Any support in that building was melted like butter...so naturally when the upper floor supports started to melt and warp...they couldnt withstand the load anymore. So one one floor falls...you have twice the weight on the floor below which also is weak in the first place..so now you have a domino effect and that is why the buildings fell in the manner they did. - Luckee
Well that, and it also has a great deal to do with WHERE they were hit. I\'ll TRY to make a diagram
-----
| |
| <
| |
| |
| |
| | - Ok, the planes hit around here or a little higher. WHen the jets exploded, they spewed ignited Jet fuel everywhere inside those floors and melted the "weak" support inside. With the outter skin comprimised it couldn\'t hold up those damaged floors. It\'d be the same thing as if you just lifted up the top floors, took out the floors where the planes hit, and then dropped the top floors. The top levels compressed almost instantly creatting a "hammer like" blow streight down through the rest of the towers which were still structurally strong. In fact, the way the towers were built, the outer skins actually stood longer than the floors which were being torn out from the inside. That helped a great deal to control the spread of the damage. There wasn\'t enough weight on the top to topple the towers in any one direction. If something had toppled at an angle.. it would have only been the top floors above where the plane hit. If they had hit lower...
------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| <
| | - Then you\'d have a building severed from it\'s foundation. The bottom floors would have compressed first, and quickly. With no more room to pack in rubble, the remaining debris would have slid off the top of the pile and into the NYC skyline. A controlled blast take a building out this way.. but this wasn\'t a controlled blast. Also, if it\'d had collapsed from the bottom up, there\'d be nothing to support the debris from wind velocity as it fell... which could have worsend the scenario.
Here\'s an experiment. Take two empty pop cans and sit them on the ground. Take the first one and stomp on it as hard as you can streight down. Ooohhh.. look. It crushed into a nice neat little area barely bigger than the circumfrance of the can itself. Now take the other one and do the same thing, but this time, make a sizeable dent by the bottom of the can. Look at the difference between the two crushed cans... then think of those as the World Trade Center.
Oh, and about the explosions. Do you really think the WTC didn\'t have combustables inside? Fire Extinquishers expecially, in the upper floors, would make a sizable explosion when comprimised. In the lower floors.. well.. I doubt many of those eye witnesses have been in a collapsing building before. There could be a hundred different causes for those explosion sounds and most of them far-far more plausable than actual explosives.
Oh, and Mjps- Why don\'t you believe we landed on the moon? Been watching too many Fox specials again? Funny thing about that show.. at the same time there was a documentary on PBS about the moon landing.. and none of the pics or videos they showed had any of the "evidence" that the Fox program was talking about. Not to mention that it would have been a lot more credible if they had actual Nasa scientists there to refute the claims instead of one low-level peeon who was basically there to just catch hell and look stoopid.
BTW: If it was all just a conspiracy, why did we continue the facade for so long? Why include a disasater the size of Apollo 13? Why send back two more missions after that? If it was all just Cold-War posturing (which although, WAS, a good part of it).. why didn\'t we just thumb our noses at the Russians and start building stations and try to beat them at their newest endevors such as docking in space and such? Sure we built SkyLab.. but at a much later time than the Russians.
