Seriously... are you just repeating what other people say on conspiracy websites or do you have any kind of actual knowledge?
Honestly... it does not seem like you do.
Okay fact fans, buckle your seat belts: [NOTE - this site doesnt not (currently) give me permission to post links - change the [DOT] for a real .
Admition of "low probability that fires cause the collapse of WTC7:
fema[DOT]gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Last sentence before section 5.7 states "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. "
then Section 5.7 at the end of the 3rd para "Although tth total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"
Fireballs in WTC 1 and 2 were out in just a few minutes - a) watctgh any footage!
ask Jeff King (MIT Engineer) c) the offical investigation by FEMA d) the north tower collapsed less that an hour after planes impact (MIUNTES) e) f) g) h) i) and more see 911research[DOT]wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html
next -
there was an extra e in my typing, sorry - a typo should have read:
I recall seeing someone standing in the wing hole before on of the twin towers collapsed. The inference being that a human can live just a few feet away from where the alleged hot fires that bent the steel were.
You'd need a sustained fire to increase the temps to the high levels required to buckle the steel sufficiently. [in WTC 1 and 2] For the steel to have buckled, and collapsed due to heat there must be a heat source. this heat sources must be sustained in order to reach the desired temperatures (the exat temp hotly debated) but the bottom line is that the initial fires went out fast, black smoke indicates a fire without enough oxygen to burn efficiently. there was not a sustained high heat present, therfore it is unlikely to be the cause of the collapse.
neeeeeeeeeeext
You'd also expect to see slow onset of deformation (not present) if the steel was gradually loosing it's rigidity.
Steel bends and buckles as it looses rigidity, as it softens due to heat. Should I put a link in to your school books here?
Next pleeeeeeease
You'd also expect to see deformation and collapse in line with the angled destruction from th eplane [and subsequent fires]
Correct - I thought this was the physics forum, not the magic circle?!?!!? the planes collision clearly made some structural damage tot he buildings. this damage was not uniforms accross the floors as you see in the video evidence - showing perfectly uniform explosive forces outwards around the whole building (not just one area or side)
It seems like I'm repeating what other people are saying? Have you considered you would hear the same information becuase it is true? I am no doubt repeating what others have also researched and concluded, becuase I have followed some course of logic on the same scenario.
