What are the most glaring flaws in the Popular Mechanics "debunking" of 9/11?

reply to post by Logical one

Originally posted by Logical one

If you did then I'll admit you may not be as dumb as sound!

you were saying?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by FDNY343

 

Secondly, are you referencing recent codes, or are you referencing the codes from the 1960's.

Also, remember that some of the codes were "circumvented" so to speak. Not ignored, but the design was considered acceptable.

I posted my thoughts on the "circumvention" of codes in some other thread, but I do believe that could be a significant factor. It is probably too late to prove that now, but on a project the size of the WTC, imagine a dozen or more levels of "shortcut taking." Maybe they found a material that was just a little bit cheaper. Maybe they found a a dozen subs that did the job just a little bit cheaper. Maybe each guy from each sub took just a couple of shortcuts. One less rivet, one less bolt. Maybe the fire retardant just wasn't quite as thick as it should have been. Maybe the code enforcers and building inspectors were overworked and just initialed off on some things without looking closely.

Imagine just a little bit of shortcutting, over and over and over through dozens of layers of contractors from the General Contractor through the subs, the supers, and down to the poor smuck walking on the iron.

I believe that is an excellent argument that could be made in favor of the official story. But I am still on the other side of the fence, LOL!

I couldn't agree more. In fact, IIRC, I remember my FIL talking about how (in the 60's) the mob and mafia had their hands in everything construction related, and they were known for taking shortcuts.

I know without a doubt that the SFRM was applied incorrectly, so what else could have been done incorrectly?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Logical one

 

I beg to differ with that. Maybe our ATS fireman can attest to it better than me, but airplanes hitting high-rises is part of contingency planning, and fires that use petrochemical accelerants are common place, and they are familiar, or quickly become familiar with every type of construction technique in their precincts.

It may not be common, but within minutes of the first strike, they had plans for the building, and they knew what type of fire they were dealing with, and they were addressing the safety factors of battling the blaze.

Absolutely! It wouldn't matter where it hit, or what building, we would know what the construction was, how the fire escapes were routed through the building, everything you could possibly need to know.

In fact, there were contingency plans for airplane strikes in the WTC Towers. Since we know from the past that airplane do strike buildings, (Empire State Building) we had contingency plans. HOWEVER, they were garbage on the day of 9/11 because we were overloaded from the second impact on. Once the first tower collapsed, everything went straight out the window, and we were flying by the seat of our pants.

Missing firefighters, damaged rigs, damaged infastructure, etc. etc. etc......

It was a cluster****.

Originally posted by Yankee451

I appreciate what you guys are trying to say. I try to write with the layman in mind, so let’s try to keep it simple so readers don’t get confused and discouraged with the thread. In my short time here I’ve run into FDNY343 on other threads. On one he argued the viability of Aluminum Bullets and Aluminum Sledge Hammers, exposing his ignorance about material densities but when confronted he just disappears and goes to another thread.

Absolute bull****, and you know it.

I also explained to you why aluminum sledge hammers would not be very smart. You would need to work twice as hard, since the KE of an aluminum sledge being swung is LESS than a steel sledge being swung. HOWEVER, if you make an aluminum alloy strong enough, it most certainly would work. But, it would be pointless.

Originally posted by Yankee451

This is important information. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead now, and more are joining that grim roster by the hour. To defend the OS means defending their wars. With that in mind, accurate information is essential, and you guys are being disingenuous to say the least.

Assuming the consequence.

I do NOT support the war that we are fighing in Iraq. **** Iraq I say. Let them kill each other off. I couldn't give two craps less.
Same with Libia, and Afganistan, etc. etc. **** em all. Take care of our own first.

Originally posted by Yankee451

You are saying that regardless of mass and density of material, if you apply enough Kinetic Energy (KE) to an object…IE, make it go fast enough, it will cut through anything. In this example, you are arguing that a wingtip made of a lightweight and relatively soft metal like aluminum, when traveling at a certain velocity, will slice through very dense and massive structural steel, causing the plane-like cutout hole as depicted on TV.

This is only possible in Hollywood, not in the real world.

