[QUOTE="Gator08"]
1. It collapsed the way it did because of how the towers were built. The oustide walls of the towers were, unlike most structures, not what supported the innards of the building. Instead it was the core column containing the elevator shafts and stairs. Which just goes to show why it would be so easy for a plane to go right through the facade. From the core column you had trusses that went out to support the floors. Where the planes hit, they were essentially destroyed.All of the debris then just piled on the floors remaining, stressing them a great deal; well beyond thier design limit (obviously they weren't designed to hold an entire plane, let alone roughly 5 floors worth of debris). After the steel had weakened enough, above the impact due to the fire, and began to collapse, you had floor after floor failing and falling down on top of one another. Its not hard to imagine that even after a few floors that enough kinetic energy is being exerted on lower floors that you're not going to have floors support all of that force.
2. Top to bottom demolition doesn't make much sense either since you had the whole mass above the impact zone collapse all at once, and nothing fell below that until the top part fell on to it. My last point also addresses how this can easily be explained without controlled demolition.
I never argue with the top falling, I think that if a plane hit it than the top could very well topple over but the whole building falling is a joke. and also, once the floors all fell, you would expect to see some outstanding steel columns but no. AND if the steel was only weakened then why was some of the wreckage literally molten steel?notconspiracy
the wreckage was molten steel because the falling building created lots of friction, which was enough energy to melt steel. second, adding sulphur can lower the melting point of steel. third, the molten steel was molten aluminum
Friction from the falling building could never cause steel to melt, perhaps friction welding but that it at much higher speeds.
again, it wasn't molten steel. it was molten aluminum. jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt aluminum
3. The building may or may not have been designed to withstand an earthquake, but either way an airplane impact is obviously much more devastating. And I'm not sure how a building, designed in the 60s even with airplane impacts in mind, could be made to withstand something like a jet liner crashing into it.
you know that there were airplanes in the 60s right? ones that could go over 500mph... I fail to see where you were going with that.Gator08
the towers were built to withstand accidental collision, not a terrorist attack, and not one from modern commericial airliners which carry much more fuel
built to withstand airplane collisions, combined with the fact that NO skyscraper has ever fallen from a fire makes me think that the fuel alone couldnt bring down a building. Gator08
the fuel alone did NOT bring down the building. the structure was severly weakened from the 50 ton plane hitting it at 500 MPH. the designers had no intention of building a structure that would withstand terrorists using commercial jets as missiles. tell me, how many times before 9/11 were planes used as missiles and flown into skyscrapers?
4. The only solid steel columns of any significant size were in the center of the building not on the outside. You are the one being lied to.
the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns and the core was 47 steel columns all of which were cased in concrete, to think that fire could weaken them all enough for every floor to collapse is laughable. You are being lied to.
Gator08 the thin layer of concrete and fireproofing was blown off in the crash
youve gotta love that compelling arguement... uh uh it was blown off in the crash! Alright, lets say you are right, 100% about EVERYTHING, the plane was made of extre strength alien aluminum with jetfuel that satan provided and it melted the building and the building magically collapsed straight down into its own shadow.
now....
appeal to ridicule. Im not aware of any concrete being around the central steel columns, unless you can provide me with a source. what I do know is that the fireproofing material was blown off by the crashing jet.
Tell me how this happened to the pentagon..
Gator08 That hole was made by the plane's landing gear, which is the strongest part of the plane
Most of the building was on fire, and that did nothing but contribute to the building's instability..
vs 
Log in to comment