reply to post by learnatic
sorry i am not understanding your thinking...this is structural steel...it is not flimsy bit of tin....IT supported the mass of the entire building
for 40yrs...why would it get deformed so bad...now all throughout time here...it is mentioned over and over...the dynamic load could no longer be
supported...the truss seats failed...the floors came crashing down...therefore...the truss seats should show deformation which truly represents that
occurrence should it not?
also time and time again it gets mentioned steel did not melt...and there wasn't any molten metal...or explosions...but from just the images so far
it seems this concepts are not fitting the reality of what we are seeing in the steel...I will be putting up so much more and you will have loads of
opportunity to evaluate...So from your statement there is now explosions involved. I thought explosions were a no no...Also if things are being
dispersed laterally ....then where are the forces for this action coming from.
This is what should have been talked about in the first place...all the steel that was just packed up...shipped out...and destroyed.....a lot of
these images were released under the FOIA It changes things doesn't it when we start to actually look at the evidence.....and every piece of steel is
evidence...and can actually lead to how the collapses progressed
Also earlier was mentioned about building seven...i am collecting steel images together from just that builing to be examined here also....like i
stated...i have now gather approximately 20,000 images of the steel.
you also make a very valid point on the concrete issue...why did the mass of the concrete not mangle even more of the steel and where are the
pieces....starred that posting thanks for the thoughts.
edit on 023131p://f00Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)