Amongst other dubious parts of the whole event, I feel I must bring up WTC7 again to point out that the official explanation is so obviously wrong and crap it's not funny.
Basically the failure of one steel support structure, (supposedly caused by a fire that had already burnt out) led to a catastrophic collapse of the whole building!
Think about this: the steel and concrete on the bottom few floors was built to take the weight of all the floors above right? Yet when you watch the video of the building fall, all the steel structure present may as well not have been there. There is absolutely no resistance to the falling floors. The falling begins at the top of the building but the 'guilty' steel support is quite far away from the top. So how does this one failure suddenly render every other bit of steel in the building incapable of doing its' job? The falling building should have been really messy with steel frame bending etc all over the place and totally getting in the way of everything - certainly it should have made free-fall speed impossible. Just try to picture an intact WTC7 but with 'x-ray specs' on. Imagine you can see inside the building pre-collapse and you are looking at this lattice of steel inhabiting the whole building. Well that lattice is a very, very difficult obstruction for falling floors, yet it may as well have been made of butter the way it did nothing whatsoever to impede the falling floors.
So we have a frankly ridiculous explanation for the 'initial failure' and even if we accept the official line on why it may have failed, none of that explains why every single piece of steel frame in the structure 'failed' at exactly the same time! Mechanical failure is not an airborne virus that neighbouring structures can catch instantly.
Basically the failure of one steel support structure, (supposedly caused by a fire that had already burnt out) led to a catastrophic collapse of the whole building!
Think about this: the steel and concrete on the bottom few floors was built to take the weight of all the floors above right? Yet when you watch the video of the building fall, all the steel structure present may as well not have been there. There is absolutely no resistance to the falling floors. The falling begins at the top of the building but the 'guilty' steel support is quite far away from the top. So how does this one failure suddenly render every other bit of steel in the building incapable of doing its' job? The falling building should have been really messy with steel frame bending etc all over the place and totally getting in the way of everything - certainly it should have made free-fall speed impossible. Just try to picture an intact WTC7 but with 'x-ray specs' on. Imagine you can see inside the building pre-collapse and you are looking at this lattice of steel inhabiting the whole building. Well that lattice is a very, very difficult obstruction for falling floors, yet it may as well have been made of butter the way it did nothing whatsoever to impede the falling floors.
So we have a frankly ridiculous explanation for the 'initial failure' and even if we accept the official line on why it may have failed, none of that explains why every single piece of steel frame in the structure 'failed' at exactly the same time! Mechanical failure is not an airborne virus that neighbouring structures can catch instantly.
