A Tower Structure cannot crush itself from top by Gravity A 407 meters tall tower structure A+C cannot be reduced to rubble B, when a small, 40-50 meters tall, light and weak top part C drops on big, intact, solid and 350 meters tall, strong bottom part A, where A bottom is 7-8 times stronger than A to p and A to p is stronger than top part C, as A carries C. All and every tower structure can only be destroyed by gravity from bottom up (by controlled demolition) and never by itself from top down.Anyone suggesting that a light weight, weak top part C of a tower can globally crush down the heavy weaight, strong bottom part A into rubble B is a terrorist that FBI should arrest at once.

According to FBI at http://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/when/when , we citizens are requested to, please, contact our local FBI office or submit a tip electronically (at https://tips.fbi.gov /) if we have information about: 1. Possible acts of terrorism, including violence, funding, or recruitment; 2. Persons sympathetic to terrorists or terrorist organizations; 3. Suspicious activities that we believe threaten national security, especially suspicious activities that involve foreign powers or foreign organizations; There is plenty of information about (1) verified acts of terrorism (9-11 WTC destructions), (2) known persons sympathetic to terrorists (prof. Bazant , the staff of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology)) and (3) suspicious activities (faked photos and videos of the destructions) that I believe threaten (US) national security and I have informed FBI accordingly several times. RESULT? 0! Zero. It seems Ground Zero at NY is named after the FBI efforts so far. Zero. In several stupid, peer reviewed articles in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics prof. Bazant suggests that ( green ) light weight, weak top part C is rigid (!) and crushes and compresses ( yellow ) heavy weight, strong bottom part A below into ( blue ) rubble B by gravity. NIST in a 10 000+ pages report suggests that top C applies energy on bottom A that bottom A cannot absorb elastically ... part A is crushed into rubble and dust. You find the ridiculous Bazant/NIST reports on the Internet web. The basic question is of course: Can a big, 407 meters tall skyscraper/tower, 10 times stronger and heavier at 1/10th bottom than 1/10th top, 'collapse' from top down by gravity into a heap of rubble due to small local damages up below 1/10th top and create a Ground Zero? Illustration of 'progressive global collapse' from top to bottom of a tower structure according prof. Bazant and NIST and terrorists. Top C gets loose by plane causing local failures and crushes down bottom A into rubble B and rubble B then crushes up top C into more rubble B. It cannot happen in reality.

Strange 'airplanes' hit the 1/10th tops and make holes in them? OK, why not? It is of course crazy. Will the big, intact, undamaged 9/10th bottom parts below the holes then suddenly 'collapse'? From top? Down? Twice on same day? Into rubble? As reported by NYT: Fake news headlines in The New York Times September 12, 2001 Or was NYT publishing a lie? More faked photos were published by the NYT Staff ... and they got a prize! According basic structural damage analysis no structure of any kind can destroy itself by its weak top dropping by gravity on its strong bottom that carries the top. Why did a newspaper like NYT suggest the contrary? Watching TV ? It is very easy to fake a plane crashing into a skyscraper! Like this! It is just a question of various layers on a video! And to add some scripted comments! It is like composing music.

