posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Rob37n
I just watched a TV program called Destroyed in Seconds where a two story building took all night to collapse after catching fire, and it fell down
randomly at different points in time and even exploded at one point. That doesn't happen in the real world as 9/11 showed. As we all know now
buildings collapse neatly into their own footprint in these circumstances. I wonder if the Destroyed in Seconds people faked the footage or some
edit on 13/3/1313 by Rob37n because: spelling mistake.
Setting aside my opinion on the truth of the official story of 9/11, I really feel that I have to comment on two things here, just in the name of
Disclaimer - I do have several years of experience as a volunteer fire fighter, but I do not have a degree in civil engineering, nor am I a certified
fire scene investigator. That said, I have watched buildings burn, and occasionally collapse on several occasions...some in actual firefighting
situations, some in training exercises, and some on film as part of the same training. No two of them collapsed in the same way. Every collapse is
different. Differences in construction materials and methods, differences in the severity and scope of the fire, the age of the building, weather
conditions....literally thousands of things can cause two very similar buildings to burn (or collapse) in startlingly different ways. Thus, the
burning building from "Destroyed in Seconds" behaved differently from WTC 1 and 2, or WTC 7, and none of them behaved like the Pentagon when it was
hit. That doesn't, in and of itself mean that any of the events were staged or faked, just that, as noted above, every building collapse is
I also get rather tired of hearing about how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed so neatly into their own footprints. Take a quick look at aerial photographs of the
scene, and compare them to the 'before' images. The rubble piles are considerably larger than the footprints of the standing towers....again, in and
of itself, that doesn't support or undermine the official story, but it's not accurate to say that the collapses were some remarkably neat and tidy
affairs. Given the way the towers were constructed, they weren't going to come down like a felled redwood, regardless of what caused the collapse.
There wasn't sufficient shear strength in the structure to allow that.