Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When one is shamed into joining the consensus despite their reason and intuition, everybody loses because the truth gets to escape quietly through the back door. The truth is rarely in full view, most of the time it must be chased down and discovered.
The activities of 9/11 elicit far too visceral a response to be ignored. Something is wrong. The story doesn't fit. The odds of that many precedents occurring in 2 hours is too much for the logical mind to grasp. A rational mind, when combined with a trust of one's intuition, must conclude that the official 9/11 story is a lie. And with that realization, the dread of how many other such lies are possible tears at one's imagination. For most, acquiescence to the official story is the only emotionally acceptable conclusion. For the rest, bravery is required.
The main WTC towers used a tube-frame construction with load bearing outer walls and few interior columns - big open floor plans are preferred by large tenants. The floors just pancaked down when one of the outer walls buckled. The Madrid building had a non-load bearing curtain outer wall and an interior load bearing core and columns. The Madrid building also wasn't soaked with 15-20,000 gallons of jet fuel.
Thank you because I think a lot of these conspiracy theroists have no clue as to the construction of the WTC (tube frame structure) unlike most the way most highrises are built which is a steel or concrete cage type construction. In the WTC the load was shared between the inner core & the strong outer steel skeleton.
I think you have to have a architectural or engineering background to understand why the WTC collapsed and I think Atta understood the weaknesses of those buildings very well.
Both are 100% convinced they are right no matter how much evidence they're provided with. I know someone who was literally on the freeway near the Pentagon when the jet flew into the front of it. He saw a jet hit the Pentagon with his own eyes from close enough to smell the jet fuel and read the numbers on the plane. I've seen people argue with him that the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a UFO, whatever the story is this week. People have been shown Obama's birth certificate and all sorts of other evidence of his place of birth but they still argue that he isn't a citizen. Some people can't handle reality and want desperately to believe something other than the truth.
The main WTC towers used a tube-frame construction with load bearing outer walls and few interior columns - big open floor plans are preferred by large tenants. The floors just pancaked down when one of the outer walls buckled. The Madrid building had a non-load bearing curtain outer wall and an interior load bearing core and columns. The Madrid building also wasn't soaked with 15-20,000 gallons of jet fuel.
The weight that the beams carried was exactly the same whether or not they "pancaked". If the beams buckled on one floor, then fine, the upper floor would come down. But in order to collapse the building the beams would have had to have buckled on EVERY SINGLE FLOOR, otherwise their structural integrity would NOT have been effected by what happened on the floors above since the weight load would have been identical, pancaked or not.
Also, the general consensus is that the jet fuel was burned on impact or shortly thereafter (remember the big plume of flame?). It did not soak anything - especially the steel girders.
The weight that the beams carried was exactly the same whether or not they "pancaked". If the beams buckled on one floor, then fine, the upper floor would come down. But in order to collapse the building the beams would have had to have buckled on EVERY SINGLE FLOOR, otherwise their structural integrity would NOT have been effected by what happened on the floors above since the weight load would have been identical, pancaked or not.
Also, the general consensus is that the jet fuel was burned on impact or shortly thereafter (remember the big plume of flame?). It did not soak anything - especially the steel girders.
20yrsinBranson
When did you get your engineering degree?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
