“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[Ghost MacRoth]

I shit you not.  It was on a mate's facebook feed under the title 'You're never gonna believe the pish they are spouting now!'.  Apparently there were no planes at all, and they have been CG'd in on the fly, or it was prepared footage or some such mince. I can't recall what the clip was called, but type ''CGI planes 9/11'' into youtube, and trawl the sewage you find!  The one I saw kept pointing to flicker shadows on bad footage from cell phones to 'prove' that it was actually CG.  Think of a dumb theory as to what happened...type it into google, you will find multiple pages supporting the case.  Any case!!!!

[ZenArcade]

Luck of the draw. Proximity to debris from the two towers, fire damage to a weight bearing structure followed by failure of the component and gravity did the rest. Z

[Ghost MacRoth]

I believe Shark raised a valid point about Building 7.

Building 7....the one reputed to have all the evidence relating to the Bush administration sacking the federal bank to assist the oil companies after congress refused to do so?  Total co-incidence I say.

[ZenArcade]

The mind boggles. I tend to skirt the whole conspiracy theory thingy as the truth is bitter enough to handle. I think people gift the powers that be with more intelligence than they merit. The reality is much more seedy, pointless and mundane. Z

[TordelBack]

The WTC attack was an extreme and unprecedented event involving huge structures and vast amounts of energy. Extreme and unprecedented things happened.

Doesn't mean you shouldn't try to understand those things, or dispute the official version, but I'm not sure the best way to do that is to add additional complexity by positing further extreme and unprecedented elements for which there is no direct evidence.

On the other hand, the US establishment have subsequently been repeatedly shown to be a shower of lying inhumane f*cks, so I'm not sure I'd quibble on that score.

[ZenArcade]

Yes lying and inhumane, but shortsighted and random. Z

[M.I.K.]

The temperature at which steel melts and the temperature at which steel bends are quite far apart.

[NapalmKev]

The temperature at which steel melts and the temperature at which steel bends are quite far apart.

I'm no scientist but if the steel only got hot enough to Bend then surely the Buildings would have swayed towards whichever side got hit, meaning the collapsing section would lean towards the impact; thereby making a "footprint" collapse pretty much impossible.*

Cheers

*As I said, I'm not a Scientist.

[ZenArcade]

I think the temperature differential caused the columns to list intowards the centre of the building. Z

[GordonR]

And, in tonight's episode of Legendary Shark vs Science...

[Ghost MacRoth]

the US establishment have subsequently been repeatedly shown to be a shower of lying inhumane f*cks, so I'm not sure I'd quibble on that score.

Yep.  The 'theories' that have drawn my attention most aren't so much about how it was done, more why, and by who.  To deny the false flag element is as short sighted as it is to deny it could have occurred as described officially.  Long and short is, there's so much bollocks surrounding this now, they could broadcast the exact truth right now, and folk would still continue to argue about it without pausing for breath.

[ZenArcade]

Heh. He's just away for a quick swim and some frest monk seal....our contrary elasmobranch friend. Z

[The Legendary Shark]

1) Make a glass model of one of the towers, complete with all major structural components.
.
2) Put it in the freezer for an hour.
.
3) Boil a kettle.
.
4) Remove the model from the freezer.
.
5) Fill a water pistol with boiling water and squirt it at one side of the frozen glass model, near the top.
.
6) Watch the entire glass model turn to dust as it collapses in a symmetrical fashion.
.
The implausible (but interesting in other ways) "on-the-fly-cgi" idea was put forward, if I remember correctly, in the film "September Clues." Though this scenario is highly unlikely, there has since been a president to suggest that this kind of live tampering is at least possible: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/2534499/Beijing-Olympic-2008-opening-ceremony-giant-firework-footprints-faked.html
.
Aircraft crashing into tall buildings is not unprecedented - even in New York: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash
.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862
.
In neither of the above was anything like a 9/11 collapse seen.
.
Windsor Tower in Madrid burned for over 24 hours, was completely gutted and still did not collapse: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)
.
What science am I disputing, Mr R? If jet fuel has a maximum Open Air Burn temperature of 1030¤C ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel ) and structural steel doesn't begin to melt until it reaches 1130¤C - 1492¤C ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel ) and each tower contained 100,000 tons of steel, and that steel is a good conductor of heat (you'd have to really go some to get hefty beams like that to deform with just an open flame), and that most of the jet fuel was flash-burned away on impact, mainly outside the buildings, what science am I disputing? Rennieiatry?
.

[M.I.K.]

Temperature of average house fire = 1200 Fahrenheit.

Temperature at which structural steel is deemed unsafe for load bearing = 1000-1300 Fahrenheit (says so on that wikipedia page).

[The Legendary Shark]

Fair enough - but with a 100,000 ton interconnected heat sink? Steel mills use electric furnaces, arc welders, oxy-acetylene torches and gas burners to melt and shape steel. So they've been getting it wrong - they should have been using kerosine and flame-retardant office furniture instead.
.
A cool fire (evidenced by the smoke) over a widespread area would not have much effect on the whole structure. Take, for example the six floor fire which burned 'like a blowtorch' for longer than the 9/11 fires in February 1975. www.nytimes.com/1975/02/14/nyregion/14WTC.html
.