But when a plane collides with a skyscraper there should be plenty of plane parts bouncing off the skyscraper ... but there were none! On TV at 12:46 pm on 9/11 Mr. L. Paul Bremer explained that towers are destroyed from top down due to local failures and fires up top and named a few suspects. Bremer was Chairman of the US National Commission on Terrorism since1999 and he was 2001 Chairman and CEO of Marsh Crisis Consulting, a risk and insurance services firm which was a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. , a company that allegedly held offices on eight floors of the North Tower, WTC 1, of the World Trade Center, from 93 to 100. No one present in the offices allegedly survived the 911 attack, and the firm allegedly lost 295 employees and 63 contractors. In spite of this allegedly tragic loss Bremer was instead calmly talking about terrorists who had done it. Bremer apparently believed that structures collapse from top down. But it appears that all and every videos and pictures showing the destruction, like this on TV and rubble on ground, are simply done and faked by the terrorist! So NYT just published terrorist nonsense broadcasted by TV! Imagine that! Prove me wrong and earn € 1 000 000:-! Some serious people, like David Chandler of AE911Truth.org, believes that the videos and pictures of the 911 WTC destructions (shown on TV) were real showing, e.g. that most of the concrete structure evaporated when burnt by, e.g. nanothermite applied to the floors from top down. For that to happen a lot of nanothermite had to be applied to the 400 meters tall structure and ignited from top down in 15-20 seconds. But could 100 000's tons of concrete really evaporate in 15-20 seconds and drift away? Anyway - no weak top ever crushed the strong bottom by gravity. And it would appear that a nanothermite top down destruction video is another Hollywood product. The rubble or rather a fake wall steel panel seen on the ground (a car is on fire in the background) is discussed at the Letsrollforums . It concerns an alleged wall steel panel from WTC 1 (actually from the offices of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. ) with a landing gear wheel found in it. It is suggested by NIST that the landing gear ripped off the 4.5 tons steel wall panel from three floors and adjacent wall panels above, below and at the sides of the wall panel with the tyre and that it dropped down 350 meters and hit ground with velocity 80 m/s! The fake wall panel is actually made of plywood and painted to look like steel and planted on the ground by the perpetrators after the first explosion of WTC 1! Figure 9-123 from the NIST report. A real photo of a fake wall panel! Note that external insulation, external aluminium cladding and window frames are missing on the fake wall panel.

It looks really ridiculous and typical cheap Hollywood prop. It weighs about 100 kgs. You wonder why FBI or NY City Police Department cannot spot the difference between a 4 500 kgs steel wall panel and a 100 kgs Hollywood plywood prop.You should really wonder why the perpetrators placed a fake plywood wall panel in the WTC rubble ... or the photo is 100% fake and no panel ever existed. The fake plywood wall panel (left) compared to a real steel one right. The real one was later fitted with external insulation and aluminium cladding and windows were fitted in the holes that are missing on the fake one. To confuse people? You will find descriptions of more fake rubble on the Letsrollforums . Next day US military took control of Ground Zero and the rubble disappeared! Or was pulverized! Of course there are many web sites explaining that it is perfectly normal that weak tops of steel structures can crush the much stronger bottom parts by gravity and that wall panels fly away from skyscrapers. Such web sites are simply made by terrorists! Photo right (I have added C and A ) that you find on the Internet is often used to illustrate a crush down global collapse (sic) of a skyscraper that allegedly took place twice on 9-11. Many similar photos exist. It is suggested that a small, structurally weak 1/10th top part C , hidden by the smoke, has got loose due to fire/local failures (plane making hole! - pillars weakened by heat, etc) up top and is dropping down by gravity on the much bigger and stronger structural 9/10th bottom part A and that smoke, dust, debris - thousands of small pieces - and big, loose steel wall panels are ejected sideways in all directions as a result, while bottom part A is crushed down into rubble B, also hidden by smoke. The picture, like all similar pictures or videos, is an obvious fake! Photos and videos are just stupid prefabricated animations created by terrorists using a 1/20 model of the towers, Photoshop and similar. The top part is simply erased and smoke ( from a fire exercise!) , dust and debris added Hollywood style in different layers - live on TV! Easy to show and prove. The faked picture/photo left is really ridiculous. I wonder why any US terrorism analysts at the FBI cannot see that! Can't they distinguish a fake photo from a real one? I pay anybody €1 000 000:- to produce a real photo or video of a structure collapsing progressively from the top! I have contacted FBI several times. So far nothing happens. I wonder why. Shouldn't FBI protect us from terrorists? Small top C crushing big bottom A = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win €1 . 000 . 000:- - (Note - photo is a fake! Smoke and debris are false.)

