reply to post by ZeuZZ
Unfortunately, nothing you have stated is proof of controlled demolition. I won't claim to have the same educational backing as you, I will admit
I'm about as layman (I had to wonder what lamens meant. According to the dictionary: a tool of the ritual magician, a symbolic device meant to
embody the spirit of it's owner's magical intent, or, as in many magical orders, a badge of rank or grade.), even I can see that you are only
attempting to support those facts that could support your view and then inserting your own hypothesis of events as facts. In your ignorance on
certain subjects, you are damaging your argument more than you are helping it.
First, from the opening post is the comment about the top of the building tipping to the side, then beginning to drop straight down since the support
below it is gone. This does not prove that explosives were used, it only proves that the floor below (or more specifically, where the two sections of
the building had remained in contact) was no longer providing support. While an argument for explosives can be made here, and argument can also be
made for fatigue, stress, and simple failure of the structure. With the impact of the aircraft, this would have created multiple fractures in the
cement of the affected floors plus expanding of all the expansion joints already existing from the time of construction. Even with rebar reinforcing
that cement, those fractures will increase in length, width, and depth, reducing how much weight each section will support. With the ongoing stress
of gravity plus other forces (for example: wind), you have forces that are adding strain onto an already damaged structure. I would even hazard a
guess that while we were all watching the building burn, it was rocking to and fro. It didn't need to sway more than an inch for that motion to
increase those cracks and cause failure.
Next, we have David Griffin's content:
1. He is correct about the sudden heating of steel and the melting/sagging, but we are not talking the steel melting. We are talking about the
affect of heat and how in contributed to the loss of strength it had and Malleability. With that steel being heated, it was less resistant to being
bent and twisted as the structure struggled against collapse. With the structure warping, it could not efficiently spread to load throughout the rest
of the structure, again leading to collapse.
2. Your opening argument conflicts with this statement. The upper floors did begin falling/leaning toward the damaged area. When the support was
lost, it did drop down, but the section was at an angle, not sliding down the core, thereby damaging the core on it's descent.
3. A really poor statement and lack of understanding about the mass involved and resistance. As the building is falling, the upper mass impacting
the lower mass is increasing adding to the downward force working on an already damaged structure. In the case of the WTC collapsing, the force was
increasing exponentially, which each floor was not designed to support. During the collapse, I'm sure there was resistance, but an overwhelming
force meeting weak resistance it not going to show much affect.
4. Again, with your opening argument, the buildings did not fall parallel to the core. The upper structure was tipped, tearing down the core as it
5. The dust clouds were a cumulative affect of the many different materials. As was pointed out by Aim64C, you have the blown on fire proofing
(which is a mulch of material and has the strength cardboard) and sheetrock (pulverized gypsum and paper. Brittle and easily broken). We can also
include all the ceiling tile, printer/copier dry toner, years of accumulated dust and dirt, fiberglass insulation, etc.