Herb Tarlek wrote:LionIndex wrote:I'd like to hear what evidence they have. Things I've heard revolve around the burning temperature of jet fuel not being sufficient enough to "melt" the bar joists in the floor structure of the buildings, but you wouldn't need to actually melt them--high levels of heat in a fire, even those fires not caused by jet fuel, are sufficient to turn structural steel into spaghetti, figuratively.
I'm an architect, so I've got a middling education in structural standards, and there was a PBS show recently after the attacks that mapped the whole cause of structural failure pretty well, and satisfied any curiosity I had about why the buildings went down.
There was another documentary on a cable channel about the Citicorp building, and an issue they had where one connection (repeated hundreds of times within the structure of the building) was changed during construction from a weld to a bolt. At some point afterwards, the structural engineer realized that making that change could result in the structural failure of the building in a 50mph wind, and they had to go back in and retrofit all the faulty connections. So, there's a situation where a measly 50mph wind could topple a skyscraper, but we're seriously supposed to doubt whether a 300mph jet plane full of fuel could cause a collapse? Come on. Is it easier to believe that the Bush administration conceived of and pulled off what would be the most daring and perfectly executed conspiracy the country's ever known, all in order to kill American citizens; or that they just fucked up?
Just take a look at the film, it's not that long (about 45 mins to an hour) and then judge. It's too much to summarize in detail here, but some of the things they point out include:
- The fireballs from the impact of the jets would have burned off most of the fuel, so there would not have been enough there to cause a large enough fire to result in such a collapse.
- The fire from the remaining fuel could not possibly have burned hot enough (even with extra fuel from office contents) to weaken the steel to the degree that it supposedly did - this is based on data from burning jet fuel in ideal conditions and the fire rating of the steel used in the towers
- And even if it WAS hot enough to weaken the steel near the top, there is no way it should have collapsed the entire building from the top down - considering that the steel at the top of any building has far less load on it than the steel at the bottom.
- And for the collapse to happen at freefall speed straight down? According to the experts - and common sense really - the only way that could happen is in a controlled demolition
- Trade Tower 7 (the 3rd building to fall at 5:30 that afternoon) fell the same as the twin towers (straight down at free fall speed) without having been hit by a plane and with fires on only 2 floors. Fires were caused by debris from the twin towers. They cited 2 recent high rise fires, 1 in Madrid and 1 in another place that I can't recall, where the fires burned much hotter than any of these fires and for much longer periods of time and neither building collapsed.
- The pulverization of all of the concrete and office contents of the buildings into a fine dust is apparently another sign that this had to be a controlled demolition. They show an interview with the Governor of New York State a week or so afterwards standing at Ground Zero where he is describing how when he first visited the site he expected to see some intact pieces of concrete but there was none to be seen, just pieces of steel and aluminum.
- They also state that a large majority of the structural steel from the buildings after the collapse was left in roughly 30 ft lengths, which conveniently allowed for quick loading onto trucks for disposal without the need for time-consuming and bothersome cutting.
- And although it is a federal crime to tamper with a crime scene prior to the completion of a full investigation, the site cleanup started almost immediately afterwards with full government support. This did not allow for any reconstructive analysis using the steel from the site to determine the actual cause - which is typically done in any major accident or catastrophe such as an airline crash. This analysis would have proven conclusively the actual cause of the collapse. They claim that this alone is clear evidence of a coverup.
I don't necessarily agree with everything in the film but it certainly raises alot of good questions. And Ed Begley Jr. is in it too - he introduces the MIT structural engineering professor who raises alot of these questions - and any film with (Spinal Tap drummer) John 'Stumpy' Pepys in it is definitely worth seeing.
Dude, you are fucking crazy just to waste you time on this. Wouldn't you get more entertainment out of Netflixing the first three seasons of The X-Files?