Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bookman
Popular Mechanics will have a piece in the March issuse which takes a stab at conspiracy theorist. I have yet to read it but the burning building issue is supposedly touched and fortified as truth.
Now the building in Madrid burned to up to 20 hours...and it remains erect.
What says the board?
Had one of the WTC towers fell over onto the street and buildings I would have eaten the cake...but the manner which they fell makes it hard to understand.
What say you? Different building...different circumstances?
|
The WTC towers were essentially bulidings inside huge steel cages. The path of least resistance was straight down. Once one floor went, the impact hit the weakened floor below it, and the weight kept multiplying. Judging by the terribly inefficient security at our nation's airports and government buildings even after 9/11, it isn't entirely implausible to think that inadditino to plane crashes, car/truck bombs were in place and stockrooms near the impact sites had been filled with smuggled explosives. These could take advantage of weakened structural elements to sever the support to the top few floors and initiate a top-down collapse.
The same does not apply to building 7, which fell too perfectly to have been caused solely by damage casued by falling debris. This is less relevant to this discussion, however, as the building was unoccupied when it fell.