Are you guys aware that a Third Tower fell, on 911?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What do you think about 911 and the contradictions surrounding the official story?

  • Get me out of here! Have had enough of "Conspiracy Theories".

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • I am a busy professional, and yet to look into the contradictions.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't buy into it! Something seriously seriously wrong with the Official Story. (a.k.a. Official C

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I wasn't aware of WTC 7. I would like to know more and then decide for myself!

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Total voters
    5
You get to see how the top would start to collapse first, putting extra weight on the floors below it.
Weight of a building before collapse is no different to one during collapse!

With arguments based on statements like these....I give up!
You are right. Fire bought down the building.
 
De-Bunked.

Argument based on known facts and physics lead to that theory. On the other hand, your theory is based solely on speculation, lack of any remotely reliable proof, and what you want to believe.

Know what the little poofs of air are coming out of the building that people think are explosion? That's the interior floors collapsing, causing the structure to begin breaking until the change of weight. Watch a video of a demolition; You can't mistake the sound; All the glass in a building would shatter at the same time from the sudden shock and force. And you know if they did demo it, they couldn't half ass it with less explosives and risk it not coming down. When WTC7 collapses, you don't even hear any explosive sounds from people who are filming it on the ground. Conversely, if you watch a demo, you can hear the explosion from miles away.

So, are you suggesting that fire and structural damage wasn't enough to take it down so they had to use small explosives to take it down? If that's the case, why would they only need to use small explosives (for lack of a loud explosion when it occurred) if the building wouldn't come down by fire/damage? I mean, your theory is great if you don't question it.

If there was a very loud explosion and the building came crashing down, yes, I would really consider it was a structured take down. Fact is, there was nothing louder than what you'd expect from a building crumbling onto itself. If you have a video of a very loud boom and then the building falling, post it up.

 

 
OMG, if you look at the structure, it support beams were in the center of the building. The other buildings that didn't collapse but were damaged and on fire had their structure framed around the building. With multiple floors collapsing onto a single floor, that one floor is holding far more weight than it was designed. The joint or connecting point had much more weight on it with the additional weight from the floors above. The gross weight remains the same; the weight on the single floor increases on the supporting joints, but they were weakened by the expansion from heat (sagging) and fire.
This in turn causes the internal collapse. The exterior of the building had it's own support structures. As the inside began falling, the outside remained mostly normal looking. As the inside fell, it started pulling the other half of the building with it, in turn that started pulling the exterior walls in on top of it, not out. If the building was designed with the support being on the exterior, it would have fallen like a tree being cut down.

The building's foundation wasn't the greatest idea. The sub station was designed to support a 25 story building which was considered large. WTC 6 was only 8 stories tall if I recall. Building to support 25 stories was good foresight. Instead, they built a 47 story building and the base was larger than the supports for the substation. Not a grand design, but it did work.

Two things though. If it was just the fire, the building would have stayed up. If it was just the damage from the falling debris, the building would have stayed up. But with both hitting, it was doomed.

If you read or listen to the recorded audio accounts from the fire chief, they pull back from the building because they noticed something wrong with the exterior wall around the 10th floor - it was bulging out. Later on in the video evidence, you can see the skyline of the building dipping down at one point. It should have been straight across. This is prior to the penthouses falling. Those are two instances where you can already see the internal collapse taking place. The penthouses fall and then around 8 seconds later the building starts to fall. If it was demo'd, why would the penthouses fall... and then 8 seconds later the rest of it fall? That idea just doesn't float.

Reality of it is was poor design coupled with bad scenarios.
 


Take two heavy objects and put one in each hand. That's the start. The net weight is the same that you are supporting.

Now put both objects into one hand. The net weight has stayed the same that you are supporting. Now the simple question is, has the weight changed that your hand is supporting? Yes.

You sir need to learn to think on your own and stop watching conspiracy videos.
 
You see what I did there after complaining vigorously to the mod team about trolls with their +1's.

See how awful it is?

I rest my case against myself and heareby institute a 12 hr ban ... night.

:)