Thread: Could this settle what happend on 9/11 once and for all?

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

This is the worst argument used by conspiracy theorists. The building didn't drip into a pool of steel and concrete, it collapsed. Everything loses strength before it becomes a liquid, in this case the steel did not melt but lost a significant amount of strength, leading to a structural failure.

I love how the site for architects and engineers supporting the idea of conspiracy is down. At the moment I don't have the time to watch the video, though I'd love a link to text on how the towers were brought down via demolition.
I'm studying engineering and physics and I'm another person who does not currently support the idea of a demolition job, though I'm open to information on how it's possible.

there were reports of molten steel underneath the rubble weaks after the collapse. the vids of witnesses are on youtube.

Originally Posted by ranma187

there were reports of molten steel underneath the rubble weaks after the collapse. the vids of witnesses are on youtube.

You completely missed my point and in doing so, strengthened it.

Originally Posted by ranma187

there were reports of molten steel underneath the rubble weaks after the collapse. the vids of witnesses are on youtube.

Err, we were referring to the initial collapse not needing to have melted steel. Of COURSE There would be molten steel in the rubble... incredible amounts of pressure + extensive exposure to extreme heat = melting. Again, I would like to point out that the majority of people who point out perceived physical impossibilities of the collapse are people who might have taken chemistry or physics in high school and think they are experts on it or something.