Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
I was referring to a link I posted on an earlier thread on this post from December 21, 2016.

I didn't really intend to go into the structural failing of the Twin Towers when I posted the link the other day, but the close to 3000 Architects & Engineers who have studied this would probably not put too much stock into a Wikipedia article which may be likely run or highly influenced by the CIA.  The following link is listed a few threads back from December 21, 2016, but here it is again for convenience.

I would put this under an Ammo section if there were one on this forum.  Maybe right under the Pistol section.

I'm not a civil engineer, but I know enough about physics to understand most of a paper that was written on the subject. A TLDR from Wikipedia, with the paper linked:

While the buildings were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.
Too scary to contemplate! I understand that sufficient heat will crack the concrete and warp the steel, however, the twin towers were hit very high up and the subsequent fire would have travelled upwards too. So why would the bottom give way so completely?

Fire can cause buildings to collapse. Earlier this year a skyscraper in Iran collapsed from fire.
Building 7 was not one of the  Twin Towers.  It was a much smaller building within the World Trade Complex and it did not get hit by a plane.  It just caught on fire.  The media loves to pretend this building didn't exist because they never refer to it when the topic of the Twin Towers comes up .

So......A 747 weighs in at around 330 tonnes (that's mass) and flies at around 180 mph (stalling speed?) to 500 mph (that's velocity)  so a mass guru can work out the power of the sideways impact on the towers structure. Add into that the aviation fuel, random electric fires etc. then the question is why it didn't fall sideways. The central columns should have either stayed up or else the shell should have tumbled in a more random manner. You only have to watch professional demolitions to see how difficult it is to bring a tall reinforced structure down in that way!

Very odd indeed.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10