Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
- Thread starter kazakhan
- Start date
I have a better idea, how about....... The Austro-Hungarian Empire doesn't exist anymore, and neither does Prussia.
So I'll stop with this four year old issue once you remove your hundred year old name, sound good?
So I'll stop with this four year old issue once you remove your hundred year old name, sound good?
Light said:
There is no reference of that, did I say that? No. I'm saying out of all the ways to describe the plane's crash in Penn...why did he say "shot down"? If it wasn't shot down, then this statement...
"...or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania..."
...would be a false one - correct? Maybe he just accidentally used the wrong words to describe the plane's crash? I don't know since I'm not an all knowing being who would know that, and I'm not in Rumsfeld's head. My reading comprehension skills are excellent btw.
At first I couldn’t believe there are 26 nutballs (44%) who voted ‘no’ in the poll! 
But then I realized that it’s likely to be a skewed sample. A poll/thread such as this will preferentially lure the conspiracy theory wackos who lurk around this part of Sciforums.
But then I realized that it’s likely to be a skewed sample. A poll/thread such as this will preferentially lure the conspiracy theory wackos who lurk around this part of Sciforums.it can be considered a trick questionHercules Rockefeller said:At first I couldn’t believe there are 26 nutballs (44%) who voted ‘no’ in the poll!
fire was not the sole reason for the collapse
fire and the crash damage was the reason
Once again the building over-designed to withstand such damage and would not have completely collapsed. Can you not see theres a difference between the building entirely collapsing in on itself and fire causing the top to topple over due to damages?
But it did after being hit by a jet, there's no mystery about it.
As above, yeah it's enough to remove everything above the fire, but why the entire building?
The total energy would not have been enough to;
1) Fill up the entire volume of the "cavity" left by the plane, with enough energy "concentration" to sufficiently heat the supports.
2) Once all the fuel (inflammable material inside the building) has been burned, the fire moves on, so it's not possible to keep a constant flame in one area of the building because all you'd end up with is an empty floor with nothing to burn.
**3) Steel conducts heat, that's the problem with real situations and test situations. Because steel conducts heat very well, it would have travelled up and down the support columns, and the "critical" breaking point would have been much harder to achieve. In a test situation, they just have one bar of steel (1m in length is what I witnessed, this was a test conducted at the university which I had attended) and once heated this energy had nowhere to be conducted except the non-conducting plates applying the pressure.
spidergoat said:
Thank you spider, what will I do without you being around to tell me what happened when the towers were on fire.
The fire was too big to die out rapidly and the steel too thin to conduct any significant heat away from a localized area. The steel was also insulated by foam, where the foam was not removed by impact.
because each floor was approx, one acre in area an was also covered with 4 inches of concreteHurricane Angel said:
once the interior columbs were suffeciently weakened the building collapsed
wtc 1 and 2 isn't really a mystery
the problem is trying to explain wtc 7
and to a lesser extent the pentagon
i think we have a thread for each of those
No, you completely missed it. (Again, obviously.)mercaptan said:
He is presenting a rather long list of atrocities done by foreigners. What is illogical of the way you and others read it is you would have him switch - in mid-sentence, no less - from talking about external forces TO U.S. military forces, and then immediately switch back again. One does not have to be all-knowing or inside his head to recognize that people simply don't talk that way. Thus my question about reading comprehension.
It was really a miracle that they didn't fall immediately, and a testament to the quality of the design.
spidergoat said:
I'm going to make an assumption here that you're not older than 16 years of age. That being said, why do you think you can speak out on behalf of physics? Steel's "thinness" does not take away from its ability to conduct heat, and the whole fireproofing insulation foam was apparently removed by the impact and thats why the fire was allowed to heat the steel so much.. you mean to contradict what everyone said so far?
Heat Conduction
H = kA (T2 - T1)/L
(joules/second)
T2-----------------------------T1
k = thermal conductivity [J/s-m-C]
Notice the "A" indicating cross-sectional area. This is where "thinness" matters.
(I'm 35, and I've been around scientists all my life, since my father has a Phd in Materials Science, and I worked in his lab for 2 years)
H = kA (T2 - T1)/L
(joules/second)
T2-----------------------------T1
k = thermal conductivity [J/s-m-C]
Notice the "A" indicating cross-sectional area. This is where "thinness" matters.
Do you mean the impact removed fireproofing insulation from the entire building? That is impossible. It only removed it where there was sufficient force to do so, namely in the impact area, leaving the surrouding insulation intact.
(I'm 35, and I've been around scientists all my life, since my father has a Phd in Materials Science, and I worked in his lab for 2 years)
Last edited: