Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The pancaking seems ridiculous - it would have taken 10 times longer for one of the towers to fall and there would have been toppling or non-symmetrical events, but there weren't. Two differently damaged buildings fell exactly the same way - makes no sense, just on the basis of probability, disregarding the fact that fire doesn't bring down steel buildings.
Then there's building seven, which could win awards if there were such a thing for perfect, seamless demolition job.
:D
|
Your calling it "Two differently damaged buildings". Seems to me like two buildings both got hit by airplanes, it's infrastructure pretty much destroyed, and they fell the way all buildings fall. They don't tip over, but instead crashed down on itself because there was nothing to support the upper floors.
As for your comment about "fire bringing down the buildings", there's two points here. First off, this wasn't your typical fire. Your typical house fire or office building fire doesn't involve tons of jet fuel. So this was a bit more than a "fire". At the same time, no one claimed that fire brought down anything. The towers were nearly sliced in half - and the fire help to bring down the rest.
And building 7... I'm so tired of this. Everyone acts like "nothing happened to building 7" but that's as far from the truth as you can get. It suffered two earthquakes from when the other towers fell, then all of the debris pretty much landed at the base of WTC7. This "debris" - which isn't a good term to call billions of tons of concrete - took out nearly a quarter of the base of WTC7.