By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 12 September 2011
Edit Thread
SOLIDSNAKE08 said:
HappySqurriel said:
wfz said:
HappySqurriel said:
wfz said:
It's not about accepting other strange theories as much as it's about acknowledging that what we were told is impossible to be true.

The way the Twin Towers fell was impossible given the situation. They fell at the speed of gravitational force with no resistance, and straight down into themselves. They had very minor fires and the heat produced by any fire even at its max temperature would be 700 degrees less than what steel melts at.

There are steel buildings that have burned intensely throughout every floor for 18 hours and still didn't fall down, yet building 7 fell down with very minor fires after only a short time? And the Twin Towers... after only an hour? They withstand stronger forces from winter storms than they took from the airplanes.

If you're going to comment in this thread, watch the video first and respond to the points made in it. I want to hear real answers to the questions brought up, not accusations thrown around.

I think you need to retake physics ...


Care to elaborate and say something useful, rather than redirecting the topic? Explain to me how the building fell with absolutely no resistance, onto itself, when other similar buildings never fell even after burning with much more intense fires for many more hours.

Explain to me how the fire got hot enough to melt the steel, when many tests have been done by the fire department proving that fires can't melt steel so easily? And why did the whole building so easily collapse instead of just the top floors falling over?

I'm not trying to throw conspiracy theories around, I'm trying to look at this objectively and figure out what really is and isn't possible. And what we've been told... doesn't seem possible to me. So in all of your glory and wisdom, do you mind saying something actually useful to the discussion?


D21Lewis, I'll reply to you later. Thanks for giving actual consideration to this thread. =)

The answer is simple and straightforward ...

When the planes crashed into the buildings they probably eliminated somewhere between 25% and 50% of the structural strength across 2 or 3 floors of the building; and the fire from the jet fuel probably got multiple structural elements over 700 degrees, and the structural strength of the steel structure in the building was reduced by another 25% to 50%. At this point the structure across these floors was no longer strong enough to support the building and these floors buckled. As these floors crumbled, the building above them was able to increase in speed and build momentum and when it (finally) hit floors with their structure (mostly) intact the force of the building falling was an order of magnitude greater than what the building was ever designed to support; and expecting the building to slow/stop this collapse is kind of like expecting a person to stop a moving bus by holding their arms out.

that sounds ridiculous. i dont know wheter to cry or laugh, thats how bad your theory is.


Which part is ridiculous?

  1. Buildings lose structural strength when a plane crashes though them, breaking walls and destroying the steel structure that makes up the building
  2. Heat weakens the structural strenght of steel; being that it is a well known fact that steel loses half its strength at 800 degrees, far below its melting point.
  3. When the building starts to collapse when multiple floors don't have the strength to support the building above them, the upper part of the building will gain speed until it begins to hit the building that hasn't been weakend by the crash or fire.
  4. When the upper part of the building has accelerated until it has similar momentium to free falling 1 to 2 stories it will have a high enough momentium that the force required to stop it is an order of magnitude greater than the force the floor it hits was ever designed to support