Charlie Sheen's skepticism regarding 9/11

[Sixpack]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

Your opinions ? :/\chop

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2006/200306sheen1.jpg

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2006/200306bushcard.jpg

[blue3golf]

In every tragedy there are always those people that think it's a conspiracy. Maybe one day something will happen that will be accepted at face value. the real question is why did he wait almost 5 years before going public with this, maybe because only now there are that many disgruntled people out there that he has alopt of support.

[Sixpack]

What puzzles me most about Sheen's and other 'whistleblower's' reasoning is what motive could the US admin possibly have to ploy such horrible acts ? Sure, from a technical perspective anything is possible I guess, but for what possible reason ?

[jumpy]

I'm not convinced of the truth either way (other than lots of innocent people died for no good reason) and though I'm not one to believe everything I see at face value, I recon it was probably Islamic fundamentalists all the way- you'd have to go to a very dark place to start thinking that it was a US government decision to 'stage' an attack on US home soil to rally the people to strike first at Iraq etc...
But there are however some quite interesting and remarkably calm accounts of 9/11 from a rather different perspective, make of them what you will, I'm not advocating this as a 'truth' or something that I subscribe to in any way, but it's an interesting video to watch none the less (it's quite long...) :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

[STEED]

There is so much information on 9/11 now its hit and miss hard to know what is true and what is false. And how much of it is propaganda put out by all sides.

[CCIP]

Generally speaking, conspiracy theories are rarely true. A couple of friends of my family are big on 9/11 conspiracies - but, really, I think the conspiracy explanations are so contorted by comparison to the official versions, in all likelyhood they're baloney. That's just the way conspiracy theories usually are. :hmm:

[Sixpack]

Okay, I sounded naive there.

Let me get this straight:

Sheen & Co don't exclude the possibility Bush & Co planned, composed, organized and staged the 9/11 script in order to 'shock and awe' in Iraq ? Afghanistan being nothing but an opener clearly to legitimize real target Iraq ?

[DeepSix]

Charlie Sheen.... isn't that the guy with the reoccurring drug problem? ;)

[Skybird]

What puzzles me most about Sheen's and other 'whistleblower's' reasoning is what motive could the US admin possibly have to ploy such horrible acts ? Sure, from a technical perspective anything is possible I guess, but for what possible reason ?

Even I do not seriously think it was an intentional conspiracy, nevertheless the benefit for the reputation of Bush, who was in a severe politcal crisis and was not taken seriously by most, is obvious. For him, nothing better than a huge catastrophe could have happened. Lozs' of media coverage for him. Lot's of moving speeches. His poll values rocketed into the sky all of a sudden. 9/11 and the time after was the highlight of his presedency, concerning his popularity.

[JSLTIGER]

This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion.

The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this conclusion based on the evidence.

However, should additional evidence come to light that supports a different theory, the author is willing to reassess his views.

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder ...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?

From: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

[AG124]

I personally don't believe that there is any chance that 9/11 was a governmental conspiracy - there does appear to be to much evidence to the contrary (even if some things appear a little suspicious at first glance).

But what do you think would happen to George W Bush and the rest of his administration if it was conclusively proven that they had engineered the attack and those thousands of American deaths? Would all the Christian conservatives of America still support him to the last? Probably, some of them at least.

But maybe there should be an independent investigation, just to prove that there was no conspiracy. I think that such a display of transparency would bring a degree of confidence to the administration and boost its image - does anyone agree?

[Type941]

they are just asking for a new investigation but with same poeople in charge when the whole thing happened still being on top, it's unlikely. I'd say if in say 10 years US will have a clearly anti Bush president (unlikely, as in US he'll be propagaded into a war hero and his sins will be forgotten)- than there might be a new investigation. The emperor's clothes article recording the sequence of events with the air defence forces not reacting is a very interesting piece that hasn't been officially desputed by the WH, nor was it even adressed.

In any case, it's unlikely it's about Bush. He doesn't look smart enough to pull off things of this magnituted. his VP though....I get the feeling that guy can do things like that with ease.

At least read this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104undergroundexplosions.htm

[AG124]

In any case, it's unlikely it's about Bush. He doesn't look smart enough to pull off things of this magnituted. his VP though....I get the feeling that guy can do things like that with ease.

Yeah that is true - whether or not you like Bush, he's not exactly the most intelligent president the US has ever seen. Still, if there was some kind of 9/11 conspiracy, he would probably have to be in on it even as just a figurehead. Dick Cheney would be the evil mastermind. :cool:

[Iceman]

Red is grey and yellow white...and we decide which is right and which is an illusion.


