The Truth Behind 9/11

[Crozza]

.

[haX0red_Account]

so Rog, WTC7 then?

[Rog]

so Rog, WTC7 then?

 

I really don’t know but I do recall that shortly after the event I was watching a ‘talking heads’ program on TV when it was said by someone that W7 was constructed in an unusual manner owning to its being built over a major underground electrical substation. The construction comprised in part of a series of beams in cantilever form with unusually massive floor slabs in order to distribute the load as well as make up building load bearing components. This is quite unusual in steel framed buildings apparently.

 

Add to that the reported number of fires burning within the building which had been abandoned by fire-fighters at the time not least because of the number of diesel fuel tanks within the building which also contained emergency electrical power generation plant to serve the whole complex.

 

The existence of these fires combined with the probability of damage to concrete structures due to shock from the massive energy release resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers all leads to a scenario that doesn’t need any conspiracy theories to explain.

 

Substantial deposits of what was molten steel had been found beneath the Twin Towers indicating the ferocity of the fires within the structures, itself explainable by the events and the construction of the buildings, and the presence of a deposit of what had been molten steel beneath W7 would also indicate an intense fire within the building, a fire that may not have been particularly obvious from outside owing to both the nature of the cladding of W7 but patently obviously sufficient to ‘bring the house down’.

 

To my mind there ARE matters worth investigation about the events following the aircraft impacts on the Twin Towers. These include the construction methods used in the buildings, the basic architecture employed, the materials used, and was information about the limitations of the design communicated to terrorist groups as UBL is quoted as saying that they had intended to cause the collapse of the structures.

 

There is also another series of questions about the building codes and the low cost – high rent philosophy of modern office blocks that could be looked at and the implications to super large buildings of the presence of modern aircraft when their intial design assumed smaller aircraft or at least accidental impact.

 

That UBL admitted being the backer of the attacks also seems to get overlooked by the conspiracy nut cases.

[TheTool]

Nice theory Rog

 

Link

 

Next time you light your fire be careful the chimney don't collapse

[TheTool]

Also

 

Link

 

I would belive you but the thing is the building was not an inferno and it was the furthest away from the twin towers.

[Rog]

The core design of the Twin Towers was unique, certainly for such a tall structure.

 

Add to that the – unusual – choice of materials such as what amounts to little more than a super plaster board when in other tall buildings much more substantial materials are used for internal cladding and walls, the absence of a real steel frame and the use of a central core instead, and the picture that emerges is one where comparison with other tall buildings that have suffered fire and damage becomes invalid.

 

I believe there is a question to be raised – one about building cheap and renting high, and that is something that should be getting looked at in many places today where such construction has taken place.

 

As for W7, the design using cantilevers would not require an inferno to bring down an inherently high stress structure plus the cladding, unlike the Twin Towers was different and a fire within the core of the building would not be significantly visible from outside.

 

In realty we none of us know with absolute certainty and in fine detail what took place, how, when and precisely why but the weight of evidence is absolutely overwhelmingly in favour of the most obvious, the attack by islamic terrorists, and only some questions of fine detail remain unanswered about the failure modes within the buildings, and even then only because of limited knowledge about just what does happen when an event that results in the collapse of a massive structure takes place.

 

The root cause is, in my opinion, absolutely without doubt.

[TheTool]

I am not a structual engineer but from what i have read on the subject the official story to me does not add up.

 

I really feel sorry for the people who were caught in the dust cloud

 

Link

 

If skyscrapers can stay standing after hours of being on fire how is that possible?

 

The one in madrid had to be dismantled by hand after being on fire for over 11 hours.

[ans]

I am not a structual engineer but from what i have read on the subject the official story to me does not add up.

 

I think the first part of that line kinda negates the rest of it.

[TheTool]

Link

 

That also sums up your post

[Rog]

If skyscrapers can stay standing after hours of being on fire how is that possible?

 

The one in madrid had to be dismantled by hand after being on fire for over 11 hours.

 

Because each of the Twin Towers were constructed as a central tube with floors attached. The physical integrity of the tube failed, the whole lot came down.

 

This differed considerably from the conventional construction practice as was used in the case of the Madrid building whereby a steel skeleton is built and the floors and cladding added.

 

In short the twin towers were cheap and novel building that didn’t stand the destruction of the single key structural member on which they were based.

[ans]

That also sums up your post

 

Shame, because the message behind my post is perfectly valid. You're unqualified in any aspect of the field yet you have decided that the opinion of professionals with years of experience is wrong because you don't think it 'looks right'.

 

Stupid is as stupid does.

[TheTool]

Ans in a nutshell

[ans]

You suck at the Internet.

[TheTool]

Touché cannot argue with you there buddy

[Crozza]

.