It seems the US Navy Seals team of commando soldiers murdered the wrong person on 1st May 2011 because no skyscraper of any kind will collapse from top down due to damages due to planes up top. Sorry Obama , you made a small error. And murdering people is illegal, didn't your mother tell you that? Or Jesus? Below are two more faked, stupid photos you find on Internet of the same tower: It looks like the tower explodes ... by gravity? - with loose pieces flying around in all directions. You wonder why a big wall panel falling on side always is followed by a trail of smoke/dust. And why the smoke on top looks like coming from a volcano! It is though just copy/paste of different layers of animations! Really stupid actually. Upper small part C crushing big A 'live on TV' = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win €1 . 000 . 000:- (Note - photos are 100% faked! Smoke and debris are just added by Photoshop or similar. Why would anyone do that? To confuse and mislead the public watching TV? Yes, that's why! Question remains: Who produced the faked footage?) Scientific description why a tower cannot collapse from top down It is easy to demonstrate theoretically and numerically that a tower structure A cannot globally, progressively collapse by itself from top down, when a small top C of A drops on A by gravity. It will take you <10 minutes to read below and understand why. Consider a tower structure of N floors, each of mass m, labeled from top (i = 1) to bottom (i = N). Adjacent floors are separated by springs. Floor n is supported by n springs. The springs realistically represent the elastic walls and columns that support the floors of the tower. All springs are identical, weightless, have rest length L (m), and are perfectly elastic with constant stiffness k (N/m) until compressed longitudinally (i.e. vertically) and laterally (i.e. sideways) a realistic and critical longitudinal (vertical) displacement, say xC = 0.01L, when they compress plastically another vertical distance xP, after which they fail (and the vertical length becomes 0). The tower is placed in a vacuum on a very large inertial mass, i.e. ground, and is subjected to a uniform gravitational field directed downwards. g = 9.82 m/s². Static equilibrium The tower is in static equilibrium when F n = nkx = nmg (N) . It follows that x = mg/k. In static equilibrium the displacement x due to elastic compression of a spring is everywhere the same and the same is true for the strain x/L and the stress in the springs. A real tower is likewise equally strained and stressed at top and bottom. Safety factor The n springs below floor n can each support a load of FC = kxC before plastic deformation starts. If the actual design load of a spring is F, then the safety factor S = FC/F. Elastic and plastic strain energy The work performed in compressing a spring elastically is E = kx²/2 (J). A spring can therefore elastically absorb ES = 0.00005kL² (J). If a spring is overloaded elastically and starts to deform plastically, the spring will develop plastic hinges, which absorb more energy EP and which takes a certain time tP - when its effective length finally becomes 0 - it is broken! Let's assume that EP = 2ES. Real value is easy to establish in a laboratory. Note that the connection between one spring above and two springs below do not fail before any of the spring fails, because, if that were the case, there is no way that load, force and energy can be transmitted between springs. Numerical example to illustrate above Assume that the tower has N = 110 floors, each with mass m = 3.6 Mkg (i.e. 3 600 tons) and that L = 3.7 meters. It means that the tower in this example is 407 meters tall, almost like WTC 1, and weighs 396 . 000 tons (almost like WTC1!) The total number of springs in a tower of N floors is N(N+1)/2. A tower with 110 floors consists of 6 105 springs each supporting 3 600 tons. The top floor (or roof) is supported by 1 spring and the bottom 1st floor above ground is supported by 110 springs. The assembly of the 13 uppermost floors contains 91 springs, while the assembly of 97 lowest floors contains 6 . 014 springs. The lowest 1st floor supports are 110 times stronger than the support (one spring) of the top floor/roof! Top part C The assembly of the 13 uppermost floors is part C. The 13 bottom springs are removed from C. C then consists of 13 m connected by 78 springs (1 between top two m, 12 between lowest two m). The 78 springs in C can together absorb EC=78ES. C weighs 48 . 800 tons. Bottom part A - 7.2 times heavier, 77 times 'stronger' than C! The assembly of the 97 lowest floors is part A. Part A's 110 lowest springs are connected to ground. The 6 014 springs in part A can together absorb EA=6014ES. It would thus appear that part A is 77 times 'stronger' than part C! Part A weighs 349 200 tons and is 7.2 times heavier than part C.

