| Community Leader Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ann Arbor, MI, USA Gender:  Posts: 834 Level up: 52%, 73 Points needed | | Quote:
Originally Posted by alias No I do not agree with that logic. I hear lots of theories. They're every where on the net. Personally, I think anyone who believes this crap is whacky. Hey, that's just my personal belief. I am not one of those paranoid conspiracy theory believers. I accept Popular Mechanics explanation and an happy with it. I guess I'll just have to live my life believing that those who are in charge are decent good people who love America and do what is best for America. Hey, I'm kinda weird that way. | I am too, usually, but to debunk stuff, you have to disprove it. Saying people are wackos doesn't help.
You don't think the collapses should have been slower than the apparent free-falls that they were? The Popular Mechanics explanation, at least on this page, does not address the timing issue. The force of the collision of each floor upon the one below it and resulting switch from downward momentum to pulverization of materials should logically have taken time and energy away from the downward momentum.
Also, if it was a weakening of the steel, it should have been in the location of the fire(s), not elsewhere, and the collapse should not have been straight down.
Watch the videos and you will see what I mean.
I have found a response to the Popular Mechanics explanation. Near the middle of the page is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. It goes straight down.
Oh, wait, here's an explanation I hadn't found before. The owner "pulled" the building. Isn't the NIST doing a report on this building? Seems like they should just ask the owner... Here's a video of WTC1 (South Tower) collapsing. Note the yellow goop falling from the side - what is it - fires burn up? (You may want to mute your sound before it falls.) |