Power of suggestion....jedi mind tricks for the weak minded...maybe it was Red Octobers Bigfoot who pulled it all off...helped by aliens.

[Abraham]

Gaawwwnnnn.

Here we go again:

After Osama Bin Laden attacked the US Embassies in Kenia and Tanzania Bill Clinton fired 75 Tom Cruise Missiles at training camps of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the camps appreared to be empty on that day, so only some environmental damage was done.

Later analysis showed that Clinton had fortfeied a unique chance to fight Muslim extremism. Immediately he started preparing a much bigger, evil and sinister scheme, a full blown attack on the US 'Pearl Harbour' style (without the battleships of course). The masterplan was ready halfway Clinton's second term and preparations could begin.

Clinton - of course - expected Al Gore to win the 2000 Presidential Elections. So long before 2000 he contacted O. B. Laden (of course at a secret location in Saudi Arabia). There is footage of Madeleine Albridge being in Saudi Arabia around that time.
O.B. Laden fell for the idea to attack the US and then de reattacked and started preparations in mid 1998.

When Bush won the elections the whole plan was under threat of being cancelled. Gore - who had intimate knowledge of the Clinton Laden deal tried to save the plan by requesting a recount of votes in Florida if only to save the plan. Alas, exit Clinton, no Gore.

But during the transmission of power from the outgoing to the incoming administration Bush and Cheney were brieved on the plan. Clinton pointed out that he was actually fooling O.B. Laden, because the so-called attack on America would result in a much bigger attack on the Middle East to grap all the oil from the poor Arabs and to improve the trade balance of the US by exporting a lot of democracy.

Bush & Cheney were sold. Next thing: everybody was sworn to secrecy, the Twin Towers were secretly prepared for demolition, the hyjackers did not know that their actions had the approval of the US President, the US air defense system went down on cue, all the Jews were warned by the Mossad not to go to work the next day and this story is based upon real facts...
:D

[Torpedo Fodder]

Look at it this way: Consider all the previously-secret government scandals that have leaked recently, such as Abu Gharib, the NSA wiretapping and the White House's involvment in blowing Valery Plame's cover. If 9/11 was orchistrated by the governemnt, it would require a far more wide-reaching conspiracy within the US Government to keep secret than any of the scandals that have thus been exposed. If the government couldn't keep those secret, how the hell would they keep a 9/11 conspiracy secret?

[Theta Sigma]

Sheen's a jackass.

His recent comments only serve to confirm it. :)

[goldorak]

Generally speaking, conspiracy theories are rarely true. A couple of friends of my family are big on 9/11 conspiracies - but, really, I think the conspiracy explanations are so contorted by comparison to the official versions, in all likelyhood they're baloney. That's just the way conspiracy theories usually are. :hmm:

Maybe, but most of the time they contain a very very tiny bit of truth.

[Fish]

Look at it this way: Consider all the previously-secret government scandals that have leaked recently, such as Abu Gharib, the NSA wiretapping and the White House's involvment in blowing Valery Plame's cover. If 9/11 was orchistrated by the governemnt, it would require a far more wide-reaching conspiracy within the US Government to keep secret than any of the scandals that have thus been exposed. If the government couldn't keep those secret, how the hell would they keep a 9/11 conspiracy secret?

Yes, should be imposible to hide away, to much people involved, but.......... what about they know there is something coming, and they decide to let it come?
Perhaps not knowing the outcome was at huge as it was? :hmm:

[Dowly]

I´ve been reading alot about the 9/11. It just cannot be that the goverment planned it, even though there are lots of things that make it look like it.

Pentagon:
a) Not a single part of the planes fuselage is found
b) The plane just happened to strike the part of the pentagon, which was going through maintenance
c) The hijackers couldnt fly even a Cessna, then how could they maneuver a big passenger plane on low altitude
d) The pentagon suffered only minor damage, I´ve seen photos were there is even some of the windows intact nearby the point where the plane crashed.

WTC:
a) Cannot remember which tower it was, where the plane struck it in to the corner. Anyway, almost all of the fuel from the plane exploded in air, not in the building. Still, that tower collapsed first.
b) The way the towers collapsed, straight down.
c) The explosions that are heard just few seconds before the towers collapse.

Weird stuff, but as I said, I dont believe it´s a conspiracy. ;)

Another site about the 9/11 conspiracy:
http://serendipity.nofadz.com/wtc.htm

[Sailor Steve]

I only have one comment: Charlie Sheen a "highly credible public figure"?

