reply to post by surfnow2
I have no doubt at all, that the world trade center buildings collapsed and fell down after two fully fueled planes hit at over 500mph wiping
out enormous sections of the buildings.
There are some huge problems with the official story of how the towers collapsed. First of all, in the
The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed
to sustained temperatures apparently [color=limegreen]exceeding 800°C…[color=limegreen]Once more than half of the columns in the
critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the
upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below…
So for this theory to play out in reality, at least 24 of the 47 core columns would
have to reach 800°C and buckle. But there's a huge problem with this theory, it didn't happen:
NIST determined that there was no evidence that
any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.
So the Bazant/Zhou theory of collapse is false. Let's see if an experiment NIST did
can back up the official story:
NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance
of trusses like those in the WTC towers… [color=limegreen]All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours
without collapsing......Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large
gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.
NIST did a full scale test and the experiment showed that fire damage cannot even cause a single floor to collapse. So they can't even get one floor
to collapse after two hours, and didn't even address the behavior of the building during collapse but expect us to believe that the entire tower
collapsed once "initiation was reached" because it was "inevitable".
This is a pile of crap. Does anyone understand how much explosives would be need to accomplish this. Does anyone have an idea of how wide these
buildings were? U would need to put explosives on several floors on the collums, which means you would be walking through peoples offices to put them
there. It would be such a massive undertaking that whoever did it would need to come in, in Uhaul type trucks. Then you would need to transport them
by cart, past Port Authority Police and on to the various floors.
I've said this hundreds of times and I'll say it again: Your personal
opinion does not trump all of the evidence that points to a controlled demolition.
Sometimes the easiest explanation is the correct one
Right, so which is easier:
--WTC 7 had fires scattered randomly throughout the building, yet the damage caused the core columns to fail symmetrically within milliseconds of each
other allowing the building to fall symmetrically, and the fires also got rid of the material in between the floors allowing it to free-fall in a
never before seen fire-caused symmetrical free-fall skyscraper collapse.
--WTC 7 was imploded in a controlled demolition, because in controlled demolitions the core columns are destroyed first to ensure that the building
falls in on itself: (as seen in this image of the fault and acknowledged in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report)
The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was
suggesting an internal failure and implosion…
The core is also destroyed symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other allowing the
building to fall symmetrically rather than tipping over. Explosives were used to remove the material that would otherwise stop the collapse to ensure
Which is easier:
--Airplanes struck the towers in different locations at different angles with different masses at different speeds containing different amounts of jet
fuel, yet both towers collapsed all the way down to the ground due to fires which do not burn hot enough to cause even a single column to fail.
--Airplanes struck the towers, and the tower was imploded in a top/down demolition to make it appear that the damage from the planes (which has been
determined as insufficient to cause collapse) caused them to fall?
Here is proof that the core of the Twin Towers failed first (just like with implosions and WTC 7):
North Tower Antenna
: At frame 6 the antenna begins to fall, but at
frame 8 the tower begins to fall. How does the core fail if the fires burning inside cannot cause it to fail? What could cause the core column of a
building to fail and also bring the building all the way to the ground? A controlled demolition.