Explain how a 1/2" fence picket can impale itself into a large (Aproximate 18" dia.) palm tree without any man made mechanical force?

www.usatoday.com...

Kinetic energy.

Explain how water can crush a car?

Kinetic energy.

Water cutting steel?

Kinetic energy.

You're arguing from a failed premise.

KDNY343 is looking for investors in a start up company which makes aluminum bullets and sledge hammers. You guys should pool your money.

Liar. I have never said anything of the like. I said it is POSSIBLE, but not practical.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Logical one

 

I have to give you that one, because I still don't believe they collapsed the way the supposedly did! I am certain the firemen never dreamed they would collapse that way, and here we are almost 10 years later, and a large swath of us still don't believe they collapsed that way.

I'm not sure if that helps your argument or mine though?

Firefighters believe ANY building with steel in it can collapse. However, here is the thing.

There was no way to accurately predict how long the building would stand. There was no way to know what the impact floors looked like, how much damage, how much fuel was on board, etc.

The problem was, we believed it would last longer than it did. Not that it matters, since we still would have entered that building. People's lives were in danger, and our job is to save lives, and fight fire. If we die doing our job, that is something we cannot control.

I am sure you've seen it before, but go read the fireman's prayer. It's very true. We wouldn't be in the fire service if we were not willing to put our lives on the line, and possibly give our life "So that others may live".

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Logical one
.remember the Twin Towers were one of the first to employ the tube-frame structural design.

The tube design was not as unique to the twin towers as we are led to believe.

These are all tube design buildings...

DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.

John Hancock Center at 875 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, completed in 1968.

Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as Sears Tower) 108-story, Chicago, completed in 1974.

Petronas Towers (also known as the Petronas Twin Towers or KLCC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998.

Jin Mao Tower, 88-story skyscraper Shanghai, People's Republic of China.

Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and is currently the tallest man-made structure ever built, at 828 m (2,717 ft).

Tube structures have since been used in many other later skyscrapers, including the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[5] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

It had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the towers.

edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob

Um, the WTC towers are a TUBE in TUBE design. Nothing like what you have described.

Originally posted by Yankee451

My steel wood burning stove proves your physics belongs in cartoons.

Um, your steel wood-burning stove is most likely cast iron, and not steel.

Secondly, your stove is designed to withstand those types of temperatures, since it is much thicker than the steel used in the floor trusses.

Lastly, I could get your stove to deform with wood and a little airflow. Easily actually.

Send me your stove, I will send you back a deformed stove.

Originally posted by ANOK
Garbage, all conducting materials will act as a heat sink.

You do realise for fire to cause the collapse then the majority of the steel would have to be heated to failure, otherwise the unheated steel will take up the load?

You do realize that the steel did not need to fail to cause the failure, right?

Also, the connections between the trusses and the columns could only sink a small (read: negligable) amount of heat away. Why is that?

Too small, not designed properly, not installed properly, wrong material.

Copper would be much better. Hence why they use copper in electrical wiring. The molecules in the copper are close enough together and lined up in a way that helps transfer heat energy/currents easily from one molecule to the next.

Originally posted by ANOK

Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

www.doctorfire.com...

Hey, you know whats cool ANOK, this doesn't help your cause at all. A typical post-flashover fire will be around 1800 deg F.......Guess where steel looses 50% of it's strength?

Less than 1800 deg. F!!

LOL!!! Fail!!

Originally posted by ANOK

Also to add to this, they didn't even find half the bodies, how do you expect any demolition cables etc., to survive?

Do you actually think before you post?

edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob

They found buttons, wallets, money, keys, etc. etc. etc.....All found at Fresh Kills.

But, of course, that stuff would survive, but your explosive wiring etc. wouldn't.

I love your brand of science. Just make it fit whatever your beliefs are, it's cool. Nobody will notice.....

Originally posted by ANOK

The tube design was not as unique to the twin towers as we are led to believe.

These are all tube design buildings...

DeWitt-Chestnut Apartment Building in Chicago, Illinois, completed in 1963.

Can't confirm, but possible.

Originally posted by ANOK

John Hancock Center at 875 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, completed in 1968.

Has HUGE exterior cross bracing.
www.aviewoncities.com...

