Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
I was talking about the core, which were largely uncompromised, at least not enough to explain full-body global collapse.
|
The core was compromised at the moment of impact. Everyone saw this live on National TV - The planes entered one side, and flames came out the other side. It went through the building, and through the core. At the moment of impact most of the elevators failed, sending some down to the bottom floor, and also sending a huge fireball down to the lobby that killed people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The floor supports couldn't have all failed at once without some external agent - 75% of the building and more depending on which were structurally intact when the top-part/pile-driver started its descent. It's simple physics that the smaller part coming down - even if it was lifted a hundred feet in the air and then dropped - couldn't have demolished the structurally sound lower portion.
|
At some point in time, one of the floors failed and crashed down onto a floor below. The floor below was unable to instantly redistribute all of weight. The joints holding the floor were damaged by the impact, the fire, and the fact that the other shell was most likely bowing outwards.
Your saying it's impossible, and I'm telling you that when 300 tons of concrete and steel smash into another floor, it's gonna give way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
That's the whole point. The NIST report tries to explain WTC7 by saying that large chunks of the towers were flung out to smash into it but they never explain why those parts were able to travel so far and so fast. They also never explain the speed (they finally admitted to free fall for over 2 seconds because a high school physics teacher challenged one of their initial reports) or perfect symmetry of the WTC7 "collapse".
|
Why does it surprise you so much that "large chunks" were throw from the wreckage? You understand that when the building fell, the debris field was easily 600 feet, hitting other buildings including WTC 7? The entrance to WTC7 was destroyed by the debris field. Even though the towers fell straight down for the most part, when it hit the bottom it had no place to go but out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
If there had been any tipping that would have made sense. There wasn't. Gravity can't allocate any reason for lateral dispersion of 20-tonne pieces. According to the videos these things flew upand out, and there weren't any structural supports following or tipping behind them to explain how the parts were lead there.
|
You seem to obsessed by typing, and it's generally assumed that the towers fell straight down. I've said this myself in the thread here. However, Saturday afternoon I was watching MSNBC and they were replaying the entire morning as it happened live. And I noticed as one of the towers fell, the top tipped.
Check out this video at the 1:30 mark. Clearly the very top portion of the building tipped to one side as it fell.
At the same time, we can't really see a hole lot of the tower as it fell. We seem to accept to that the towers fell straight down, but between the flames from the fire, the cloud of dust from the building as it fell, and the dust from the bottom that rises up, we can't really see much.
If you take a pile of stones and drop them in one single file line at the same time, they aren't going to neatly land on top of each other. When they hit the ground they'll bounce and spread out. It's the same exact concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Your 300 ton floor is falling on a construct of steel bracing made to withstand itself as well as support the upper third of the building (or quarter or what have you) let alone a single 300 ton floor.
|
Your wrong. None of the floors support any of the floors above it. All of the floors are support by the outer walls and the inner core (both of which were comprised. The floors were suspended by the two. Each floor was meant to hold that floor and that floor only, and when the floor above it crashed down it wasn't able to support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Don't you find holes in the official version?!? It rings like a conspiracy theory in and of itself... and in fact any conspiracy "theory" is just a theory which means there will be unverifiable "holes" - which is why I prefer questions and facts. Stuff like the cell phone debunking (which can be explained if the supposed hijackers had a cellular transmitter in their luggage for example) and no-plane theories at the Pentagon are as much hot air as the official theory. Questions remain.
|
No, not really. All of the holes you and others point out can be quickly explained away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
But similarly the 9/11 commission refused to take much testimony into account and seemed to only publish or conclude things that supported their theory rather than follow up on things like reports of pre-impact explosions, "hijacker" connections to the FBI, Saudi connections and the money trail, among so many other things...
|
The 9/11 Commission interviewed over one thousand people in ten countries.
They didn't follow up with anything because they submitted their report. They weren't set up to continue to debate this issue - if they did, they would still be debating today.