On 29 Mar 2006 20:45:47 -0800, "Anonymous Infidel - The Muslim
I don't have a provable clue.
But lets leave the emotion aside and look at some simple structural reasoning:
On 9-11 several undisputed incidents occured
1. The structure of the two towers were put under severe stress due to the impact of individual planes colliding with each.
2. Building 7 was put under structural stress due to the apparent inpact in one corner from falling tower debris.
3. Both towers were subjected to heat stress from the internal burning of jet fuel.
4. Building 7 was subjected to heat stress from internal fires (apparently burning diesel fuel from storage tanks).
The official report states that the buildings did not collapse from impact stress, but from the heat effects of fire (as can be seen by the length the buildings remained standing after impact).
The construction report states that the towers were designed and constructed to withstand the impact of a plane similar to the 767.
The construction report also states that the steel used in construction was of a grade that would not be weakened sufficiently from heat, such as from the burning of jet fuel, to cause any structural failure.
Put it all together and all three buildings should still be standing.
But there are two things that are true beyond all doubt, and no one can dispute these points.
All buildings were subjected to both impact and heat.
So in actuality the collapse can only be caused by one or the other, or a combination of both.
The physics and engineering calculations involved are complicated, but with access to all data (and that is very important to stop supposition) it is not unreasonable to expect that a proper and correct answer could be found to either confirm or deny the collapse from impact and heat.
But there is one other point that is very important - if the steel used to construct these buildings was not to the structural standard required and specified, or if the original design specifications were incorrect and they had specified inadequate steel, then all three buildings collapsed because they were structurally inferior, and all the above is pointless.
All supposition has been made buttuming the buildings were constructed to code.
So it boils down to three things:
1. Impact. 2. Fire. 3. Structural steel not being up to standard due to either the original design being incorrect, or the proper grade of steel not being supplied.
Who did it - I don't know.
My bet (for what it's worth) is the steel.
Either purposefully (follow the money), or by mistake (engineering calculation has progressed a lot in the last 30 years), the steel supplied was not made to the required strength.
It was not made to the grade to withstand the combination of impact and fire - hence it allows all points above to come together. Leave any one point out (impact, fire or inadequate steel), and the buildings remain standing, as they had done for 30 years.
We cannot leave out impact and fire - they are proven without doubt.
It only leaves inadequate steel.
It would explain how the impact of the planes or debris could weaken the structure sufficiently, how the heat from a relatively small amount of jet fuel or diesel could melt and even vaporise the structure and take it past its structural limit, how the building could be crushed so quickly when pancaking into itself (nearly at freefall speed) and how the steel structure was able to fracture into such small pieces.
Anything else simply does not fit the scenario - but without the building plans, original specification requests, metalurgy reports and debris, how do you find out the truth?
My second guess - follow the money!
Artie...