Can little top part C, 7.2 times smaller and 77 times 'weaker' than bottom part A, really crush bottom part A by gravity? In this little example crush means breaking the springs in overload from above by gravity. Question! Can something small and weak like little top part C really destroy something big and strong like bottom part A just by dropping C 3.7 meters by gravity on A? FBI, Albuquerque is investigating! Imagine! FBI! Investigating! Call them at (+1) (505) 889-1300 and find out what they do. And tell me! Spring details - same everywhere Force F in every spring is F = mg = 35.352 MN as the spring carries a weight of 3 600 tons. The spring may have cross area of about 0.5 m² if it is of steel. The stress in the spring is then about 70 MPa. Note that the stress is same everywhere - at top and bottom of the structure. Let's assume S = 3, i.e. the springs will commence plastic deformation or yield at 210 MPa. The material of the spring is steel. Note that the total cross area of removed springs below part C is 6.5 m² (13 springs each 0.5 m²) and that the total cross area of springs at bottom of part A is 55 m² (110 springs each 0.5 m²). The tower evidently gets 'stronger' with more springs added further down. All towers are designed the same way (i.e. they are stronger at bottom getting lighter higher up). The critical force FC of a spring is FC = 106.056 MN. After that it deforms plastically absorbing more energy and soon has length 0. Let's assume that spring stiffness k = 3 GN/m that is typical when core and perimeter wall structure of WTC is replaced by one spring (a bundle of steel elements) with cross area 0.5 m² that can deform in 3-D. Actual k is easy to establish in a laboratory (by just compressing the spring with a known force and measuring the compression) or by structural analysis calculations. Then xC = 0.037 m ES = k(xC)²/2 = 2.053 MJ x = 0.037/3 m E = kx²/2 = 0.228 MJ When the tower is in static equilibrium, each spring is compressed 0.0123 meter and 0.228MJ energy is stored in it elastically. However the spring can be compressed elastically to xC = 0.037 meter (or 1% of L) before it starts to deform plastically and the energy EC required to compress it is then 2.053 MJ. All springs in tower can absorb 12.53 GJ energy elastically. From an energy absorption point of view factor of safety is 9 (actually static S²). Top part C can absorb elastically totally 78 x 2.053 = 160.1 MJ energy! By dropping top part C a certain distance, e.g. L, a certain amount of potential energy ED is released, where ED = 13mLg = 1.7 GJ. It is 13.6% of what the tower itself can absorb elastically. Or 6.8% plastically. By simple structural damage analysis you can establish whether C can damage A, ground or itself C. Experiment 1: Structure part C collapses from bottom up Experiment 1 shows how something weak, part C, dropped on rigid ground, will be affected by the impact. The part C assembly of 13 m is dropped on ground from distance L. At the impact C/ground total 1.7 GJ is applied to ground and C. The ground does not damp the impact. It is rigid and can absorb plenty energy. Evidently C itself damps the impact - it becomes compressed and maybe damaged: As C is 44.4 m tall and consists of 13 m separated by springs, it is the bottom m of C that physically contacts ground and is arrested by ground at the impact. The remaining 12 m above continue to displace down and compress the springs below. A certain damping takes place, when the springs compress elastically and plastically. As the dynamic forces acting on C and ground at impact and later are equal and opposite (the dynamic force F, i.e. a static force displaced a little during the short time t of impact, is the energy applied, 0.5ED, divided by the displacement x of the force F - the structure is compressed and maybe damaged), it follows that C will absorb 0.5ED and rigid ground will also absorb 0.5ED in the impact. It would then appear that 0.85GJ energy is applied on C one way or another and as C can only absorb 0.16GJ elastically and 0.32GJ plastically, all springs in C will fail. Ground is rigid and undamaged. Top part C is, as seen, not very strong, and it is why its springs are 100% broken at impact with ground. In what order will the springs in C fail? It can be seen on videos of controlled demolitions of buildings, where the bottom supports are destroyed and structure above drops and hits ground that destruction is from bottom up , thus: The bottom 12 springs fail first at impact with ground, 12 floors m above then drop down L, 11 springs fail, 11 m drop