I should take nahsik's advice, but...
Originally posted by president
I have never seriously read or even listened to the theories about the twin towers, because they were so ludicris.
Well there's your main problem. If you've never seriously read, listened or even took the time to do a small fraction of research on the Twin
Towers, the rest of your post is basically void-especially with no amount of evidence. I won't be trying to back my claims with evidence, either.
Anyone who believes that a fully loaded jet crash could not burn down any building, is on crack.
Haven't you ever seen a house burn? It burns until the walls can't support the roof, and the roof falls straight down crushing everything in it's
path.
First things first, neither alleged plane was "fully loaded". Instead of taking the media's word for it, do some basic investigating of your
own.
Second, there's a lot of bad evidence "proving" real commercial planes were used, you should look into that too. In my opinion, planes are just as
big a lie as the collapses, but let's throw my opinion aside. Let's say real commercial planes did crash into those buildings...could that cause
them to collapse completely in less that 15 seconds? An elementary understanding of those tower's design and physics says no. The structural engineer
for the Twin Towers also says no.
Let's be fair and ask that question differently: could fire alone cause either tower to collapse completely? Yes, but
only with the worst case
scenario. The fire would have start on a lower floor, no higher than 50(given the 110-stories) and it would have to burn a lot longer than 56 and 102
minutes. Even with worse case scenario, steel beams would not be individualized in the manner they were in both collapses. They would take longer than
8 and 10 seconds to collapse, and we would see concrete slabs and many of the 20 gauge steel decks, if not all 110. Instead what we did see was nearly
free fall collapses, a lot of pulverized concrete and no decking- not ONE!
Third, neither tower "burn down". And they definitely didn't burn like a house-nor could they. A skyscraper is very different from a house.
Skyscrapers are made of steel, not wood. Skyscraper floors are made of steel decking topped with concrete(4 inches thick in the case of the Twin
Towers), not wood and nails. Skyscrapers have steel cores, houses do not. Skyscrapers are bolted and welded together, house are not.
In no way can you compare a house fire to a steel and concrete building fire.
The fire in that building was hotter than any cutting torch.
Wow. Are you saying the temperatures in the towers was 6000+ degrees F? I'd love to see you try to prove that.
The building was burned to a crisp...
No, they did not "burn to a crisp". Only about 10-15 floors(I'm giving a few floors for the "jet fuel") in each tower was burning from the
initial attack. I wouldn't exactly call that "to a crisp". 90% or more of each tower was intact and in good condition, excluding the prep work for
collapse by explosives, of course.
My recommendation to you is to take some time to research the buildings-the architecture and design too. Then research what fire can and cannot do to
a building. Look into the different type of building collapses and what causes them. Then look for any buildings that have collapsed because of fire,
before or after 9/11. When you're done with that, look into how controlled demolitions are conducted. Note the characteristics of controlled
demolitions, and then compare them with the 3 buildings that collapsed on 9/11.
