Punk boy, I don't call that proof, and my question still stands.
i quote from Goose once more..
I pretending to be an expert at any time, second, it does not take a civil engineer to know that when things are off balance they normally fall
usually to one side or the other, but not implode as the WTC did.
and you say that people with no knowledge of the physics involved in the engineering of skyscrapers can make educated guesses?
It is not a question of the WTC "could" have fallen straight down as you so eloquently put it, but that in all cases skyscrapers "do fall straight
down." There is nothing in the world, except maybe the most Earth shattering earthquake or some other major natural disaster, that could have
tilted the WTC over 100 feet to one side for it to have fallen sideways, much less an aircraft crashing into it. That's first.
Let's look at some of the facts we know about the twin towers collapse.
"The spray-on fireproofing, considered unacceptable by today's standards, was state-of-the-art at the time of application and really the only
choice. The Twin Towers were built during a transitional period when asbestos was being phased out and a suitable substitute was being sought."
Excerpt taken from.
Structural steel softens at about 425 C and loses half its strength at 650 C.
The temperatures involved in the WTC collapse from the initial explotions to the fires caused by the burning of the fuel ranged about 750 C to about
1,000 C and some reports estimate it to be as high as 2,000 C.
I am not sure the temperatures would have been so high, so lets use the moderate estimates of 750 C to 900 C.
It is true that even thou the strength of the steel was half because of the fire, it would have been strong enough to maintain its integrity, but
these are not the only problems which caused the towers to collapse.
BTW, you don't need a skyscraper to sway back and forth to compromise its integrity and crumble to the floor. In major fires caused in such big
skyscrapers there is also the problem of distortion of the steel in the fire. In these major fires the temperature of the fire is not completly
There were parts of the WTC that were more protected than others because of the initial impact of the planes into the buildings. We know that steel
has a thermal expansion when there is a difference of 150 C from one location to another produccing yield-level residual stresses, which would in
place result in a buckling effect.
You also have to note that these collosal structures are made in a way that if one or a couple of structural members such as columns are lost, the
integrity of the buildings will remain intact. But in the case of the WTC several of these structural members were lost, aiding in the dominoe effect
of the collapse.
[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Muaddib]