[The Avon Lady]

What a sad little thread. :down:

[Sixpack]

Btw, isnt it an amazing coincident only the White House wasn't hit and the other targets (WTC, Pentagon) were ? :hmm:

[The Avon Lady]

Btw, isnt it an amazing coincident only the White House wasn't hit and the other targets (WTC, Pentagon) were ? :hmm:
No.

Where was flight 93 destined to crash into?

Was it the last of the hijacked flights in the air and the US was already on full alert?

[Torpedo Fodder]

Yes, should be imposible to hide away, to much people involved, but.......... what about they know there is something coming, and they decide to let it come?
Perhaps not knowing the outcome was at huge as it was? :hmm:

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence: Even a case of the government knowing that 9/11 would happen yet deliberatly not doing anthing to stop it would require a fairly large conspiracy.

[bradclark1]

The only thing I'll say about it is that it's strange they demo'd down like they did. If you watch the film you will see puff's of smoke and dust working their way down ahead of the collapse. Witnesses said they thought they heard multiple explosion's. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from duty two weeks prior to 9/11.
I've never heard of burning jet fuel melt metal and even if it did, I still don't understand how those planes hitting where they did cause the total collapse of the towers.
I'm not into conspiracy theories but I wouldn't mind some answers.

[STEED]

The only thing I'll say about it is that it's strange they demo'd down like they did. If you watch the film you will see puff's of smoke and dust working their way down ahead of the collapse. Witnesses said they thought they heard multiple explosion's. Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from duty two weeks prior to 9/11.
I've never heard of burning jet fuel melt metal and even if it did, I still don't understand how those planes hitting where they did cause the total collapse of the towers.
I'm not into conspiracy theories but I wouldn't mind some answers.

Just to add to bradclark1 comments the designers of the twin towers planned for the probability of an aircraft hit. According to this documentary I saw both towers were design to take the impact of two aircrafts. The designers are supposed to be on record for that.

[TteFAboB]

I heard the WTC was built to withstand the impact of a Space Shuttle returning from Orbit at mach 3, but the system depended on a special computer software located on a top secret room to balance the whole structure in the event of a crash. The day before 9/11 a janitor witnessed the security guard playing Silent Hunter III on the balancing-computer.

Starforce destroyed the WTC.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm not into conspiracy theories but I wouldn't mind some answers.
I've posted this before:

POPULAR MECHANICS - 9/11: Debunking The Myths (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html).

There are a million other articles out there, including many by prestigious engineers, who have produced the nerdiest and boring but most scientific and technical articles to explain how the structures failed and why the towers and the Pentagon were damaged the way they were.

From what I recall, the WTC was never built to withstand the damage of a fully fuel laden large jet ramming into it at high speed. And if the original designer thought it was, well, back to the drawing board!

[Dowly]

From what I recall, the WTC was never built to withstand the damage of a fully fuel laden large jet ramming into it at high speed. And if the original designer thought it was, well, back to the drawing board!

But ~60-70% of the other plane´s fuel exploded in the air, they never reached the building. ;)

Oh and what about those 'Let´s roll!' phone calls???

Dear Ted,

I was reading your article on Rense.com on cell phones in flight, yesterday I made 2 flights with a motorola i205 nextexl phone, 1st flight, I had my cell off and then turned it on I suspect a little under 10,000 feet and well over 250 knots in a Boeing 737-400 and could not get ANY signal while still over a major metro area (Seattle).

2nd flight same day I left my phone on during takeoff, and before even reaching 3000, feet and slower than 250 knots( over the San Francisco Bay area)( as there is a speed limit that close to a large airport)like about the time the flaps were coming up the cell had lost its signal.

I know this is unscientific but if a newer phone (3 years) since 911 can't maintain a lock I highly doubt a 2001 phone could maintain a lock.

But then again, this doesnt prove anything. ;)

[The Avon Lady]

People here are still quoting Rense...............

Orderly! Take them away!

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9977/straightjacketfront0gq.jpg

[mog]

From what I recall, the WTC was never built to withstand the damage of a fully fuel laden large jet ramming into it at high speed. And if the original designer thought it was, well, back to the drawing board!

Remember that the buildings stood for some time after impacts. Only after prolonged exposure to extremely hot fires did the structures fail. In other words, the particular structural design of the WTC did in fact survive the impact of a passenger jet, which is quite remarkable given how many of the load-bearing perimeter columns were damaged or destroyed.

The fires were the demise of the towers, and there's no way the office fire system in the WTC was ever designed to cope with a jet fuel inferno.

[Dowly]

People here are still quoting Rense...............

