above. That will be ignored. But my frustration here will most likely be used to paint a negative picture of TruthMove on some other forum or blog that I think is crap. So be it.

    Now, to take it down a notch as I actually do respect the slim possibility that Paul here is well meaning, if not all that committed to looking into it himself.

    It you really are genuinely interested in this topic, stop it. It's a waste of your time and anyone's you talk to about it. No one I know who is genuinely interested in CD spends any amount of time on this.

    If you insist on pursuing this topic, I expect that you will do about a day of web surfing and realize that it's crap.

    Either way, by next week, you should have moved on.

    Hey, that's my opinion. Not something you have any reason to feel threatened by.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  17. emanuel
    Member

    My thanks to the admins for protecting the quality of this forum.

    Emanuel

    Posted 7 years ago #
  18. truthmover
    Administrator

    Dupe

    Posted 7 years ago #
  19. truthmover
    Administrator

    Thanks for the nod. It feels good to be honest based on my experience. It also feels good to moderate this forum the way I wish I could moderate others. Unfortunately, strict moderation doesn't seem to lead to lots of participants. But I prefer a few thoughtful, focused, logical participants, to the total chaos I find elsewhere.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  20. paulkenyon
    Member

    While you're all hi-5ing each other... JohnA: Thanks for your opinion though I wasn't asking for guesses about the core remnant collapse. The short answer is that such a failure as you describe...all the joints failing at once after the structure withstood the collapse around it and stood unloaded afterward....is astromonically small...and the columns are described as spigotted assemblies, steel column butted atop steel column, fasteners used to allign them, not to support loads. Such structures only fall the way the videos show them falling, stable and unloaded, in cartoons. This reply is not only for JohnA or for Truthmover (who, by the way, are hiding behind masks of anonymity while I quite demonstrably am not) but also for others who are reading this thread from interested sidelines or who might read it in the future. Recognize that the very behaviors of denial and fear and disempowermdnt Truthmove.org aspires to address are the behaviors being displayed by Truthmover and JohnA. This hypocrisy must be exposed if this group is going to live up to it's self declared purpose. Those very behaviors are what enabled Hitler and the Holocaust. Had JohnA or Truthmover or anyone else wanted to learn about me they only had to Google my name and learn all anyone might need to know in a few seconds: my education, where I live, that I live off-grid, pictures of the house, pictures of me, that I am married, am involved in energy issues, that I am a small wind consultant, that my PowerPoint on the conservation of momentum physics of the collapse of WTC 1 can be downloaded from the Boston 911truth site, my address and phone number, to what organizations I belong and much more. I'm open and public. To Truthmover: no, nobody's, (not me, anyway) is going to bash this site. If that were my purpose, you, in the posts you've written here, have done all the damage anyone would want to see done. Your paranoia is tangible.

    If the question is "are we (am I) afraid of our (my) government?" as it appears to be, it must be pointed out for everyone's sake that if "they" were going to come and get one of us, "they" will, or, more likely, would have already. And, it's not that we're safe from "them" but that we must do what we do despite that threat of the violation of our civil rights. That "they" can, is obvious.

    There is an element of self absorption in paranoia, that it is, in a sense, "it's all about me" meaning it's all about the paranoid, a self affirming if uncomfortable, raison d'etre. This, absent the fear element, is what a baby insists about reality upon its first persistent utterances to the world. You people are acting like children. I also similarly suspect you to be mounting the website as a way of self congratulations (well proven by your last two responses) and to affirm your (questioned) self importance.

    Your posts are so poisonous I suspect you of being on drugs. I suggest, if you're using, get off them. If you are off your meds--a suggestion made by one commentor about this thread on another forum--get back on them. 911 pursuits require a cool head. Get help.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  21. JohnA
    Member

    This reply is not only for JohnA or for Truthmover (who, by the way, are hiding behind masks of anonymity while I quite demonstrably am not)

    i'm anonymous? oh. ok.

    This hypocrisy must be exposed if this group is going to live up to it's self declared purpose. Those very behaviors are what enabled Hitler and the Holocaust.

    and this is a mature analogy?

    gee whiz - what's with the Hitler freaks everywhere lately?

    you come here and ASK our opinions - and then compare us to the mass murder and genocide of millions of people when we fail to embrace your loosely knit ideas about a collapsing spire?

    and you are lecturing the moderators here? I think the moderators here have shown more than enough patience. They have not censored or deleted anything you have written. You, on the other hand, have been less than gracious as a guest.

    the fact is that no one here - yet- appears interested in your theories about the spire. and you do not further your case by throwing rocks at the moderators. the moderators are entitled to opinions too. and it is thru their discretion, patience and good will that you are even allowed to post here at all.

    your last post not only violates basic etiquette - it is my opinion that it now violates this site's guidelines.

    accusing people of using drugs - or needing drugs - is simply proof positive that you are participating on the wrong forum - and should take your theories elsewhere.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  22. bje
    Member

    paulkenyon,

    Just a note on the construction of the WTC Towers.

