08-22-2008, 03:54 AM
There some interesting information at that popular mechanics site, really worth reading.
However, as usual, I'll still come up with back argumentation :p
First, because of the two towers collapsed in the entire same way. If jet fuel did it, how big are the changes the jet fuel spoiled in such a way the buildings collapsed in the same manner? We all saw that there was an explosion immediately after the plane vanished into the towers, so when did the fire start? Right then. Fire goes up. Jet fuel goes down. Do you think jet fuel will go faster down than it takes for the fire to spread through the fuel and light all the fuel? Because once the fuel is on fire, why would it still be able to spread to the lobby before it burned up?
And most interesting is the fact people say the fire did most of it. That's just not true; the article states an example of the Windsor building in Madrid. It burned for 2 full days, go to p26 to see the result: It didn't collapse and most of it was still standing. Moreover: In this building some of the top floor also collapsed onto lower floors, but never such thing as the 'pancaketheory' was witnessed here.
There never has been coverage about WTC7 while no one is really saying blowing up WTC7 was a bad thing. As far as I know, there were no victims there at all. Simply admitting that this building was demolished for safety reasons or something would have made the situations look a lot more clear.
And diesel tanks? That would have been very clearly if it were indeed those that exploded. It would have been a big explosion, blowing off walls or parts of the building. WTC7 was undoubtly controlled demolition. It would be too much coincidence that 3 buildings collapse in the same way when no buildings have ever done this in history before, except for controlled demolition.
Hey man, I like discussing with someone who actually arguments
However, as usual, I'll still come up with back argumentation :p
SpoonMan999 Wrote:1. this didn't bring the buildings down.Wouldn't bring any building down really
SpoonMan999 Wrote:2. The columns to support the building were all placed at the perimeter and the core leaving a large amount of empty space in between, this is probably why the plane penetrated so deep into the building.This just isn't true. It's proven at p31 of the pdf, not just by the imagine but a lot more by the photograph of the WTC towers in construction.
SpoonMan999 Wrote:3. Jet fuel can burn at 800-1500 degrees but steel loses half it's strength at 1202 degrees.The magnitude and effects of the fire are highly overrated.
8. Some speculate that even without the impact of the plane and with the fire proofing still intact the building still would have collapsed with a fire of that magnitude.
9. The 7th building, which you question the collapse of, had several diesel fuel tanks stored on several levels and pipe lines connecting them.
First, because of the two towers collapsed in the entire same way. If jet fuel did it, how big are the changes the jet fuel spoiled in such a way the buildings collapsed in the same manner? We all saw that there was an explosion immediately after the plane vanished into the towers, so when did the fire start? Right then. Fire goes up. Jet fuel goes down. Do you think jet fuel will go faster down than it takes for the fire to spread through the fuel and light all the fuel? Because once the fuel is on fire, why would it still be able to spread to the lobby before it burned up?
And most interesting is the fact people say the fire did most of it. That's just not true; the article states an example of the Windsor building in Madrid. It burned for 2 full days, go to p26 to see the result: It didn't collapse and most of it was still standing. Moreover: In this building some of the top floor also collapsed onto lower floors, but never such thing as the 'pancaketheory' was witnessed here.
SpoonMan999 Wrote:4. The impact completely blew off a great deal of the fire proofing around the steel.I don't know really, I don't know what kind of fire proofing they use on steel. I do know however, that only the fire proofing can be torn appart on the spot of impact, not above and not below.
SpoonMan999 Wrote:5. The stairwells were determined to be improperly shielded.Don't know what you mean with this? If it's important please rephrase?
SpoonMan999 Wrote:6. Due to the placement of the columns once the strength of the core columns began to wane all of the weight was transfered to the perimeter columns, using the system you spoke of before Mozzy. But the perimeter columns were also weakened by the fires placing a lot of pressure on the exterior walls. Of course with the perimeter now failing the pressure was redistributed back to the core and boom...the tower comes down.If such great pressure is coming from above, don't you think the huge structure that was coming down would have chosen the easiest way, the one of least resistance? It would have at least bend a bit, but it really didn't. And it went just that way with the other tower. And it went just that way with WTC7, and as you know, you can't say there was huge amounts of pressure coming from above there.
There never has been coverage about WTC7 while no one is really saying blowing up WTC7 was a bad thing. As far as I know, there were no victims there at all. Simply admitting that this building was demolished for safety reasons or something would have made the situations look a lot more clear.
And diesel tanks? That would have been very clearly if it were indeed those that exploded. It would have been a big explosion, blowing off walls or parts of the building. WTC7 was undoubtly controlled demolition. It would be too much coincidence that 3 buildings collapse in the same way when no buildings have ever done this in history before, except for controlled demolition.
Hey man, I like discussing with someone who actually arguments