down L, 10 springs fail, 10 m drop, etc, etc, until the last one top spring fails and the last m (the roof!) impacts ground from L. As can be seen C, 12 L tall, is destroyed from bottom up in 12 steps that takes a certain time. All the energy released by the failed springs apart from the energy absorbed by failed springs is absorbed by ground. Bazant suggests in his ridiculous, peer reviewed papers published in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics that weak top part C is rigid and remains intact, when crushing, e.g. stronger bottom part A, and that is one, criminally fake idea of Bazant later adopted by NIST as true (to fool the public). Total energy released due to failed springs after initial impact C/ground, i.e. when C is destroyed, is 72mLg or 8.82GJ (it was stored in C prior collision) and all of it is absorbed by the ground. Experiment 2: Structure A loaded on top deforms elastically Experiment 2 shows how part A behaves, when statically loaded from above. Bottom part A is positioned on ground without C. A is, as already described, a tower structure of 97 m and 97 L tall. It consists of 6 014 springs that can absorb elastically totally 12.346 GJ energy. 1/9th of this energy is already stored statically in the tower so another 8/9th or 10.974 GJ can be applied and absorbed elastically. Considering plastic deformations maybe another 20 GJ can be absorbed. The top m of A is supported by 14 springs located on the second m below that is supported by 15 springs, etc. The bottom floor m is supported by 110 springs. The 14 top springs of A can elastically absorb totally 28.74 MJ but are statically only loaded by one m. In fact you can add another 13 m (i.e. C) on the 14 springs and then they are under original design load, like all the other springs in A. Crush-down according Bazant

Thus, just adding 13 m on top of A nothing special will happen except that all springs in A are again under original design, static load. Now, the big question is what happens if, in lieu of slowly putting 13 m on A we drop 13 m on A from L = 3.7 m and we let 13 m impact A! Will the dynamic forces at impact crush A ... or C? Experiment 3: Structure A impacted on top damps impact due to elastic and plastic deformations Experiment 3 shows what happens when a rigid mass of 13 m impacts A dynamically from above. 13 m are dropped on the top m of A from L = 3.7 m. The 13 m are connected together without any interconnecting springs, and that assembly is here called D. D is thus rigid as it cannot deform. At impact D/A (a short lived event) 1.7 GJ is applied to A and D and, as in experiment 1 0.85 GJ is applied to A. A can totally absorb 10.974 GJ so you would expect rigid D to bounce on A. The dynamic force F applied on A/D is, as stated above, simply the energy applied divided by displacement x of force F during impact/compression. The initial impact will produce more impacts, if further m gets loose and drops, but energy released in each impact will be elastically (and maybe plastically) absorbed by intact springs in A. The beauty of a spring is that it can absorb and release energy multiple times, when loaded in succession. It is very strange that NIST suggests that little C (or D) can apply energy on big A that A cannot absorb! The figures say something completely different! Why does NIST lie and spread fake information to the public. Is it in order to support terrorism? It may be argued that the top 14 top springs and the 15 springs in the next layer of A may be destroyed locally in overload by the dynamic forces at impact with D and some extra energy released when D and one or more loose m displace down L. The 14 top springs of A can totally absorb elastically 14 x 2.053 = 28.74 MJ and maybe plastically totally say 86 MJ. The plastic destruction (failure) of springs takes time t, so in the mean time the dynamic impact force (i.e. energy divided by displacement) can be absorbed elastically by 6 000 springs below the 14 top spings and transmitted to ground (as a seismic wave). When one layer of springs is destroyed all m above displace down L and more energy is released - a second impact - and has to be absorbed by intact springs like a shock absorber. So D applies 850 MJ on A and about 86 MJ can be absorbed by destruction of the top layer of springs in A and the rest is absorbed elastically by 96 other layers of 6 000 springs in A and transmitted to ground. That D would destroy all 6 014 springs of A is unlikely. The springs of A will dampen the impact of D and loose m of A dropping, while only some local failures occur close to interface D/A. It is quite easy to verify experiment 3 in a laboratory. Just take the top C of any tower structure, compress it to a rigid block D, and drop D on the bottom part A and see what happens. Rigid D will always bounce and stop after producing some local failures at top of A, i.e. the weakest part of A! Experiment 4: Small top C cannot crush a bigger bottom A Experiment 4 shows what happens when part C impacts A from above. Part C is dropped on part A from L = 3.7 m. This is the famous WTC 1 event. 