Skip to main content

Reply to "9/11 - The Anniversary, The Legacy"

quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:
Isn't it just alittle dishonest to keep pushing the point that the plane brought down the building when all the experts agreed that it wasn't the plane but the resulting fire and structual damage that did the buildings in. Its clear from the video that the planes impact didn't bring the building down.


Isn't it a little dishonest for the experts to not tell us how many tons of steel were on the floors where the planes hit? The south tower collapsed 56 minutes after the impact. How can you have any idea if that is feasible if you don't know the quantity of steel?

There were 100,000 tons of steel in each tower. But the towers were 117 stories tall counting the subbasements. That comes to 850 tons of steel per floor. But the amount of steel had to taper toward the top of the building so the main 3 floors, 79, 80 and 81, hit by the plane must have had less than 2400 tons of steel. But the experts don't even tell us that much. Do you think 56 minutes is enough time to raise the temperature of even 900 tons of steel enough to weaken it?

I doubt that the plane and fire could start the collapse but even if it could there is no way it could LEVEL the building. There should have been a stump of the building left. The greater quantity of steel at the base should seen to that. That is why I want a table specifying the tons of steel and concrete on every level. The EXPERTS should have known to provide that in the first place. The NIST report doesn't even specify the total amount of concrete in the building. Other sources that agree with NIST on the amount of steel indicate there should have been 280,000 tons of concrete.

166 tons of airplane + 34 tons of kerosene (alias jet fuel) LEVELS 100,000 tons of steel + 280,000 tons of concrete. RIDICULOUS Oh yeah, there was furniture and paper and carpet to burn also.

So where is the data on the distribution of mass?

umbra
×
×
×
×