Did the experiments done by British Steel and the Building Research Establishment, include the fact that the building was hit by a jetliner that (almost) damaged and weakened the 2 walls of the each building by making huge holes? The damage remained localized but, the weight of the upper floors cause the building to collapse. each floor pan-caked the floor beneath it.. Plus the graph shows that the strength of the steel weakens by 90% at temperature of 800 degrees or above. Now couple it with the fact that Impact had already been weaken the walls and made huge holes, thus redistributing the weight upon the remaining walls. Now couple this with the fact that concrete starts to crack on high temperature. Now lets see - The Impact makes 2 huge holes in the walls, completely destroying the steel and concrete of that area. The weight of the upper floors redistribute to the remaining walls, strong enough to carry the weight. The explosion set the floors on fire. Now when floors caught fire it's not only jet fuel that is burning there.. Things like rubber, plastic perhaps other chemical substances are burning too. The temperature reaches 1500-2000 degrees, melting and weakening the steel, cracking the concrete, thus further damaging the walls, walls that already have extra weight given to them Thanks to the holes. The walls give up and collapse, the weight of upper floors starts to pan-cake floors beneath it, do not forget the floors above and beneath the impact points are also weakened. so on the force they also give up and collapse. The growing weight of collapsing floors keep pan-caking the lower floors thus bringing down the entire building in the similar way of controlled demolition.
Yes!! And 'huge' holes were only local. That doesn't explain why the building should collapse way below the holes. The structure below the holes were designed to take at least 10 times the load of the building above them. Why should the building collapse then? Now say "heat".. that's silly, effect of heat was local. There is nothing that explains how the whole building collapsed. The simplest, and the best explanation is: it was a controlled demolition. Period. Pan-cake(progressive collapse) theory has been debunked. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html
Sure, it was over-engineered for a building of its time.. It was built to withstand the impact of a 707. Once again, I am old enough to remember them being built, my grandmother worked in the WTC for 15 years, my aunt and uncle were in WTC7 that day in 2001. I also remember what a 707 looks like.. Compared to a 767, those buildings were no match for its size, and the enormous amount of jet fuel they held. Sure, unless of course those "areas" are on top of other areas.. They then create a chain re-action which is no longer localized. I know they are not your words.. You are merely a drone for the 1/2 dozen or so believers in the "conspiracy"... It is not childish to state a fact.
This guy does a good job to put it into simple terms to help those with a lack of understanding of physics. towers fall at free-fall speed
Yes. We've already established that you aren't thinking for yourself here. You are just reiterating the point now. Thanks for that, but its not necessary I get it. Who do you think is behind the attacks? While you are considering this; here is a list of claims you've made that I'd like supported: - A flash from the planes before impact - Refutation of: Let me know when you get to these and we'll continue the discussion. For now, please support those claims and then let me know who you think was -really- behind the attacks? K?
Vibration can be be transmitted in a progressive collapse, not heat. Vibration alone won't be sufficient to cause the 'whole' structure to collapse, we need heat to explain that. But heat doesn't transmits by what you mean to say by 'chain re-action' Typical no-argument-only-opinion behavior again!
Allright, lets see.. according to you the building was designed to take 10 times the load of the building above them.. (Not the fact, not supported by the construction engineers), lets see. You call it controlled demolition. Okay but care to explain how the building collapsed then? Simply calling it controlled demolition is not enough, you need to provide the facts and series of events that caused building to collapse. In controlled demolition they set a series of explosives in the building, and set them off to bring the buildings down in a pre-defined and calculated sequence. Any controlled demolition video will prove it. Now you tell me where did they set the explosives? How did they actually control the demolition. Please enlight me!!
You are already dodging the claims you've previously brought forth. Like all the bottom feeders do. Something is mutated. Surely, if you are sure of this claim, you can whip up a video that shows as such; wouldnt you? Just one video. Show me. Actually; it is yours. If you dispute the account of how the buildings collapsed - since we have every piece of evidence required to show that's how it happened. if you have an alternate theory; its really yours to prove. And, no, copy and pasting from a conspiracy site is not proof. Get me? Admissions, confessions, passports, etc. We have body parts of tied up stewardesses lying in NYC after the impacts. bodies at the pentagon. What else do you need? You aren't serious are you? Why do you not believe that some islamic people did it? Were they not capable of flying planes? I'm still failing to grasp what laws of physics have been broken. You haven't shown anything but your own speculation. Here is your free fall fallacy http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm And every other point you've brought up as well. One who makes a claim that the collapse didnt happen as supposed is the one who has the burden of proof. Enlighten us - and no, copy pasting from a conspiracy site isn't proof.
He has a poor grasp of English. I'd bet money he is from an islamic country or he himself is islamic and is attempting to justify any sort of belief that members of his religion did not do this.
Shear weight and the fact that the structure itself was weakened is enough to create a complete failure... It's a pancake affect. Given the fact that the structure had no internal supports, and was supported by the floors and outer skin, it's perfectly logical that it would collapse like it did. Once the internal structure, which again, was the structural support of the building itself fails, the whole building fails.. My thoughts are based on fact, not what some moonbat told me..
You lost the bet. This was not only a speculation on your part, but it is also wrong; I am not a Muslim.
So the poor grammar skills are simply a result of your educational upbringing? At least we cleared something up so far
I kinda gathered that.. At your level, calling you one would likely be an insult to real Muslim's everywhere...
Again, there were not steel support columns... Your argument is flawed by your own ignorance, and unwillingness to accept reality. Instead of quoting conspiracy theory sites, I suggest you look at the original architectural plans for the building... Do you really want to go on making a fool of yourself? It's getting a bit old.
Did you pass in the science subjects? No, this question is not at all unnecessary, because science is being used as a tool here.