Not the same at all.

Interior framing simmilar, but used beams for floor support, not lightweight trusses.

img172.imageshack.us...

Originally posted by ANOK

Willis Tower (formerly named, and still commonly referred to as Sears Tower) 108-story, Chicago, completed in 1974.

Incorrect.

It actually uses nine seperate tubes attached together to make the structure.
www.time.com...

Nothing like the WTC, with had long-span steel trusses and inner and outer columns only.

Originally posted by ANOK

Petronas Towers (also known as the Petronas Twin Towers or KLCC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1998.

OOPS!! Concrete reinforced!!

Due to a lack of steel and the huge cost of importing steel, the towers were constructed on a cheaper radical design of super high-strength reinforced concrete.

Wells, Matthew (2005). Skyscrapers: structure and design. Laurence King Publishing. p. 170.

Originally posted by ANOK
Jin Mao Tower, 88-story skyscraper Shanghai, People's Republic of China.

OOPS!! Also reinforced concrete!

www.allaboutskyscrapers.com...

Originally posted by ANOK
Burj Khalifa, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and is currently the tallest man-made structure ever built, at 828 m (2,717 ft).

Also concrete construction!! OOPS!! Go back and try again.



You also realize that the person who helped pioneer this type of design was none other than Leslie Robertson?

See here.
books.google.com...:%22Council+on+Tall+Buildings+and+Urban+Habitat%22&hl=en&ei=dLZ5TYuEF5LAt gfutbG6BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=TUbe&f=false

Page 482

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451

My steel wood burning stove proves your physics belongs in cartoons.

Um, your steel wood-burning stove is most likely cast iron, and not steel.

Secondly, your stove is designed to withstand those types of temperatures, since it is much thicker than the steel used in the floor trusses.

Lastly, I could get your stove to deform with wood and a little airflow. Easily actually.

Send me your stove, I will send you back a deformed stove.

www.lopistoves.com...
Construction
5/16" to 3/16" Steel Plate

Your squirming would be amusing if less was on the line. I tell you what, you come here and deform my stove with wood and a little airflow...that I'd love to see.

After you've succeeded in creating whatever optimal conditions are needed to make a furnace strong enough to "deform" the steel, then you can demonstrate how air flow and combustible material conditions were optimal in the WTC and capable of not just "deforming" tens of thousands of times the steel, but of reducing it to a smoking pile of pieces most of which were conveniently-sized to fit on a truck.

Lopi Stoves rule. They have show rooms you can visit which will give you an idea just how tough 1/4 inch steel really is. Talk to the sales people about the difference between their cast iron and steel models. I urge everyone reading this to do just that...and while there, imagine a wing from a jet hitting a single, stationary Lopi steel stove (heck, even a cast iron one). You will see how absurd the argument is; that if you simply increase the speed of the wing, the aluminum will cut the stove in half.

Reverse the equation and apply the same Kinetic Energy to the stove and have it hit the stationary wing...what would happen then? It's the same Kinetic Energy, so according to you geniuses, the stove should still get cut in half? Good lord, what color is the sky in your world?

reply to post by FDNY343

Absolute bull****, and you know it. I also explained to you why aluminum sledge hammers would not be very smart. You would need to work twice as hard, since the KE of an aluminum sledge being swung is LESS than a steel sledge being swung. HOWEVER, if you make an aluminum alloy strong enough, it most certainly would work. But, it would be pointless.

Your words on the matter:

Originally posted by FDNY343 It could work. I mean, if it wasn't so damn expensive. Aluminum alloys hold up a cars weight, why couldn't they make a sledge hammer out of aluminum alloys?

Yes, you're right, they don't. And do you wonder why that is? I can tell you.

Weight.

The weight of the sledge is what does the most work if you are doing it properly. (Notice I said properly) The KE of a steel sledge being swung is much more than one made of aluminum.

You would need to swing the aluminum one with much more force to do the same work.