Orderly! Take them away!

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9977/straightjacketfront0gq.jpg

:rotfl: :rotfl:

[bradclark1]

I read your link from PM and I just have a hard time believing that enough fuel survived impact to cause total structure failure. The pancake effect is believeable and that went through my mind numerous times and the sound of floors collapsing on each other could mimick an explosion but like I said the total structural failure I have a hard time swallowing.

[The Avon Lady]

I read your link from PM and I just have a hard time believing that enough fuel survived impact to cause total structure failure.
What's the problem?
but like I said the total structural failure I have a hard time swallowing.
Based on what?

[bradclark1]

Based on this.
I just have a hard time believing that enough fuel survived impact to cause total structure failure

[The Avon Lady]

Based on this.
I just have a hard time believing that enough fuel survived impact to cause total structure failure
So my first question was what's the problem? In other words, why couldn't fuel survive impact?

[bradclark1]

"Jet A" type fuel is a kerosine type of fuel has a flash point above 38°C (100°F). To me that means it's a liquid explosive. To me that means that "most" of it goes up in a huge fireball and I don't think enough "Jet A" would survive to supply a sustained heat source on the structural steel of a massive building leading to a collapse. Let alone two of them.
I'm not a metalurgist(?) nor scientist but it just doesn't seem possible.
Also in this day and age with the media making news instead of just reporting it that nobodies put forth a computer model proving that it could happen.

[Fish]

Who can explain the missing wings and engines? You won't tell me they both fold against the body of the plain and passed that litle hole in the building? :-?

[Dowly]

Who can explain the missing wings and engines? You won't tell me they both fold against the body of the plain and passed that litle hole in the building? :-?

If you are talking about Pentagon, that´s what I am wondering too. ;)

[joea]

Who can explain the missing wings and engines? You won't tell me they both fold against the body of the plain and passed that litle hole in the building? :-?

If you are talking about Pentagon, that´s what I am wondering too. ;)

So where did Flight 93 go? Honestly everyone is an expert these days. :roll:

[joea]

Woo hoo 1500 posts and I am an Ace of the Deep!! :-j

[Dowly]

Who can explain the missing wings and engines? You won't tell me they both fold against the body of the plain and passed that litle hole in the building? :-?

If you are talking about Pentagon, that´s what I am wondering too. ;)

So where did Flight 93 go? Honestly everyone is an expert these days. :roll:

Either it crashed to Pennsylvania, when the 'Let´s roll - guy' and some of the others took the plane back and then realised that they cant fly it or it was shot down. :up:

[mog]

"Jet A" type fuel is a kerosine type of fuel has a flash point above 38°C (100°F). To me that means it's a liquid explosive. To me that means that "most" of it goes up in a huge fireball and I don't think enough "Jet A" would survive to supply a sustained heat source on the structural steel of a massive building leading to a collapse. Let alone two of them.

You are right about the fuel, but the experts aren't saying that the fires were sustained by the jet fuel. The massive fireball from the fuel, while burning out quickly, would have set fire to every combustible on several floors.

Steel doesn't need to melt to lose its strength. As temperature increases both strength and stiffness decrease, and given the damage sustained from the actual impact, it might have taken a weakening of only a few key trusses or columns for the whole structure to fail.

I'm not a metalurgist(?) nor scientist but it just doesn't seem possible.
Also in this day and age with the media making news instead of just reporting it that nobodies put forth a computer model proving that it could happen.

Well, those are the two key characteristics of the conspiracy theorists.
1) Isn't an engineer or a scientist.
2) Is happy to ignore the analysis of those who are.

[Wim Libaers]

Gaawwwnnnn.

Here we go again:

After Osama Bin Laden attacked the US Embassies in Kenia and Tanzania Bill Clinton fired 75 Tom Cruise Missiles at training camps of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But the camps appreared to be empty on that day, so only some environmental damage was done.

That's it! We now have proof that Scientology was pulling the strings!

[mog]

Who can explain the missing wings and engines? You won't tell me they both fold against the body of the plain and passed that litle hole in the building? :-?

The Pentagon is a deceptively large building, despite only having four storeys.

These are from the Pentagon Building Performance Report by the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers:

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6413/pentagondamage5eh.jpg

This one in particular gives you a good idea of the size of the building compared with the plane. That first storey is actually 14.1 feet high.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9748/pent757facade7yj.jpg


As you can see, at least the inner third of each wing, including the engines and the majority of the fuel, did in fact penetrate the facade.

