Kilobyte.. Not interested in motive for it, merely why it fell. Dan, are you talking about WTC 1 and 2 again?

 

Again, someone who comments on the video after only watching a few minutes of it. For one thing its not my faovitre video and the one I think presents the FACTS the best I can't find the link too. Even so, disregarding the fact there is still a TON of evidence besides that one point. Please shut the f*ck up and do not comment unless you can prove it ALL wrong.


Well then apparently you can't read because I just told you exactly why it fell.

 

I suggest you shut the **** up and go post where i told you so you can actually get opinions from REAL experts.

 

Agree.. Kilobyte you do nothing for your supposed cause.

 

You sir are an idiot, the colapse of the buildings has been proven to have no connection with the aircraft so why am I going to go waste my time on a airplane website?

 

Its all in the video, its your turn show me a video or some peice of data that proves all the points exactly wrong. Please not another half assed explaination from you or 18t, I want to see FACTS and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

 

As far as I understand, all the towers were built with the same design. It reduced material cost, lost floor space and weight.

And as for the 3 hours, yeah. That is about how long all the fires burned before 1,2, and 7 collapsed. If the steel was properly fire proofed the buildings would still stand today. Damage to 1 and 2 was not sufficient to knock it down.

 

How do you explain the neat collapse? How to you explain the extraordinarily high heat readings?

A.) Rember, setel melts at 2700 degrees farenheit. When Jet fuel burns, it can only reach temperatures of 1800 briefly and when mixed in precice proportions with air. Due to the debris and lack of oxygen, it only burned at 1200-1300 degrees.

B.) For the WTC buildings to fall this way, thousands of over enginerred ultra heavy-duity joints and welds would have to snap at percisely the same moment (keep in mind that these buildings were designed to expand and be flexible) and the burnng patterns were inconsistent throughout the floors.
C.) A "pankake collapse" which is the way wtc fell could not happen at such a fast rate of speed.

D.) A pankake collapse would NOT have the latent energy to crystalize the building materials, shred the aluminum and to blast rubble to such distances.

 

Hey kilobyte im not talking about how the buldings collapsed. im talking about the impact of the aircraft and the effects. What infuriates me is that people are dumb enough to believe that a 757 did not hit the pentagon.

the guy talking in the video sais.. " why is there absolutely no traces of the wings outside?..In fact why are there no pieces of the aircraft at all"

why the **** do you think?

the plane was moving at over 500 mph loaded with close to 12,000 pounds of Jet-A fuel hiting a reinforced concrete/limestone building.

you may say.. " well what about other crashes, how come they have parts left from them?" ..

most of them occur during takeoff and landing phases of the flight, where the speed is low. Not when it is moving at over 500mph

It just takes a basic understanding of physics and material science to know that relatively lightweight aluminum isnt going to hold up to well against reinforced concrete and limestone.

the higher the speed, the more energy to be dissipated, and the greater the fragmentation and smaller (and fewer) the resultant pieces will be.

hey here is a pic.. value jet crash in the everglades.. im sure you remember it.. Where are the pieces of the aircraft? tail.. engines..?



According to your claims, this crash never occured either!

I suggest you take a look at this.


Popular Mechanics : Debunking the myth

 

AISC Manual of Steel construction:

The modeling failure quote
"most testing asseblies are based on isolated floor or roof specimens in the size range of 15 ft by 18 ft. In contrast real floor slabs and roof decks are physically, if not structurally constinuous over beams and girders with larger spans and a variety of connection details. In recognition of practical difficulties assosciated with lab-scale testing, many building codes require the designer assess whether acutal construction is restrained or unrestrained against thermal expansion."
Modeling was unable to create the restrained condition of the buildings, therefore computer models were employed.

Spray adhesive fire proofing
"The use of primer and or paint systems under spray applied fireproofing is strongly discouraged.... presence of rust that is loose or flaking,... no mechanical achorage,... bond tests are required to meet UL guidelines."

So if the steel was primered, the spray was bad, and if it was not primered, there was possible rust. Tests showed that the steel was immediately stripped of its spray adhesive in building one and two. In seven, who knows, maybe that is why it lasted a little longer than one or two.

The only reason people claim that the building was over engineered:
"In addition, ASTM E119 utilizes assemblies that are fully loaded, lifetime maximum loads will rarely occur simultaneously with fire in real buildings, particularly since serviceability limit states, such as drift, deflection or vibration control many structural elements. As a result, steel structures generally have significantly more reserve strength than that accounted for in the ASTM E119 test."

So you knock down three buildings in a harbor area, with a fire in your building, and a structural design that heavily relies on each piece being in the correct place. And start knocking out spandrels. One by one or ten by ten it does not matter to me. At some point, Lifetime maximum load is exceeded and the building whether by dumb luck or an unseen engineering fault falls perfectly on its footprint.
ANd I would say an unseen engineering fault because all the buildings failed the exact same way and on their exact same footprint.