Quote:
Originally Posted by Pragnosis
Shek,
Many thanks for the information. It is very informative and helpful in my quest to find the truth. It's a shame that I didn't read the 'official' version of events first. Now my perception of events is totally confused. I really don't know what to believe anymore. It would've been so much easier to believe the official story.
In my mind, I still wonder why 7-WTC collapsed although there wasn't any impact by an aircraft. Assuming that the conspiracy theories are totally false, all three buildings must have been extremely poor in terms of structural quality. I watched a documentary and showed other buildings across the globe that had experienced far worse attacks of fire and they didn't even come close to collapsing. The architects and construction workers of the WTC need shooting.
Once again, thanks for the information and links.
|
Pragnosis,
WTC 1 and WTC 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a plane that was half the size of those that ended up impacting into the building. However, you are only as strong as the weakest link, and the steel trusses were that weakest link. It's been several years since I read some of the initial theories on what caused the structural failure, and even then the steel trusses were the chief suspect. I believe that there was an alternative solution to the fireproofing that probably would have withstood the forces of the planes' impact, but that it was much more expensive. Instead, some spray on type, which was the industry standard (so it wasn't a cost cutting measure, just not an area where they went the extra mile for an unknown threat - having fuel laden jumbo jets crash into the building as a weapon) was used.
I don't have any answers to WTC 7, but I'm sure that the report addresses it since they were looking at the site.