[bradclark1]

Well, those are the two key characteristics of the conspiracy theorists.
1) Isn't an engineer or a scientist.
2) Is happy to ignore the analysis of those who are.

Oh we have an expert on conspiracy theorists.
1) Said I wasn't.
2) Not ignoring. As I said "a hard time believing".
Also what about the experts that went the other way? Let me guess they are wacko's because they don't tow the party line.
The earth is flat and all that.

[mog]

Oh we have an expert on conspiracy theorists.
1) Said I wasn't.
2) Not ignoring. As I said "a hard time believing".
Also what about the experts that went the other way? Let me guess they are wacko's because they don't tow the party line.
The earth is flat and all that.

Please show me a report from a group of civil or materials engineers disputing that the WTC towers collapsed from fire damage. You won't find one, and that's the entire point.

I'm not trying to have a go at you here, but if you have a hard time believing the official explanation, might I suggest that the problem isn't with the theory, but that these engineering concepts are somewhat more complicated than you think they are?

There's a reason it takes decades to train a good structural engineer.

[Sixpack]

Engineers can make me believe a lot of stuff, but anyway: The Discovery channel's reconstruction in 'How the Twin Towers collapsed' seemed convincing to me. Just dont ask me to explain :)

[Dowly]

As you can see, at least the inner third of each wing, including the engines and the majority of the fuel, did in fact penetrate the facade.

But, there is still nothing left of the plane. And there should be. :yep:

[mog]

But, there is still nothing left of the plane. And there should be. :yep:

There was. There were pieces of fuselage, wheel rims from the landing gear and even pieces of turbine.

This page has a few photos:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

And look at all the debris on the lawn, including the large chunk of fuselage in the foreground with American markings:
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_010911-N-6157F-001.jpg

[joea]

Who can explain the missing wings and engines? You won't tell me they both fold against the body of the plain and passed that litle hole in the building? :-?

If you are talking about Pentagon, that´s what I am wondering too. ;)

So where did Flight 93 go? Honestly everyone is an expert these days. :roll:

Either it crashed to Pennsylvania, when the 'Let´s roll - guy' and some of the others took the plane back and then realised that they cant fly it or it was shot down. :up:

I meant Flight 77 the one that crashed into the Pentagon...geez I always mix the flights up. So where did THAT plane go?

[Dowly]

But, there is still nothing left of the plane. And there should be. :yep:

There was. There were pieces of fuselage, wheel rims from the landing gear and even pieces of turbine.

This page has a few photos:
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

And look at all the debris on the lawn, including the large chunk of fuselage in the foreground with American markings:
http://www.news.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_010911-N-6157F-001.jpg

I knew you going to post that photo. :) Still, where is the plane. There should be more massive damage to Pentagon, if the rest of the plane just exploded to atoms. :hmm:

[mog]

I knew you going to post that photo. :) Still, where is the plane.
:o

You've just seen pictures that clearly show plane parts in and around the Pentagon!

There should be more massive damage to Pentagon, if the rest of the plane just exploded to atoms. :hmm:
The Pentagon is built like a giant bunker, the wall is reinforced and designed to withstand car-bombs and other explosions.

There's also evidence to suggest that the outer wings were already disintegrated before they even hit the wall. On the trajectory the starboard engine was on, a huge diesel generator placed several metres from the wall had its corner gouged in and was knocked off kilter. On the trajectory of the port engine there was a large hole in a concrete vent of some sort, which was also located some metres from the wall. These collisions would have absorbed a lot of the energy before the debris hit the facade.

[Oberon]

I'm sorry, but it does amaze me the conspiracy theories about September 11th. Especially the whole Pentagon thing...a plane did fly into the Pentagon, a Boeing 757, it caused part of it to collapse...but like one site I read said, a lot of the pics from it were classified because of all the classified material that got strewn about that day. As for the WTC, well, both planes were carrying a fairly high amount of aircraft fuel which burns at a stupidly high temperature...that plus the impact and the fact that two or three floors were all damaged and on fire pretty much simultaneously was the death knell for the north and south towers.
And IIRC, they released the cockpit tapes from the Pittsburgh plane which seemed to indicate the terrorists crashed it deliberately when it seemed they were losing control of the plane.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
This seems to be a good site on it.

[bradclark1]

OK. My assumption (get you in trouble every time) was that all tall buildings were built with an egg crate design. The TT's however was built basically as a hollow tube. As each floor collapsed the weight just started pushing through the floor trusses of the floors below it hence the implosion effect.
What this means:
It means hell will freeze before I ever go into a skyscraper type building out of just plain fear.
Knowledge can be a terrible thing. :lol: