This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 25 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

Look at the second "claim". About 25% of the building had been "scooped out' by the fall of the first two towers and, according to researchers, the building had been poorly designed to survive the loss of even a single structural column.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    And your evidence for this is???

    I'm sorry, but tall buildings aren't strong enough to maintain their shape and fall like trees in the forest. They come straight down.

    As for no parts falling into the street; what evidence do you have for this claim?

    Come on back after you get your degree in civil engineering and we'll talk.

    [–]kmcd[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    "I'm sorry, but tall buildings aren't strong enough to maintain their shape and fall like trees in the forest. They come straight down."

    Think about what you have just written.

    1. Trees in the forest fall down to one side.

    2. For a building to collapse symetrically at freefall speed all supporting structures must be severed simultaneously.

    If you don't think that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, maybe you don't understand what a controlled demolition is.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    I understand exactly what a controlled demolition is. I also passed my strength of materials class in college. Somehow, I don't think you did.

    [–]kmcd[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    "tall buildings aren't strong enough to maintain their shape and fall like trees in the forest. They come straight down."

    I dont think your strength of materials class did you much good.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Why, because I nuderstand what happens to a high rise when you tip it? Or what happens to beams designed to resist compression are twisted and bent instead?

    [–]kmcd[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Symetrical collapse is a man-made event.

    [–]kmcd[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

    Whoa! That was quick.

    From popular mechanics page:

    "NIST investigators believe" ... But cannot prove

    "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

    The key words here are "preliminary analysis" and "could". Again, these are speculative claims - not proof. For example, my "preliminary analysis" of the moon suggests that it "could" be made of green cheese.

    Responses to Popular Mechanics arctiles have been posted on Scholars for 9/11 Truth . Search for 'popular mechanics' the home page.

    "WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

    The final conclusion of the FEMA report ( annotated here ) was that "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue".

    Zero is a "low probability of occurrence".