And yes, i've used sledge hammers many times.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So according to you, only the weight is the deciding factor and it would do the same job as steel but you'd have to work twice as hard. This is of course ignoring that the density of steel is about 7.8 (g/cm³) while the density of aluminum alloy is about 2.8 (g/cm³). The density of material coupled with the amount of material dictates its weight. So the reason aluminum sledges aren't made...and aluminum bullets too, which travel a wee bit faster than you can swing a sledge, is not just because of the weight, but its also because the material won't maintain its integrity at impact as well as more dense materials.

I seriously doubt you've ever used a sledge hammer. Anyone reading your tripe should be duly insulted.

Assuming the consequence. I do NOT support the war that we are fighing in Iraq. **** Iraq I say. Let them kill each other off. I couldn't give two craps less. Same with Libia, and Afganistan, etc. etc. **** em all. Take care of our own first.

I don't have anything against any of the people in the countries you listed, and I wouldn't wish such a thing on even my worst enemy.

I do agree we should take care of our own though. We need to invite the world to try our leaders for crimes against humanity and we as the enablers need to pay reparations to the survivors of the victims.

Explain how a 1/2" fence picket can impale itself into a large (Aproximate 18" dia.)

palm tree without any man made mechanical force?

www.usatoday.com... Kinetic energy.

Density of material coupled with kinetic energy. The picket material is denser than the fibrous trunk of the palm...not to mention a sharp, pointy tip. But let's keep you honest, shall we? How fast would that picket need to go to cut the tree down if it hit the tree sideways instead of from either end? When the point hits the tree at velocity, the entire mass of the picket is behind the impact point. If it hit sideways, there's significantly less mass backing up the impact point...which is why you never see a picket cutting a tree down.

Now, what would happen to that picket if it hit sideways on several palms attached together with spandrel connections and laterally reinforced with more palm trees?

Explain how water can crush a car?

It's all the same stuff man...these are the laws of nature, not mine. KE, V, M in this case.

If that scoop of water wasn't dumped on the car all at one time, it would not have damaged it like that...the same amount of water would have been dropped, but no damage. By concentrating the water's MASS into a scoop, the mass of water strikes the car with enough concentrated force to crush the thin, soft aluminum of the car before the water's integrity is lost and it splashes harmlessly to the ground. Concentrating the mass is like making the water more dense. If the water was dropped from twice the height, much of it would be displaced by the air as it fell, making it less massive and likely to do less damage...it will only damage the car if enough water hits it at the same time. Exchange the car with my wood stove, and I'd be interested to see if there would be any damage.

The reason the water doesn't plow right through the car and make a crater is because it doesn't have enough density of material to do it. Contain the same amount of water in something with enough density to maintain its integrity at impact, and the damage would be much worse.

Water cutting steel?

Pressure. Same as the scoop of water focusing the mass of the water into a concentrated area, but in this case the water jet concentrates the water at extremely high pressure (akin to density) to a tiny point...KE, V, M. Without the pressure, that water will only cause a little rust on the steel.

You're arguing from a failed premise.

Please explain.

Liar. I have never said anything of the like. I said it is POSSIBLE, but not practical.

I stand corrected. You never said you are looking for investors in a start up company which makes aluminum bullets and sledge hammers, that was me. The rest is all you.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

So explain exactly how fast can heat from a 30ft long truss transfer into the remaining steel through two 5/8" bolts in slotted holes on both ends, into a seat, from the top chord of the truss

Huh how would I know that and why would I care?

Any metal touching metal is going to transfer heat, sorry you don't understand that.

Even if the steel didn't act as a sink one hour is still not enough time to cause complete failure of a building that is designed to hold its own weight many times over. Even if the whole building heated up, ALL the steel, it would still stand. Steel that is heated does not keep its shape until it decides to fail, it deforms, sags etc., before any failure we would see obvious deformation of the steel. The collapse would have been slow, and in stages, as hot steel was resisted by cold steel and weight is transferred etc.

So why is it that firefighters are deathly afraid of entering a building with light steel trusses as roof support, even if the fire is only a few minutes old? If steel takes so long to deform and fail, then why did the LARGE heavy steel trusses of old McCormick Place fail and collapse in 20 minutes? Steel, especially light thin steel found in light steel trusses, fails VERY rapidly in fires. I cannot count how many times I have posted firefighter information about just how light steel trusses are in fires, and yet somehow it doesnt connect in your head. Why is that?