13 top floors m of WTC 1 drop on 97 intact floors/columns m below (and according videos of suspect origin the 97 floors/columns below are destroyed in a fountain of smoke, dust and debris - terrible! In reality, of course, it cannot happen). At impact C/A 0.85GJ is applied to C (with 12 springs at bottom) and 0.85GJ is applied to A (with 14 springs at top) as explained above. However, C does not impact rigid ground as in experiment 1 and A is not impacted from above by rigid D as in experiment 3. In fact only the top m of A supported by 14 springs below and the bottom m of C supported by 12 springs above contact each other in the impact and the dynamic forces are then transmitted via the 6 000 springs to other m in A to ground and via 66 springs to other m in C. The intacts springs behave elastically and dampen the impact. The impact, like in experiment 3, will be split in sub-impacts, when/if further floors m gets loose and drops, but energy released in each sub-impact will be elastically (and maybe plastically) absorbed by the intact springs. So in experiment 4 the initial impact will really be dampened, i.e. take longer time, as both A and C and ground will dampen (absorb the energy of) the local impact C/A. It also means that the dynamic forces are reduced. That small/weak top part C will crush big/stronger bottom part A at increasing speed and by gravity is impossible. That small top part C - that can absorb much less energy elastically and plastically than big bottom part A - can apply, via short lived dynamic forces, and release, via structural/spring failures, more energy on A and destroy A is impossible: C will destroy it's own springs first, before A is starting to get destroyed and then C cannot apply or release more energy to destroy A. In reality there will only be some local failures at interface C/A at impact, C and A then get locally entangled, friction develops and C will then just bounce on top of A. A arrests C! There is not enough energy for anything else. Numerical example: As seen above 0.85 GJ energy is applied to 12 bottom springs in C and 14 top springs in A at impact C/A. What happens if 0.065 GJ energy E is applied to one spring with stiffness k = 3 GN/m and 3.7 meter length L? Answer: the spring will compress x = 0.147 meter (as x² = E/k) due to the impact or 4% L. As one spring in our example can only elastically compress 1% it would appear that the spring plastically deforms or breaks at impact. However, our spring is not alone but supported by other springs above and below in the structure so you have to consider that. Evidently the 6 105 springs in A can easily absorb totally 0.85 GJ energy elastically (as shown in experiment 3). If the 78 springs in C can do it, is another matter (as shown in experiment 1). It is quite easy to verify experiment 4 in a laboratory. Just take the top part C of any tower, and drop it on the bottom part A and see what happens. My experience is that C always bounces on and is arrested by A, but I may be wrong. I have only tested a limited amount of towers. No smoke, dust, debris or ejections were produced when dropping C on A . I give Euro 1 . 000 . 000:- to anybody that can produce a tower/structure, where top C crushes bottom A! It is the famous Heiwa Challenge ! It is actually impossible to win. Many people believe that scale or size of structure matters, e.g. that a small (model of a) structure cannot crush itself but that a bigger structure can or that material matters, e.g. that a structure of brittle elements will collapse but not a structure of more ductile elements. However, to believe things like that is unscientific, terrorist nonsense. Experiment 4 and its impact, elastic compression of springs and damping of parts can of course easily be modelled mathematically using FEM for any size of tower springs structure/elements/material. A linear spring-damper model of the form f(t)= k*x(t) + c*v(t), where x = input displacement, v= input velocity, and f(t)= output force can be developed (N off masses m connected by N(N+1)/2 