I still don't believe that an airplane hitting the top floors of a building would cause it to colapse.
Something else brought those building down.
The NIST report http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf says the following:
"Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ÂºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ÂºC."
Steel loses 50% of it's strength at 590Â°C, and about 90% at 950Â°C.
Comment from: Ibbeep Visitor
It was the planes that brought those towers down. Jet fuel when ignited realeses an enormous amount of heat. Also both planes had full fuel tanks. That being said Gypsum walls would offer no real protection from the fire becuase they would be consumed very quickly at that heat. (construction is part of my job)
To say fire from jet fuel or anything else caused the total near free fall and straight down collapse of these towers ignores the fact that high rise buildings have burned for days without partial collapse. It had never happened prior to 9-11.
Placing such emphasis on the planes also conveniently overlooks the fact that WTC 7 was not struck by any aircraft.
It is just wishful thinking on the part of experts who cannot handle the idea that there are people in the gov. that are ruthless enough to do this. It is not very scientific to start with the conclusion that the fires had to have done it and then shape your hypothesis around that assumption. Cowardice.
Ultimately the trouble is you have no evidence to support your claims. Mainly because your claims are twisted by political aims.
That is not an excuse to be dishonest and to throw mud randomly.
If you're really so sure, why not pay to have to identical towers built and then we can see if fully loaded aircraft can bring them down or not.
Comment from: Thomas Visitor
And the towers collapsing at free-fall speed? - They did no such thing. WT1 took 17-20 seconds to fall. No where near free-fall speed.
Finally, Steven Jones has been discredited by his own university for unscientific methods, and the RELEVANT department (his field is astronomy...) has stated publicly that they in no way support his claims.
He's just another well-educated nutcase.
I completely agree with the owner of this blog. There is absolutely no evidence of explosives involved to bring those buildings down. On the contrary. All the conspiracy nuts should do the following:
Find movies of buildings demolished by explosives. Watch them carefully. They ALL, I mean ALL have something in common. They ALL collapse from the base. From the bottom up. Now look at the WTC building. The collapsing starts at the point hit by the planes.
Just because most experts dont' understand why and how those two planes were able to destroy those towers doesn't mean it's impossible. Humans are wrong sometimes, actually a lot of times. Plane crashes, the Titanic was built not to sink in seconds, the Space Shuttle was built to avoid all accident, all helicopters are build with redondant systems to prevent crashing, but still....
Are we saying that 1970 building technology is perfect? Are we saying that in the 70s we were able to build structures that couldn't be taken down by two planes crashing into them?
I see a lot of arrogance from those experts who all take for granted that human knowledge is perfect. It's not. Everthing that humans do is not perfect, including high raised buildings.
Please, all nuts conspiracy out there, look carefully to those building collapsing. It does NOT look like controlled demolition at all. And as somebody mentioned it, it's not free falling at all.
Now, I'm totally convinced that the Neo-cons knew something was going to happen and let it happen to have an excuse to go to was with Iraq. No doubt about that.
Comment from: Adrian Visitor
Then why was molten steel found in the basement of each building six weeks after the attacks?
Short answer: It wasn't.
Molten metal was found, which was aluminium from the aircraft.