Excuse me Robin, but with your above sentence, are you then not admitting that the Twin Towers collapsed due to extensive damage caused by the planes and not by any controlled demolition as to the reasons why the towers came down in the order that they did, or I'm a missing something.
I think you are missing something or I have explained myself badly!
![Wink :wink:](https://www.cyprus-forum.com/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
You made reference to the sequence of the collapse ..... the South Tower went down first, followed by the North Tower, the reverse order of impact. Taken in the most simplistic way and not considering anything but the weight above the damage ..... you could be right in your assumption.
I merely said it is not quite as simple as that because the extent of the damage would have to be taken into account as well. Although the static mass above the damage in the North tower was less than that of the South tower, the damage to the centre structural columns must have been more extensive. In theory the North Tower could have collapsed first if you believe the ‘fire caused the collapse’ theory (few professionals do), as there would have been fewer main structural members that were un-damaged to support the load.
What happened in the actual collapse, i.e. once the structure moved under the force of gravity, would have been dictated by Newton’s Universal Laws of Motion. (Put into Newtonian language: when the mass above exceeded the resistance of the structure below then the forces were un-equal and the structure would move in the line of least resistance to the motion.) If the 47 centre columns below were still load bearing (which they were ) then the top section would start to descend but Newton tells us that it would then topple toward the side that provided the least resistance to the movement determined by gravity .... that being the damaged side of the building.
Paphitis, it is this simple Universal Law of Physics that determined what happened with the collapse of the three WTC buildings as seen on TV. The evidence says; to achieve what we all saw ........ the official explanation is wrong because to achieve this there had to be no resistance to the descent of the mass above under the force of gravity. The undamaged central columns would have acted as an opposing force to the mass above ..... the line of least resistance was to topple toward the damaged area where the structure was weaker. Quite simply put, this is the Universal Laws of Physics applied with simple common sense! This may help you to understand:
http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics-newtons-laws-of-motion/
So, you want a ‘respectable’ firm to explain why the towers collapsed? How about the people who designed it? BUT.................. the video is packed with explanations that have since been proved as absolute rubbish! The firm is covering its ass!
Documentary recorded in April 2002. An early insight before any formal investigations were concluded, of how the World Trade Center collapsed on 11th September 2001.
Recorded from Telwest Digital TV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S5ohCX9JI8
One example: The ‘structural engineer’ says “We allowed for a 200 ton jet aircraft hitting the structure at 400kts ..... but didn’t allow for the fuel ..... that was not our job!!!!” Unbelievable .... that’s like doing a safety audit on a swimming pool but ignoring the water in it!!!!!! So in their view is, if the fuel had not been there the towers would not have collapsed? Yeah, right .... and you are willing to accept this sort of explanation because you do not have the mind set, the technical background or even sufficient common sense to see the holes in their story!
Another example: Their expert was looking at the pile of scrap steel ..... he was telling the camera how the core failed but was, if you look at it, showing a section of the outer shell of the building (he mentions 'windows') which carried only a fraction of the load. What damage was done to that had very little relevance to the tower’s collapse.
The main load was taken by the central column .......... that bloody great lump of steel box section fabricated of 4” thick steel, that weighed more than the lorry delivering the 30 foot(?) section that you see on the video and even the excavator couldn’t lift it ..... and you think a furniture fire had enough energy in the form of heat to soften a section like that, in just about one hour, until it bent? Really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn34mnnDnKU
If/When you come back to tell me that they have it all correct (as you have a habit of ignoring any questions you are asked :roll: ) I will point out rest of the bits that defy the laws of physics and contradict the evidence!
![Smile :)](https://www.cyprus-forum.com/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
![Wink :wink:](https://www.cyprus-forum.com/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)