off springs) based on test data in the time domain of the springs. The term k is the spring stiffness (Newton/meter, N/m) and c is the viscous damping coefficient (Ns/m). With k = 3 GN/m and c = 0.3 GNs/m the tower parts A and C become very flexible and will visibly deform/compress/oscillate, be damped, for several seconds after impact C/A. Plastic deformation and its time to develop failures of a spring are more complex to model mathematically (but it can be done). That a 407 meter tower structure will explode in smoke, dust and debris, rubble being formed and collapse from top taking place in 15 seconds as shown 'live on TV' Tuesday morning 11 September 2001 in the USA is not possible in reality. What was shown 'live on TV' was just a stupid movie made by disaster animators Hollywood style ! Imagine that! FBI cannot understand such a simple thing. It is a pity. The writer's attempts to crush a structure by dropping its top on it have, naturally, always ended up with no springs failing in A and C and only bouncing/arrest of C taking place. Conclusion The writer has never seen a top part C of a tower impact and destroy the bottom part A due to gravity. Reason is that such a destruction is physically impossible! A always arrests C. No structure can globally collapse from top down, i.e. top C crushes bottom A! Energy applied by dynamic forces is simply absorbed elastically and plastically by the structure itself and ground below. No smoke, dust or debris is formed. Only local failures occur at impact interface and extra energy released due to local failures is quickly absorbed by intact springs that were unloaded in the meantime or by friction between broken springs and floors. My four experiments outlined above - and 40 years experience of structural damage analysis demonstrate this. Videos of such destructions, e.g. of WTC 1 on 9-11 2001, or the picture right are ridiculous! They look more like movies with simulations and or animations of destructions type Independence Day 1996 or Avatar 2009. Only a limited number of persons can produce such movies. Ask them what the videos of 9-11 look like? Reality or simulation? The picture right is just a stupid animation to scare ignorant people. It seems that US interests actully blow up WTC 1 from below when showing something else 'live on TV'. Very sad, actually. A tower cannot destroy itself quickly from top down! Only way is from bottom up starting at ground! Ridiculous fantasy picture of tower collapse by gravity! (Note - photo is fake!) You wonder who really destroyed WTC on 9-11 and made a fake movie (broadcasted 'live on TV') and photos of top/down destruction and included a fake description of it at Wikipedia! And why the FBI is not investigating! August 2011 message from Wikipedia about above article: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Progressive collapse has been reverted. Your edit here to Progressive collapse was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm ) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia." Wikipedia incorrectly describes the WTC total progressive collapse as follows: "The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse . In the case of both towers, the top section ( green part C in picture right. Heiwa Co note ) tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections ( yellow part A in picture right. Heiwa Co note) with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block ( green part C in picture right. Heiwa Co note) then fell freely through the distance of another story ( yellow part A in picture right. Heiwa Co note). Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections ( yellow part A in picture right. Heiwa Co note). The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section ( green part C in picture right. Heiwa Co note) reached the ground. It ( green part C in pictureright. Heiwa Co note) remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section ( yellow part A in picture right. Heiwa Co note) of the building, it ( green part C in picture right. Heiwa Co note) was itself crushed when it hit the ground." Any attempts to correct the relevant Wikipedia articles are impossible! So Wikipedia supports terrorism! x Illustration of 'progressive collapse' from top to bottom of a tower structure according Wikipedia, prof. Bazant and NIST and terrorists. Top part C gets loose by plane causing local failures and crushes down intact bottom part A into rubble B and rubble B then crushes up top part C into more rubble B . A Ground Zero is created! It cannot happen in reality.