yet the architects who designed the world trade towers claim they were built with the possibility of aircraft collisions in mind due to it's height, they claim you could've flown 10 aircraft into them and they would not collapse they way they did. I will try to find the clip. I'm on.my phone so excuse me if it's the wrong clip http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
So why does the official report blame the collapse of the Towers on fire ? And sorry, but you can compare them, after fuel has burnt off the core temperature receeds so why would it burn long enough to perfectly weaken every support at exactly the same time causing the tower to collapse with perfect symmetry. The Madrid fife burnt for longer and at a more intense heat for longer but still stood. I take your point about the planes weakening the structure and that is valid but don't you think there would have been some un eveness with the collapse ? it not like it was possible that every supporting structure burnt at the same intensity at exactly the same time,thus failing and collapsing at the same time
Here is something for you to look at Fernanda "The Windsor Building was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, the fire started 11 storeys from the top of the building, and it burned at temperatures of 800ºC for more than 18 hours [AFP]. The core of the building did not fail. The fire in WTC 1 is reported to have burned at 800ºC and was located roughly 17 storeys from the top of the building meaning the inner core supported only 6 additional floors of weight above the fire zone in comparison to the Windsor Building. WTC 1 collapsed after only 85 minutes, reportedly through core failure" Also only just over 50% of the WT1 core ws directly exposed to the planes flying in, surely that would mean that the building would fall uneven ?? You must also remember that the twin towers were designed to withstand a boing 707 flying into it,that was factored into the design, which is a point even conspiracy people seem to forget about!
A building will fall which ever way the demolition man wants it to fall. Many buildings are triggered to fall in on themselves some are triggered to fall to one side,thus protecting other buildings in the same area. If a plane flew into the building damaging 50% of the core with fire damage weakening other supporting structures why would it fall equally ? it defies logic, its the same as when the demolition people set of the explosives at different times isn't it? part of the core was completely destroyed and part of it was damaged by fire but the two things arnt equal so why would the whole building fall at exactly the same time ?
Can you explain the bowing? [video=youtube;bMZ-nkYr46w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w[/video]
Ah but your wrong, watch the collapse properly, the top doesn't fall straight, the top falls to one side, the rest of the building however does fall straight, as how else will it fall, its not falling, its collapsing, so it will come straight down, not to the side like a demolition would.
You also miss the point that the building wasn't supposed to fall at all,even after a plane strike In terms of noise , ever heard of thermite ? its not an explosive but cuts through metal like a hot knife through butter
Of course they will, are they going to come out and say they design was flawed, that it was designed with this in mind, but failed, do you know what sort of damage that will do to a company? Then its not just the design itself, it is the quality of the build, the quality of the steel, the quality of the concrete, they are all factors. What about the buildings in Christchurch that were designed to survive an earthquake, that were built poorly and collapsed.
Analysis of the steel concluded that Thermite was present, funny how they cleared the steel asap, there's too much overwhelming evidence from videos and investigation that can basically guarantee it was not a terrorist act, even the hole in the pentagon was too small for a plane crash
The biggest flaw in the Twin Towers design was that the fire protection to the steelwork was very poor. Due to the aircraft impact the shock of this shattered the protection thus exposing the steel framework. The heat then buckled the steel frame, this gave way and the pure weight of the falling structure brought the rest of the tower down.
Wow love the Welsh people definitely cut from a different cloth and that's a good think. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cZbbzxH7BLw
Any credible links to prove that? As even conspiracy theorists go along with that the steel was sqiftly removed to stop any examinations being performed.
What about that flight 93? The one where the passengers took out the terrorists and crashed the plane, we allegedly they did !!
Really, it looks like its off by about one degree if that . and that's just the spire on the top! it looks pretty straight to me mate ,which it shouldn't be considering how uneven the apparent core damage was. whats the logic for WT7 ? have a look at how perfectly that falls,no plane strike no serious fires but somehow falls perfectly to the ground .
So what your saying is that the truth was covered up,therefore becoming a conspiracy ! nice one mate ..
I get your meaning but the same applies for the other side of the coin.... would the government admit that they were responsible? of course not.
And I must tell you the reason for the twin towers collapsing was due to fire according to the official report not the design,not the quality of the build or the quality of the steel, if you are explaining this as a factor then you are by default supporting the theory of conspiracy to hide the truth
"Overhelming evidence it wasn't a terrorist attack" No. Just evidence that either doesn't exist at all and is made up by the conspiracy theorists or evidence that has more than one explanation. If you read books on the subject you're wasting your time reading any that set out trying to prove one theory or another because it's completely the wrong approach. I've read a number of pieces by objective authors (not those trying to postulate one view or another), some of which were investigative journalists and all of them conclude the same - the U.S intelligence community failed miserably in preventing the attack, and because people have a hard time accepting that the CIA doesn't in fact know everything about everyone rumours of conspiracies sprung up everywhere. However, the U.S Administration (specifically Bush) took advantage of the aftermath by engaging in a fake war against the wrong opponent who in fact had nothing to do with the attacks in the first place. I've seen nothing that convinces me otherwise. The steel girders should have been protected by material that could withstand fire. That's why the designers said they were nonplussed when the towers came down. In fact that material head degraded over time but wasn't picked up on engineering checks. See? There's always an explanation. One final thought. In order to make the U.S go to war you'd only need a series of coordinated carbombs across the U.S. killing a hundred people or so, preferably with an Al Qaeda cell based in Iraq 'claiming responsibility'. You wouldn't have to bring down two iconic towers killing 3,000, or smash a plane into the heart of the American Defence Department, killing more. If there was a conspiracy that would have been much easier to plan and execute. Food for thought.
You mean the plane the airforce shot out of the sky but told everyone the passengers overpowered the terrorists and drove the plane into the ground ?? one thing at a time Dilli !!..
