WARNING: This is Version 1 of my old archive, so Photos will NOT work and many links will NOT work. But you can find articles by searching on the Titles. There is a lot of information in this archive. Use the SEARCH BAR at the top right. Prior to December 2012; I was a pro-Christian type of Conservative. I was unaware of the mass of Jewish lies in history, especially the lies regarding WW2 and Hitler. So in here you will find pro-Jewish and pro-Israel material. I was definitely WRONG about the Boeremag and Janusz Walus. They were for real.
Original Post Date: 2001-09-16 Posted By: Jan
From the News Archives of: WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org
Date & Time Posted: 9/16/2001 12:21:53 AM
Why the WTC eventually collapsed
I got this e-mail from Fiona which explains in detail why the building
collapsed. At the moment I see no major reason for believing in conspiracy
theories regarding the building’s collapse. Fiona wrote:-
As you know, I’m not an engineer, but I do listen.
I have heard a couple of engineers now on the radio and they both told the
same story. Both were from NY. One of then is a university lecturer and
WTC is one of his case studies.
1) According to NY law, buildings on Manhattan island have to be built to
withstand a direct hit from a 707. The terrorists knew this and hence the
deliberate choice of much larger, heavier planes. Also, these planes were
full of fuel, which made them much heavier. (Jan’s comment: I read that an
engineer involved in the building of WTC said there was no requirement to
withstand a 707 hit. He said someone may have done the calculations for it
out of interest but there is no such requirement).
2) NY buildings have more steel, and less concrete in them than
your average SA building. Concrete is strong but inflexible. Steel
provides flexibilty, which is required, given the weather conditions
there.
3) There are no central columns, as you would find in most SA
buildings. Neither of the men I listened to explained the reason – just a
design feature, perhaps?.
4) The buildings withstood the impact of the aircraft because they are
largely steel. It buckled and gave, unlike concrete, which would have
crumbled immediately. However, as the fires took hold, the steel got softer
and less able to withstand the weight of the building.
5) As each ‘layer’ gave way, naturally there was more weight for the next
layer down to support. Hence the buidlings looked as though they were
imploding. (Jan’s comment: I agree with this final observation).