And yes there was a lot of visible deformation of the steel trusses in the fires before the collapses. Yes there was visible deformation of the external columns prior to collapse. Yes there were reports of steel failures in the WTCs prior to collapse. Yes there were obvious visible deformations of WTC7 HOURS before collapse. And yet you ignored every single one, and still do to this day. Talk about embracing ignorance. Where have you been the last 9 years? I'm not about to go back and repost every picture, every firefighter account, every police account that mentions the obvious signs of structural failure occurring throughout the three buildings. You can go back and find them yourself.

Any metal touching metal will act as a heat sink. Good, you said something correct for once. However, another fact: the rate of heat transfer is proportional to the amount of surface area in contact with each other. More surface area means a greater amount of heat transfer, between the objects in contact. A surface area of 10ft squared is going to heat sink a lot more than a surface area of 2ft squared. Did you know about that? Did they teach you that in physics? The floor truss ends had a tiny surface area in contact with the area connecting to the exterior and interior columns. The trusses were about 15-30 ft long (please check the actual figures on that). Those floor trusses are going to heat up rapidly and deform rapidly, faster than the heat sink effect of the exterior columns can wick away the heat. Ergo, the floor trusses will deform rapidly and cause extra forces on the structure, similar to what light steel truss supported roofs do when they are exposed to fires. Trusses fail very quickly.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by ANOK

Also to add to this, they didn't even find half the bodies, how do you expect any demolition cables etc., to survive?

Do you actually think before you post?

edit on 3/10/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob

They found buttons, wallets, money, keys, etc. etc. etc.....All found at Fresh Kills.

But, of course, that stuff would survive, but your explosive wiring etc. wouldn't.

I love your brand of science. Just make it fit whatever your beliefs are, it's cool. Nobody will notice.....

What we all noticed was that they dumped this alleged evidence in a land fill. If this was a real crime scene it would have been taken apart like an archaeological dig.

Let's pretend we are detectives investigating the possibility of this being a crime commonly called ARSON..

Three buildings fall, all of which are leased by the same person a few months prior to 9/11 ...and soon afterwards collapse.

Scientists with the National Institute of Standards and Technology say their three-year investigation of the collapse determined the demise of WTC 7 was actually the first time in the world a fire caused the total failure of a modern skyscraper.

We then Confer with the original designer of the WTC and you are told that the structures were designed to "Absorb" the impact of a 707 Jetliner and/or 120mph winds and remain standing.
A Boeing 707 aircraft, which is not a small aircraft AND being a transcontinental airliner, the largest Jetliner until the Boeing 747 and about the same size as a 757.

So what does that mean for our structural failure story now ?
I presume then that the teams of structural engineers simply didn't understand how to use their slide rules and calculators correctly then ?

But more idealistically and Simply from a perspective of Probability and statistics.
For the first time in history We have Three skeletal steel constructed buildings collapse in their very own footprint. Not over many hours of partial collapse as would occur due to fatigue as a result of fire.
But they collapse at near free fall speeds. Almost as if the remaining superstucture had simply evaporated.

In the old days it used to be called "Insurance Fraud" , where restaurateurs would set their establishments on fire in order to collect the Insurance payments !

Today it's called the 9/11 Original Story.

reply to post by nh_ee


The true believers of the OS will twist themselves into a pretzel to justify the story, rather than find a story to suit the facts.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Hey, you know whats cool ANOK, this doesn't help your cause at all. A typical post-flashover fire will be around 1800 deg F.......Guess where steel looses 50% of it's strength? Less than 1800 deg. F!! LOL!!! Fail!!

Oh dear, so what if the steel lost 50% of its strength? How much steel would have lost that strength? More than 50%? Less than 20%? Do you know? How much steel would have to lose 50% of its strength to cause complete failure, do you know?

Do you know how much weight the building was designed to hold? Was it more than its own weight? Less than its own weight? More then double its own weight?

Do you know and understand what a safety factor is (MOS or MS, margin of safety)? Do you know that all buildings are at least built with a safety factor of 2? Do you understand what that means, firefighter guy?

