[zeropointbug]

Originally Posted by JThiessen

Response to the techincal statements only:
The steel did not have to melt to achieve that kind of failure. Jet A fuel burns on its own at @500-600F, but add the heat of whatever other combustibles were present - likely temps were in the low 1000 degrees in places, and potentially higher in others. Those fires burned for what 90 minutes and 120 minutes? That long term heating of the steel would have brought the strength down, likely by half its rated capacity. Combine that with the impact damage, and you have catastrophic failure.

Again, Theissen, first, those temperatures MAY be likely in an open air environment, but not in an enclosed area of around 100 feet to the core columns, there is only so much air to fuel the fire, you can't just add other combustibles in that situation and expect the temps to increase. Second, the buildings are over engineered by more than 2 times. Speculating on my part... I am trying to fathom how a jet liner slowed by the outer walls, then the mass in between the plane and the core columns didn't reduce the planes inertia enough for the plane to severe 30% of the core columns... which is outstanding speculation on their part. (9/11 commision report... well if you have ever read that book, it reads like a novel, I kid you not.

The buildings design is likely what kept them falling basically straight down.
What do you mean by that? They DID fall straight down...

They had a grid structure that completely surrounded the exterior of the building (remember the ghostly looking grid structure pics). Those were what resisted the lateral loading of the tower. The vertical loads were supported by an inner structure. And that is what was unique about these towers - neither of the load paths shared duty with each other. So when that one or two floors inner structure finally reached the point that it couldnt hold the weight of the 50 floors above it, it basically pancaked its way down, with the external grid acting almost as a guide. Technically feasible. To have it happend twice is also feasible as the cause of the events was almost identical.

Now just think about what you are saying... the core columns would have to be taken out INSTANTLY floor by floor perfectly timed for the building to come down in a pan cake manner, ANY deviation from that would cause it to topple over. It is impossible for a building with a structure of it's magnitude to fall as virtually free fall speed without some external force removing the massive resistance of the core columns, not even taking into consideration each floors strength (more resistance), then all the internal material (non-load bearing walls, cubicals, furniture, it all adds up). To support the demolition conspiracy, there were rivers of molten steel pouring out where the planes hit the towers. This is most likely what melted the infamous fire truck below the Twin Towers... the truck had the whole front of the truck melted down to a few feet, much like you would see with a Thermite (or Thermate) ignition.

Since there have been links to other sites, here is one on the structural analysis. Very clear and concise IMHO.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

First paragraph there is already a lie, the steel was sent off to China before ANY investigation could even be done, so by reduction, the whole report cannot be trusted. Just reading the rest, it is PACKED full of speculation, they don't even use any math to back up their claim that the resistance from the floors below were minimal compared to the mass coming down on them, and that is what caused a free fall speed. Uh, wait a minute, so Newtonian laws state that when resistance is equal to or less than a force on a object, then suddenly that resistance is magically removed from the equation? Or that it simply disappears at a predetermined point? What happened to equal but opposite reaction? I guess terrorists have a Jehad on the USA, enough that the Laws of Physics simply didn't apply to any of the events on the day of 9/11.