Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded On 9/11

[WayWord]

Please tell me, without a lateral force, what direction would a collapsing building fall other than more or less straight down? Buildings of that size do not topple over like an off balance Jenga tower.

Why couldn't the top of the tower topple over? What exactly would prevent that from happening?

 

[icedtea]

The point is, and I heard someone say it on tv yesterday, is that famous people are not experts; why people take their opinions with any more validity than they would their neighbors is beyond me.

 

[trunks2k]

Why couldn't the top of the tower topple over? What exactly would prevent that from happening?

IIRC, we sorta saw that in at least one of the towers. But as a the top leans, it puts more of its load onto fewer supports, causing those supports to fail. Once those supports fail, it will fall more or less straight down as there isn't enough lateral momentum in that sort of situation for it to just topple off the rest of the building. It leans relatively slowly and the force of gravity far out weighs any lateral momentum that would be in the top of the building.. Once the top section of that size starts falling straight down, then that's it, the whole thing is coming down, especially since the building's entire support structure has been weakened by this point and the remaining support is not going to withstand the force of what is crashing down on top of it. Again, (tall) buildings like this are not like Jenga towers.

In at least one of the towers, we saw this happen, the top leaned over, then the remaining support gave way, and the top section came crashing down, causing a chain reaction that brought the rest of the building down.*

The amount of force that would be needed to make the building fall other than more or less straight down would have been very large. That's a BIG mass you would have to move.

*In this case you can see the difference between the collapse rate of the building and free fall. As debris from the top fell off the side, there's a significant differenct between the location of the free debris and the location of current collapse. Considering the the relative height of the building is not all that large when comparing speeds of objects, there would have to be a pretty significant difference in speed to see that sort of distance between the two points. Not to mention that the numbers that are often used to produce the touted "near free fall" speeds are not correct (see the various other threads where this was addressed).

 

[praying]

I think he has had a few too many magical brownies over the course of his life.

Bingo!

 

[WayWord]

Once the top section of that size starts falling straight down, then that's it, the whole thing is coming down, especially since the building's entire support structure has been weakened by this point and the remaining support is not going to withstand the force of what is crashing down on top of it.

How was the entire support structure of the building weakened when the fire was only burning on a few floors?

 

[trunks2k]

How was the entire support structure of the building weakened when the fire was only burning on a few floors?

The plane crashing into it? Damage to the inner core? The outer skin of the WTC worked as a significant portion of the support. Break those off, and you've shifted load to both the core and other sections of the outer skin. That load shift itself will weaken the structure as a whole. On top of the plane itself breaking off the outer skin, the fires caused the floor to sink in, pulling on the outer skin until it broke in many places or weakened it. That's more load shifting, that's more weakening of the structure as a whole. Then damage to the inner core causes the same sorts of effects. Then as the top leans and collapses, you're putting more stress on the remaining support causing the remaining support as a whole to weaken.

The effects of load shifting go well beyond the point at which the load shifting occurs.

 

[WayWord]

The plane crashing into it? Damage to the inner core? The outer skin of the WTC worked as a significant portion of the support. Break those off, and you've shifted load to both the core and other sections of the outer skin. That load shift itself will weaken the structure as a whole. On top of the plane itself breaking off the outer skin, the fires caused the floor to sink in, pulling on the outer skin until it broke in many places or weakened it. That's more load shifting, that's more weakening of the structure as a whole. Then damage to the inner core causes the same sorts of effects. Then as the top leans and collapses, you're putting more stress on the remaining support causing the remaining support as a whole to weaken.

The effects of load shifting go well beyond the point at which the load shifting occurs.

Frank A. Demartini Discusses the WTC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78#

Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, discusses the fact that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple hits from airliners and not collapse, comparing it to poking a pencil through fly netting, DeMartini was adament that the towers would not collapse. DeMartini died in the towers on 9/11, this interview clip was taken from video shot in January 2001.

from www.prisonplanet.com

 

[jamesrwright3]

The only destruction Willie is an expert in is self-destruction

 

[jamesrwright3]

I posted numerous peer reviewed studies from major universities and groups such as the "American Society of Civil Engineers" which had a team of 25 experts. All of them agreed the towers collapsed as a result of the crash

Not a single truther has been able to provide a peer reviewed study validating any other scenario

 

[Vylo]

For more expert testimony regarding 9-11 we now go live to sparta:

 

[Steezie]

Please tell us about your personal experience with Alex Jones.

Do you listen to his shows? Im guessing you do, if you remember the one about Socinus. That was I and I've had a little back-and-forth with his cult on YouTube for a while.

 

[icedtea]

First I ever heard of him was at a libertarian/bircher meeting. It was the video on Bohemian Grove.
Fun!

 

[WayWord]

Do you listen to his shows? Im guessing you do, if you remember the one about Socinus. That was I and I've had a little back-and-forth with his cult on YouTube for a while.

No, I don't recall. What's Socinus?

 

[Steezie]

No, I don't recall. What's Socinus?

Its my username on YouTube and I made a video commenting on something that one of his fans put up and he actually responded to it on his show, albeit a bit rudely but he did respond

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

The only good thing about this is another recognizable person voices doubt about the official conspiracy theory. I dont think Willie would get confused for an engineer or academic professional but peeps like him could help raise truly independent investigations.

 

[flicka]

Willie said it, I believe it, that settles it.


Not really.

 

[jayem]

Willie's expertise in engineering is only exceeded by his mastery of tax law.

Really, even as a performer...how can you take anyone seriously who do a duet with Julio Iglesias?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKdGi13oI-A

 

[RolandofFrance]

It's pretty obvious that Willie Nelson's brain imploded.

 

[Avatar]

It's pretty obvious that Willie Nelson's brain imploded.

Long ago.

 

[WayWord]

Its my username on YouTube and I made a video commenting on something that one of his fans put up and he actually responded to it on his show, albeit a bit rudely but he did respond

Oh, that was you? Prefacing your statements with Alex Jones believes "aliens are invading" and "Bush is an alien" didn't help. I think you got Alex confused with David Icke.