Recent Study Claims All WTC Towers Destroyed By Controlled Demolition

[Deleted]

Recent study in the Europhysics News (24 August 2016).

.....neither before nor since 9/11 have fires caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise....

Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse.

The total collapse of WTC 7 is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature features of an implosion.....

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation adhering to the scientific method should have seriously considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was caused by fires.

Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epn/2016402

infracted - forbidden topics

[I Push Buttons]

No.

/10char

[lockedout]

Buildings don't fall straight down in their own footprints from fires.

[DeadmanWalking]

It is on the internet, it must be true. Before anyone can post on the internet they have to;
A: Take a DNA test to prove they don't have conspiracy liar DNA.
B: Get a letter from a Cardinal, Bishop, Pope or an Greater Angelic Being attesting to their solid morale character.
C: Pass any information through a council of their peers for fact checking.
D: Have a Doctorate in a major field of study.
Or you can simply push the power button and smack keys around to say any damn fool thing you want, which ever is easier.

- - - Updated - - -

Buildings don't fall straight down in their own footprints from fires.

Unless of course, the people who made them were smarter than you and actually designed buildings to fall directly down. I mean, I know when I build skyscrapers I build them to fall sideways and domino effect the whole city killing everyone. I personally love it when people who don't know what they are talking about make up conspiracy theories based on having 0 knowledge about how sky scrapers are designed.

[I Push Buttons]

Buildings don't fall straight down in their own footprints from fires.

"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."

Its pretty simple if you're not a blinded by conspiracy stupidity.

Some more:

"The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature)."

"It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range."

"It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C."

[schwarzkopf]

Buildings don't fall straight down in their own footprints from fires.

They do what ever the physics tells them to do - including that.

[willtron]

Recent study in the Europhysics News (24 August 2016).

Throughout history, three steel-framed high-rises are known to have suffered partial collapses due to fires; none of those led to a total collapse.

Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epn/2016402

And how many of them had been hit by a plane before?

[zorkuus]

Buildings don't fall straight down in their own footprints from fires.

My guess is gravity.

[caervek]

Buildings don't fall straight down in their own footprints from fires.

Neither WTC 1 nor 2 fell in their own footprint that's just an internet myth, hence why they outright destroyed WTC 3, 4 and 6 when they collapsed on top of them, in addition to causing catastrophic damage to WTC 5 and 7 (the latter of which collapsed itself due to the damage caused and resulting fires).

[Stop Pretending]

Oh look, another stupid conspiracy theory.

[DeadmanWalking]

And how many of them had been hit by a plane before?

Historically speaking there have been a few but all of them were from a time when planes used propellers and not jet engines and naturally were not filled to the brim with massive amounts of jet fuel which was the reason the explosion was hot enough to melt metal beams which normally would not do so. Jet Fuel, it's a mother fucker.

[Crissi]

This is just going to go straight into conspiracy theory

Edit: Actually this is straight conspiracy theory. EUrophysics news is not a peer reviewed scientific journal. The authors are all 9/11 truthers, and theres been plenty of refutations on the conclusions already.

Closing