As far as the collapse of the twin towers is concerned there was an excellent TV programme on a while back which explained how the combination of the construction of the buildings together with the temperature if the burning jet fuel would have brought about the collapse just as it happened. I found it pretty convincing. A lot more so than the idea of people going about their daily activities while bad guys were setting explosives and wiring detonators around them.
Colin
Saw that program (as I have knowledge/interest of construction), and all the others including the US Army Corps of Engineers Investigation.
All raised more questions than they answered if they indeed answered any that is.
Concern was and still is, it would be simple to destroy a building once again by fire.
Being local, you guys can check and compare the temperatures of the recent high rise fire, the one with the flammable facade, with the twin towers temperature that was necessary to completely melt steel.
Just one simple question, the steel frame, namely floor beams, walls, columns had to initially melt to allow a complete floor to collapse in its entirety and simultaneously to allow it to crash onto the floor below and produce a domino effect. Bit of a stretch.
Whereas when you view the controlled demolition of building by explosives that is exactly what happens, namely the floor drops as as a unit onto the one below and so on.
Our Raffy member can enlighten us on the burning characteristics of aviation fuel which I gather has a very rapid short period of combustion.
Muck like cordite, quickly burns up, lots heat but short time period, hence not long enough to melt the steel frame/supports.
Yes steel framed buildings bend and buckle in fires but they have never ever collapsed as in a controlled demolition and add to this not once but twice. C'mon what are the chances that the exact same identical circumstances were produced by two crashes into two separate buildings.
Think about it, speed, amount of fuel, point of impact, depth of penetration into the building, burning time, heat produced, explosion, etc would all need to be identical to produce the same results, (which is what they do with each controlled demolition) in two separate building by inexperienced "pilots".
Also the size of the floors quoted above as one acre, is huge amount of steel and concrete to burn and melt.
There is no doubt they collapsed floor by floor but by fire??????. If there were explosives on board and they detonated, you would need a lot, then yes you could 'blow away' the columns and then the collapse, floor by floor could occur. That raises lots of nasty awkward questions for the authorities, such as how all those explosives got on board and if so then it can happen again?
Not convinced by the 'official' explanation doesn't pass the pub test as we say.