Do you know the answers? Of course you don't because if you did you wouldn't claim that 50% loss of strength of a small percentage of the overall steel in the building would cause it to completely fail ignoring KNOWN laws of physics.

M.S. as a measure of requirement verification: Many agencies such as NASA[9] and AIAA[10] define the margin of safety including the design factor, in other words, the margin of safety is calculated after applying the design factor. In the case of a margin of 0, the part is at exactly the required strength (the safety factor would equal the design factor). If there is a part with a required design factor of 3 and a margin of 1, the part would have a safety factor of 6 (capable of supporting two loads equal to its design factor of 3, supporting six times the design load before failure). A margin of 0 would mean the part would pass with a safety factor of 3. If the margin is less than 0 in this definition, although the part will not necessarily fail, the design requirement has not been met. A convenience of this usage is that for all applications, a margin of 0 or higher is passing, one does not need to know application details or compare against requirements, just glancing at the margin calculation tells whether the design passes or not.

If the towers were at the minimum if 2x MOS that means it could hold twice its own weight before failure. If ALL the steel lost 50% of its strength, YOU do the math. It would still hold itself up, it might start sagging, but it is not going to globally fail. With only a small part of the building being heated up from fire, NO sorry but it is not going to collapse to its basement.

And I fail? You seem to have missed a lot of information in your attempt to appear educated.

reply to post by GenRadek


How many times does this have to be repeated, failing trusses does not equate to complete global collapse of the whole tower including the massive central core.

That is such a ridiculous argument. So what IF the trusses did sag, I highly doubt it from one hour of fire but...

Sagging trusses CAN NOT exert a force on the columns they're attached to, period.

Even if a complete floor did fall all at once it is still not going to cause complete failure of the whole building, the floors were of equal mass, the dropping floor can not crush the static floor and not be crushed itself, Newtons 3rd law of motion, equal and opposite reactions etc.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek

 

How many times does this have to be repeated, failing trusses does not equate to complete global collapse of the whole tower including the massive central core.

That is such a ridiculous argument. So what IF the trusses did sag, I highly doubt it from one hour of fire but...

Sagging trusses CAN NOT exert a force on the columns they're attached to, period.

Even if a complete floor did fall all at once it is still not going to cause complete failure of the whole building, the floors were of equal mass, the dropping floor can not crush the static floor and not be crushed itself, Newtons 3rd law of motion, equal and opposite reactions etc.

Yes they do. The trusses are what gave the whole building the support it needed to stand. Have whole sections start to fail, and then you have a catastrophie waiting to happen. The core was also not a freestanding structure. It needed the exterior columns and floor trusses to give it stability. Geeze ANOK after all this time you still dont get the design features of the WTCs?

Oh so light steel trusses wont fail until maybe after an hour of being exposed? Go on to some firefighter websites and fire safety sites and books and then do some actual research on just how fast light steel trusses can fail from fire alone (not including a whole 767 impacting them first.) Again, its been stated, time and again of just how trusses behave in fires, its a shame you still dont get it. And then you expect us to believe you when you talk abotu physics? Oh, and also, why did McCormick Place's roof collapse in 20 minutes of fire when they had huge heavy steel trusses supporting the roof???

Oh so a sagging truss will not put any extra force on the objects it is attached to? Well then golly gee, why are firefighters so afraid of going into buildings where the roofs are supported only by light steel trusses? They must be stupid then! Again, do some actual research into light steel trusses and fires. Its too bad those conspiracy sites like to keep that information away from you. I wonder why?

So wait, you really still think that just one floor fell onto the floor below it when the WTCs started to collapse? ANOK, Earth to ANOK, its been 9 years. Try 30+ floors collapsing onto ONE floor below it. Let us see, 30 floors, moving as one mass, impacting one floor below it. Who is going to win? Your physics is a little flawed there. 30 floors dropping on one floor will crush the one floor, and then allow the 30+1 floors to impact the next floor, and the next floor, and the next floor, in a growing chain reaction where momentum is increasing and the mass is increasing. Boy ANOK you sure did miss a lot in those physics classes! Better go back and catch up!