Reply #135: Will, common sense, logic and two errors.

[MervinFerd]

First, the errors:

1 The planes did extensive structural damage to the towers, in addition to starting the fires and knocking off insulation. The outside structure was part of the support of the building. The buildings may have been close to collapse before the fires.

2. The steel did not melt or need to melt. It just needed to be weakened and expand and twist to disrupt a structure already damaged by impact. That happens at much lower temperatures than melting.

Now the logic:

To make the collapse argument, it needs to be shown that there is NO POSSIBLE mechanism by which the impacts and fire could have caused the collapse. That's a near-impossible standard to meet. We may -never- know exactly what caused WTC7 to collapse, but its enough that there ARE plausible mechanisms.

Now the Common Sense:

These collapses are of INTENSE interest to the world community of structural engineers and architects. They don't want -their- buildings falling down on -their- heads. If there were really something fishy about the collapses somebody in that community would have raised questions. They would not have proposed explosives, but they would have raised technical questions in the guise of correcting errors. Or posted anonymously. This Stephen Jones fellow is a crank.


These questions have been addressed extensively in well-known sites: try 911myths.com