28-09-2013, 10:40 AM
Phil Dragoo Wrote:
- The Towers were designed to survive jet impacts of the type that happened on September 11th.
The towers' design was theoretical tested for a low speed 707 impact. Both designs DID in fact withstand the initial impact and remain standing. The subsequent weakening from imposed fuel load, loss of fire insulation, no fire fighting led to the failure of the core and the subsequent drop of the mass on to the floor composites and the runaway cascading collapse/destruciton of the floor composites, then the failure of the unbraced facade and core from Euler forces.
- The fires were not very severe in the South Tower and were diminishing. Even severe fires would not have initiated a collapse.
According to who? Fire alone would not cause a collapse but added to the mechanical damage from the planes and the loss of insulation from the impacts driving materials through the floor the fires CONTRIBUTED to the weakening... the straw that broke the camel's back.
- Skyscapers have never collapsed due to fires or any other cause other than controlled demolition.
No skyscapers had the same engineering design nor were hit by jumbo jets.
- The Towers underwent explosive disintegrations that didn't look anything like the way such buildings would fall.
The collapse involved 400,000 tons of chaotically falling and colliding debris. This is what caused the extensive communition of materials not durable enough to be destroyed and rendered to such small grain sized remains... much like stone dust us made from tumbling granite.
- The destruction of the Towers displayed several unique features of controlled demolition.
They displayed the features of a collapse.
- There are relatively simple proofs that the buildings did not fall of their own weight.
Nothing falls from it's own weight. All materials have mechanical properties if exceeded will fail. A person down not fall from his own weight but if his thigh bones are severed he cannot stand up. This is a completely nonsense statement proofing nothing.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/towers.html
I for one have been fascinated by Tony's engineering arguments.
This is because you don't know that Tony makes assumptions and his case is not a real world one. It has been refuted quite extensively by several others and it can be found online at the 911FreeForums and http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=261678
Jeffrey, we await your graphic of the rotation you describe which Tony stipulates did not occur.
You can find the graphic within the thread of the second link.
When we see the North Tower collapse in context with the virtually identical collapse of the South Tower
and the most curious collapse of the seven building
all with the efficiency of controlled demolition
none of which has ever been observed
we have to ask
why?
Asking "why?" is fine... Seek the answer in science and reason, in observation and data...There is a political answer which the radical Islamists gave whether you believe it or not... and that is that they wanted to strike at the symbol of US hegemony and dominance. There was no intent to destroy the WTC but to strike a blow. They succeeded. The destruction was an unforeseen (by the hijacker/conspirators) consequence of a series of cascading progressive failures analogous to the fall of dominoes by lightly pushing a single one which can topple 10,000 or any amount. The destruction was extremely complex and does not lend itself to a simple cause and effect physics explanation, but involves multiple factors which are beyond the grasp of most observers who tend to not understand engineering, materials science and physics or have cartoon like conceptions of how the world work.
Like the Greeks, who connected the dots called stars they saw in the sky they called the heavens... and saw depiction of their gods called the zodiac and attribute causality of human behavior to the stars... people connect the dots they see on 9/11/01 and create the story they want, based on the limits and quality of their thinking.
The answer lies not in the stars but in ourselves.