On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:50:37 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Mike wrote in
:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:36:03 GMT, TRUTH wrote:

Those facta have no bearing on this at all.

The government verion of the WTC collapses defy physics.

The idea that the Towers could collapse at near free fall speed from
fire is absurd.

Explain why. After the initial accelleration of the upper floors, the
forces applied on the lower floors would be much greater than they
were designed for. Thus, the lower portion of the building would
provide little resistance and allow for a quick collapse.

How did the 47 MASSIVE STEEL COLUMNS in the Towers severe? And HOW did
they ALL severe at the SAME TIME?


Fact: A large number of the exterior columns were severed by the
impact.
Fact: Fire (heat) weakens steel even without the steel melting and
becoing fluid.
Fact: The columns did not all fail at the same time. The south
tower's top floors tilted proir to collapse. The north tower's
interior columns failed first. Several of the columns were severed by
the impact of the planes. The loads that were no longer being
supported by the severed columns were transferred to other columns.
Those columns were then weakened by fire. When the stress became too
great for the just one of the remianing columns, it failed. This
transferred more load to the remaining columns causing them to become
overstressed one by one in rapid succession. This caused the top
portion of the building to begin to drop onto the lower portion and
subsequently "pancake" the lower floors.


..................
Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and Co Author of “Why Buildings Fall
Down”

Levy has stated in the past that fire brought down the WTC buildings on
9/11. But it is interesting that he also made a public statement saying
the WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition. (Matthys Levy was/is a
representative for Weidlinger Associates; a company hired by WTC
leaseholder Larry Silverstein to help prove to his insurers that the
failures of the Towers were the result of two separate terrorist attacks,
and therefore allow Silverstein to double his insurance payout.)

The collapse can certainly resemble a controlled demolition, without
actually being a controlled demolition. The WTC suffered from a
progressive collapse. Controlled demolitions also use progressive
collapse to bring down buildings. Therefore the statement that "the
WTC collapses resembled controlled demolition" really isn't all that
interesting.

"It was the fire ... causing the failure of the steel columns and that
caused the collapse"
http://wcbs880.com/topstories/topsto...113150328.html

"If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a
building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they
cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly
what it looked like and that's what happened."
Video: www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
..................
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but in controlled demolitions,
they do not cause the failure of all of the columns simultaneously.
The charges are triggered with time delays to be certain that the
building falls in the desired location.





Mike, PLEASE give me your professional opinion on WTC 7. Be sure to watch
all the video clips he

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://tinyurl.com/eygeh