Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Neither the directional force, nor the immediate explosions brought down either building. But they did start a process whereby the infrastructure was progressively weakened by the file, eventually leading to the collapse of the affected floors. And with the weight of the floors above now dropping downward, the lower floors began to collapse in sequence all the way to the bottom.
If there had only been the physical damage on the side of entry and no explosion to spread the destruction across the affected floors, or if the impact had immediately caused the building to collapse, then your presumption about the odds it would fall straight down might be correct.
But the infrastructure held. There was serious damage, but it could have continued to stand. Possibly.
Except for the extreme fire that then began to work on the integrity of the steel structure. No more lateral motion. An explosion that would have taken in roughly the entire floor(s) affected, not just a corner of the building.
Now it might not be controlled like an intentional demolition. But the factors are beginning to become more equal across the floors. Two planes, fully fueled, early in their flights striking into buildings. The explosions and fires would have been sufficient to spread the destruction thoroughly across the affected floors, therefore be somewhat uniform.
So are you suggesting that the U.S. govt either was in on the attacks, or knew enough to have charges set at the right places to help the buildings come down neatly when the attack finally happened?
|
Yes, there is no way to know for sure and why is that? Why was the steel whisked away under the guard of the US military without allowing forensic analysis? Why was no study done at the FBI burn facility specifically designed to handle fires of this size and analyze them?
You have given me a hypothetical possibility in which 59 different structural columns all failed and collapsed equally at precisely the same time so that the force on the next floor also collapsed at precisely the same time, etc., etc, etc.
One thing I don't understand is that we have a video of the collapse. It feel at a free fall rate. Now I might be able to understand that this is the first time in history that a steel frame structure collapsed due to fire, odds are it will probably happen eventually.
But, why is it that the 58 floors below the fire offered absolutely no resistance to the fall? Why didn't it slow it down a little?
I taught forensics, I chose the World Trade Center to study when we came to fire and engineering forensics. I figured it would be an excellent example of the very best forensic analysis of the day. Instead I learned it was the worst forensic investigation I had ever seen, not even allowing investigators to do the most basic tests, not giving them access to the most fundamental evidence, and these investigators were the first to sound the alarm that they had not been allowed to do their job. The only thing I can compare the 9/11 investigation to is the JFK investigation. Both were horrible examples of critical evidence being damaged, destroyed or disappeared.
I have several friends who are very highly placed in the federal government. I asked one about this, he referred me to the MIT explanation. This report begins with an introduction saying that the first step is to evaluate the fire at the FBI's lab, a facility that has capabilities far beyond MIT's ability, especially since they have not had access to any physical evidence. That said, they were asked to give the physics that would explain what happened. They then said that although this is highly implausible, the physics that would explain what happened if the official explanation to be believed is...." That is the "independent report" that supposedly supports the official one. They simply trust that the math will scare off most inquiries.