Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Imagine that you crash a firey piece of metal into a tree and the very top collapses. Watch the video. The top floor collapses, then the second from the top and so on. There were cutter jets, or smoke/debreis clouds, shooting out of each floor. The fire damaged floors did not collapse first. All 47 coulumns could not have given at once (as was shown when the antenna on the North Tower collapsed first), that is simply impossible.
The explaination given would have easily excused the building falling if the floors were collapsing over a period of time. The fact is that they collapsed simultaneously. That rules out the fire damage or plane damage theory. Wiht those two theoryies ruled out, you must develope a new theory.
|
actually no it doesn't rule out anything. This collapse from the top down is justs the visible portion of subsidence (like i said earlier as in a sink hole). the tree is a bad analogy. it is physically solid. plus, it's easy to geta piece of metal massive enough to knock a tree over.
The WTC buildings are 1) not solid but constructed of interdependant structures with mostly air in between & 2) very massive. again read my previous post. at about 500,000 tons, how massive an object do you require to knock it over???? An aircraft is simply not up to the job. It is, however up to the job of exploding, causing structural damage and a chain reaction collapse, which would have to be 'straight down'.