    The rigidity of the structure came from tying the core members to the outside walls via the floor trusses. Neither the core nor the outside walls could exist independently of each other, i.e., without being tied together via the floor trusses to provide the rigidity of the entire structure and allow it to be built to the heights that they were.

    The construction photos show how the towers were built and that the core never exceeded the height of the outside walls by more than a dozen or so stories. In fact, the core could not exist independently for more than twenty or so stories without becoming unstable.

    The fact that the "spire" existed at all provides some important clues.

    1) It momentarily existed after the collapse of the structure around it, then collapsed. This is in keeping with the expected instability of the core without the tie-in to the outside walls, now gone. It teetered before collapsing. There is nothing surprising about that.

    2) The fact that the "spire" remained after the collapse of the floors and outside walls argues against any controlled demolition rather than for it. Apart from the fact that controlled demolitions rely on gravity and would never start at the top working downwards as happened, there would be no rational reason to set off separate demolitions of the core after the rest of the demolition had taken place. And who would care if the "spire" stayed upright anyway given what happened?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  23. Arcterus
    Member

    This reply is not only for JohnA or for Truthmover (who, by the way, are hiding behind masks of anonymity while I quite demonstrably am not)

    You lost any credibility right there. Talking of "anonymity" like it somehow makes you a better researcher is little more than ad-hominem, and immediately puts into question any serious dedication you have here. Then you went on with your "drug" comment. Not a good move.

    2) The fact that the "spire" remained after the collapse of the floors and outside walls argues against any controlled demolition rather than for it.

    I partially agree with that, but I think it's more that it's such a speculative and fringe issue that it really doesn't favor either side. It's more distracting than anything else.

    Posted 7 years ago #
  24. madashell
    Member

    Perhaps I can look at this more objectively being an English citizen. It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people on this and other truth forums aggressively criticising and debunking controlled demolition theories. I am a building surveyor with 19 years experience in the construction industry so I feel that I may have some opinion to offer (if limited). I think that many debunkers are missing some crucial points which cannot be ignored.

    1. It is highly unlikely that that impact would have produce a delayed complete collapse of the structure. Whilst one is forced to concede that the force of the impact was massive we must remember that aircraft are made from aluminium, which is a strong yet light alloy and is very malleable, it would not be beyond the realms of possibilty to conclude that the planes came off worst. The core columns of the towers were huge and I'm certian they could have withstood the impact, in fact didn't the architects who designed the towers state that they were engineered to withstand such an impact.

    2. It is also highly unlikelly that fire brought about structural failure either. Firstly the temperatures experienced, even form burning jet fuel cannot possibly cause the steel to collapse given that the fires burned for a relatively short time and that the vast majority of the jet fuel would been expended during the explosion which visibly occurred upon impact and could therfore not have caused lower level fires of such intensity to weaken structural steel further down.

    3. Pancaking could not have happened, if the drawings and blueprints I have looked at are correct then the concrete floors were not simply suspended form the steel structure but were actually physically supported by considerable steel beams and as all joints between horizontal and vertical members were effectivley covered by a concrete slab, this would have prevented failure of these floors and thus prevented the pancake effect. Which leaves the question, what caused those joints to fail in a sychronised, systematic way; only explosives can do that. ~Why also dose the building not get sliced at the point of impact or simply topple over? If the government claims that the aircraft impact brought the towers down, why did they fall within their own footprint (implode)? This pattern of falling within or very close to its own footprint is characteristic only of a controlled implosion.

    4. Perhaps the most important point, building 7. Ask yourself why, when looking at the relatively lightly damaged building 7 in comparison to the other WTC buildings, did it collapse? The damage was largely confined to the elevation directly adjacent to the twin towers and whilst visual evidence shows that the other buildings suffered greater damage yet remained structurally stable, building 7 did not.

    5. Building 7 was not subject to impact from anything other than debris from towers 1 & 2, NO PLANE HIT THIS BUILDING!!!

    For those of you that engage in the dismissal of controlled demolition theories, perhaps you should consider that this is a crucial indicator of a conspiracy. The buildings could not have collapsed as per the official explanation, that is unless the laws of physics took a day off that day and when one accepts this one also has to conclude that the official story is fiction, this in itself is the biggest and clearest indicator of a conspiracy. Only the government/intelligence community would have the know how and means at their disposal for an operation of this complexity and magnitude. Why is it then that proponets of controlled demolition are pilloried by the organisations they support (such as this one). If it is acceptible to believe that there is a conspiracy and that the government is lying, why is it so difficult to believe that they physically caused the collapse? Frankly I credited the US with a little more solidarity, and just a little more inquisitiveness. There is no conclusive evidence either way and in English Law, where a case cannot be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt', it may be decided on 'balance of probabilities', on balance the whole CD thing warrants a closer look, because on balance of probabilities the official story is implausible.

    Isn't it time that thoking those of us seeking the truth started pressing the perpetrators and not fellow truth seekers?

    Posted 7 years ago #
  25. madashell
    Member

    Many apologies for poor spelling; large fingers, small keys!!! Also, in the UK we too are being dumbed down, yes our government practices the same politics as yours does!

    Posted 7 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.