Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
You keep saying it was symmetrical, and it wasn't. It looks symmetrical thanks to the distance the various cameras were away from the WTC. If you were far away, it would like they they fell straight down. If you were right beside it, it would be falling in a chaotic mess all around you in all different directions. A "Symmetrical collapse" is a perceived notion only.
|
Actually that's not correct according to too much video and eyewitness testimony. If you don't see symmetry and global obliteration there, you're not watching enough videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
If it were ONLY the jet fuel that was burning, maybe you're right, but other materials including gasses were burning as well. Jet fuel can burn at temps up to 980 degrees celcius. The temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius.
|
You are partially correct about the temperature rate of the conversion. However, you have to understand these temperatures have to be sustained for hours - usually 3 hours minimum - before those states are achieved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Don't forget too that there was lots of damage to the building too. Damage + heat + time weakend a couple of beams (maybe only one, who knows) which caused it to bend, which caused more weight on those beams, which then bent even more, until the collapse.
|
Regardless of the magnitude of the damage, the chances of it being universally equal and global at the rate signified by the actual mechanics of the crash in two separate instances are absolutely beyond the possibility of chance or randomness.
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Dude : You know I'm no engineer or scientist, but I have more than a passing interest in science, technology, physics and even astrophysics. Everything I have seen of ever video of the event clearly points to nothing more than fire and damage caused by planes which caused the collapse.
|
Well then even on an empirical basis, compared to skyscraper fires of other buildings as well as those in the past of the WTC - which caused them to guard against fire propagation since - should tell you that the "event" bears no resemblance to to the expected consequences and results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
I have seen the side-by-side video of WTC and a controlled demolition of some building. They look similar for sure and the comparison is quite interesting, but its only interesting for a few minutes. All it takes as a little zooming in onto the details of the WTC collapse to see that it was very different from a controlled demolition.
|
You should understand that even actually planned control demolitions don't fall as well in many instances as WTC 7 did. Do some research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
So it was hot enough to melt steel only if your theory was correct, but not when we apply the government theory.
|
Correct. From what I saw, and learned through research, the buildings could only have fallen the way they did via induced weaknesses at strategic points throughout its structure....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
You sat there and you argued that it wasn't hot enough. NOW your telling us it was more than hot enough. You don't believe the government theory, but when it's your theory it was plenty hot enough.
|
Obviously, I was referring to the fact that the government theory can't account for the destruction with its heat/temperature conjectures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Simple. Any third grader can explain it with their blocks. Build a tower of blocks, quickly remove an entire "floor" of blocks, and the the next row (floor) of blocks falls straight down. In other words, the blocks would fall down on each other.
|
So counter to physics, a block would be somehow powerful and full of enough kinetic energy to completely obliterate the seven or eight blocks beneath it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
I saw fireballs and an hour long fire. We all did. The fireballs were so big that they traveled down ninety floors and exploded in the lobby.
|
The fireballs were conjectured. We saw much more complete fires in other buldings which didn't touch the steel structures - which is what they're made for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The core on one floor failed, passing the weight of the floor above it to the outer columns - of which thirty percent was destroyed.
|
None of the cores of any floor failed. Do some reading. Where do you get any cores failed?!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
An hour long fire weakened outer columns until they were unable to support the weight above it.
|
Non of the outer columns were weakened. Read up on it. Some, according to the NIST theory, were "pulled in" by some of the lateral support being weakened by the crash. That's it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Note that columns on multiple floors were missing and others damaged.
|
Some columns on one of four sides were compromised, yes. Total global symmetrical collapse could not ensue from this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
There was no way the tower could continue to support itself.
|
The towers were made to suffer catastrophic damage and support compromise from multiple sides and even commercial airliner impacts. How do you validate your statement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
This like third grade blocks here. Build a tower, remove one of the supports, and the tower falls down. A number of the outer columns were destroyed, others damaged, the core was destroyed, and when the weight was passed over to the outer columns... Eventually they gave way.
|
The building was not the equivalent of third grade wooden blocks.
If the design was so weak that removing "one of the supports and the tower falls down" was possible, it wouldn't have been built.
The core was not destroyed. The core was likely not even damaged. Read it up.
The outer columns cross-supported each other and were bolstered by undamaged core columns. Eventually, the fire should have gone out and left a steel armature, not crushed every last bit of material to granular substance.
:D