Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Slight fires? You mean massive fireballs that instantly travel down 100 flights of stairs to explode in the main lobby, right?
|
Relatively slight fires, with supposed fireballs that travelled down all that distance to apparently burn themselves out within seconds of the impacts.
Slight fires because they were localized, didn't affect the building beyond their immediate range, and didn't burn anywhere near hot and long enough to affect the structural integrity of the majority of the building below the impact zones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer
Funny how the fact that large commercial airliners flew right through the buildings has nothing to do with their collapse. Apparently someone alleged it was just a fire in a waste basket somewhere that caused it.
|
NIST uses words that are misleading. Relative to the impact, for example, while they mention the 767 is 20% "bigger" (not very scientific word) than the 707s simulations were originally conducted with, they fail to mention there's much more aluminum to the modern planes, and that the majority of their materials couldn't have affected the internal structure of the building/s, with the exception of the engines which as far as is known were made of titanium.
They also make statements along the line of "the massiveness of the plane" vs. "the lightness of the WTC steel" - which is laughable on its face.
NIST claims the floors that were burning sagged and their weight pulled at the exterior columns and that "initiated" the collapses. This is where they stop. They don't say what happened during the destruction or why, and completely ignore the massive, multiple central columns that would have ensured only partial collapse of the floors concerned and support and preservation of the sections above and below the burning floors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer
OR... here's a possibility. A large commercial jet flew right through the building in front of the entire world, exploding in a massive fireball as the fuel ignited and at the same time wiping out a great deal of the support structure leaving 1000s of tons of concrete and steel above it, balancing precariously on what was left to support it until it finally collapsed as the fires burned and continued to weaken what was left of the supporting steel.
Funny how you lunatics have to retreat to WTC7 as if its relevant to what happened with the towers in front of the entire world.
|
Actually NIST discounts "a great deal of the support structure" being decimated. The tons of concrete and steel above weren't "balancing precariously", because, if they were, the structurally sound majority of the tower/s would have caused resistance to the falling mass, eventually causing it to tip off one way or the other, following the path of least resistance.
As it is they came down straight through themselves, pulverizing everything, as if they had been burning from top to bottom at over 2200 degrees for at least four hours.
Not very believable.
WTC 7 is or will become the smoking gun in an eventual investigation in that it was uncompromised relative to damage and fire and came down "perfectly", suddenly without a hitch. NIST claims "thermal expansion" caused a cross-support section at one end to nudge a vertical support column off it's seat, that caused an internal collapse that ran from one end to the other before the whole exterior building followed - but not from left-to-right, apparently, it decided to stay up without having it's "perimeter" support pulled in asymmetrically until it just gave up and went down like a hollow shell...
Not very believable.