What materials were used in World Trade Center, and what was the reason for the collapse during the 9/11 attacks?

Comments

• Other buildings have burned, and NEVER collapsed. Jet fuel can NEVER melt steel. And what about Building 7, which mysteriously pancaked in the same controlled demo fashion, yet was not even hit, nor was burning. Even the governments own whitewash could say nothing on that, but agree it to be a 'mystery'. Mystery indeed.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on January 26th, 2007

• I never said that the steel melted. There is no mystery about Building 7, it was severely damaged by the collapseof the WTT's and by the fire which raged inside and which firefighters were unable to get to. The structural damage made the building unstable and led directly to it's collapse.

  • Report
  

  by Ben Conover on January 30th, 2007

• Of course the fire could never get hot enough to weaken the steel-but for the sake of argument, suppose it did. Then it would weaken at the point of the fire. The building would topple over from that point: totally not what happened. The pancake theory is absurd because of the time it would take for it to fall, among other reasons. How could the top of the building hit the ground at nearly free-fall speed? Only if it met no resistance when it reached each floor-as that one was already falling.

  • Report
  

  by kenken on December 30th, 2008

• The plane's tore through the superstructure of the WTT's taking out nearly 3/4's of the interiors on the floors that they hit. You also have to understand that the reinforcing and load bearing parts of the WTT's were all on the outside of the building, the skin of the building, not the interior as in most office buildings. This was done to give the maximum amount of usable floor space. I don't know where you're getting this nonsense about the WTT's falling at free fall speed, but it's an out and out lie. The speed of the building falling did increase simply because of the added weight as the entire building smashed down on to each floor below.

  • Report
  

  by Ben Conover on January 6th, 2009

• According to the Pancake theory a floor is not falling until hit by the falling floors from above, right? If we assume each floor falls at freefall speed with no air resistance, and as it reaches the next floor that one falls the same way it would take over a minute and a half for the collapse- which is nothing like what we saw.Of corse you must argue that the speed increased-otherwise it's even more nonsensical. A rock dropped from the top of one of the buildings in a vacuum would take about 9.3 seconds to hit the ground-which indicates they fell at free fall speed.

  • Report
  

  by kenken on January 8th, 2009

• NIST disproved the pancake theory
  "the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
  http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

  • Report
  

  by JustinNY74 on May 15th, 2009

• pancake theory was the result of an MIT paper that speculated on the reason for collapse, it came out about a month after 911
  it was the hypothesis that those professors came up with without any evidence at hand (and they start the paper by saying so)
  based purely on the video evidence available to them

  • Report
  

  by JustinNY74 on May 15th, 2009