@k0be,

In short, you're telling me that the heavy influence of friction was only able to slow down the fall of the tower for just 2 seconds? That's a laugher.

Friction stands no chance at all. The greater resistance is provided by the welds between the angle clips and the columns. Attached is a sketch for you to visually this better. As you can see, the only thing standing in the way of the falling floors are those angle clips. Please tell me you do not expect those to carry the weights of those floors.

Also realise that as those floors give way, the bracing action of the floors to the columns no longer exists which means the columns will no longer be compact. Slender columns can't stand under their own weight and that means the self standing columns will do only one thing, collapse!

The behavior of steel? what is the behavior of steel. if the steel loses strength, it is still able to provide some support for the building's structure such that even if the building collapses it will be in a much slower manner. shreds of the steel supporting the building were almost invisble as we watched videos of the towers going down.
It burned up there for several minutes and just went down wham bam.
When the buildings were constructed many many years ago, the engineers in charge of building them carefully considered these issues. billions of chunks of concrete came exploding down into sand-like pieces because steel gave way?

Of course the steel provided some support till it could no longer do so. However, you ned to understand that the factors of safety in the design of steel structres is no more than 2 at the most and only in exceptional cases will you be thinking of 3. Even if that was the case, the fact that load redistribution has already taken place due to the structural breach means the columns left standing are carrying much more loads that was designed for. It was only a matter of time before the clips are torn away from the columns due to twisting and once the floor weights pile up, the pan-cake scenario that we witnessed is the result.
There is absolutely nothing out of place with the concrete dusts we witnessed. Do you know the reasons for that? Well, let me get you thinking along that line by bringing your attention to one word: pressure!

@Denex,

These are the people that designed and built the World Trade Centre. How come all the physics they employed has now become obsolete?

My guy, from the time the building was designed up until now, no one has seen any iota of evidence that the design analysed these factors. The contradicting statement from the Designer is proof that perhaps he took it for granted and never really did it. besides, I am reminded of the Titanic. engineers were so confident that they claimed not even God could sink it. The rest they say, is history.

Why are they afraid of litigation if they make the calculations public? Either the calculations were flawed or the calculation was never done at all. Otherwise, making it public should justify them. And considering the fact that the WTC was built in the 60s, I doubt very much if the means for simulating these kind of situation was available then. There are a lot of things to think about and discuss in this regard and I will get to them when necessary.

@k0be,

How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

Number one, no one said the heat was enough to melt the steel, rather, it was enough to reduce its strength to about 50%. The plane's structural impact was clearly seen by millions and recorded on live TV when it breached the outer perimeter of the building. Once the outer perimeter is breached, there is nothing inside to stop its velocity until it reaches the steel core. Did the plane you see disintegrate on impact? Why don't you query these so-called 'experts' yourself?

• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

I've said over and over agsin, I have no information about the WTC7.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints - they didn't splatter

This question is the singular reason why I query the expertise of these so-called experts. Do you bother to ask them if there was any lateral force that could cause the building to tip over? Did they explain to you that the combined wind load provides greater lateral force than the airplane? And did they inform you that the building is about 95% air? Did they explain to you where else a 500,000 ton structure with that much inertia can fall other than straight down? Please think on these things and don't allow those with an agenda to cloud your ability to reason.

• Why did no US. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft? - monitoring devices weren't on?

That I have no answer to. However, can you kindly tell us how many wayward planes have ever being accosted by military jets prior to 911?

@K0be,

TayoD good question with regards to an unclosed system which makes it even more alarming.
If it was a closed system it would be ideal and it can be calculated how long it would take the building to collapse. The calculations that reported how the collapse of the WTC violates these laws were interpreted in terms of an ideal situation. Since it wasn't a closed system, the whole building would have been subjected to some resistance by external influences - with that said, how do you explain the buildings disappearance as if it occured inside a closed system. keep in mind I kept mentioning the time it took to reach ground as if free-falling.

You are trying hard to explain what you obviously don't know much about. Let me summarise this in a simple manner for you. Had the towers undergone a free fall, it would have taken only 8 seconds for it to reach the ground at a speed of about 300km/hr. In this case however, the maximum speed attained was about 200km/hr and the time taken was about 10 seconds. The time lapse is due to the resistance offered on its way down.

TayoD energy is not conserved, the airplane is only able to cause heat of so many degrees, since some of the heat escaped into the atmosphere during impact we're left with even fewer amount of heat available to melt the hard steel. Where did the excess energy that levelled the building come from?

You have consistently ignored the information I've provided in this discussion. The heat only did so much, while the rest is as a result of the beahvior of steel. Two main factors caused the collapse. The first is the loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire as well as the loss of structural integrity due to the distortion os the steel from the non-uniform temperatures of the fire. Also keep in mind that other factors along with these, combine to bring about the collapse.

I think I may have to sketch something to make this more visually comprehensible for you.

@mckren,

People should not reduce this argument to who is ready to wage a war against the other.

This is rather a constitutional crisis that needs to be presented at a competent Abuja court of law for interpretation of the constitution. Kano State Government is playing on the ignorance of their inhabitants.

Kano Sate Government does not even have the right to tell Hausa Muslims when or who they should have sex with or when they can drink alcohol or not. It is illegal to do that let alone to compel non-muslims to adhere to it.

Well said. That is why I said Nigerians deserve what they are getting. We complain so much and we can't get our leaders to take this matter to court. CAN, PFN and even NLC should be in court by now to challenge this affront on our constituion.

@k0be,

How do you explain the other buildings?
Debris caused the collapse of building 7?
How much debris could cause a building to cave in like that.
What about surrounding buildings, why didn't they disappear.

I have said times without number that I have no information about WTC 7. However, logic tells me that if someone in government was behind this, wouldnt they have rather target closer buildings to the twin towers and avoid what appears to be a loop-hole?

In any case, I suppose that once people understand that scientists and engineers agree alike that 911 was a testimony to the laws of science at work, attention will now be focused on WTC 7. Until then, it will be good to pipe down the such baseless theories that the conspiracies are built upon.

@k0be,

TayoD, I already told you it's basic physics, the so called collapse of the twin towers does not add up when you consider the laws of conservation of mass and energy.

I am not sure you understand what you are talking about. How can you expect the laws of conservation of mass to be relevant in an unclosed system? The same thing applies to the law of conservation of energy. I am not sure you menat to refer to these laws.

What I think you may be refering to is the law of conservation of momentum. If anything, this law was very much fulfilled during 911. Had the twin towers toppled over on its side when hit, then we will cry foul. If necessary, I can provide the calculations to make this clearer.

The scientific theories have been brought forward by very many scientists, physicists, and engineers. What we need now is NIST to confront these theories.

What theories are you talking about specifically? Are they so many that you can't even articulate one? The major issuse brought forth by sceptics is controlled implosion and that can not stand up to a scientific scrutiny.

@Denex,

They were actually built to withstand the force of a large boeing plane crashing into it.

So what now happenned? When was the structural design changed?

I provided a link earlier which explains this issuse. Did you read it at all? Here it is again: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

@Ono,

Ok. But I read somewhere, that those towers were built to withstand some brute force- equal to or even greater than that of reinforced concrete (will get the links). I mean, technology improves with years of understanding of the behaviours of materials. I did a bit of Structural Mechanics and materials science too - though not in details. Every engineering student must do those courses, along with other foundation courses. But that's not what we're talking here.

Solid steel may witshand more than reinforced concrete. But note that steel for buildings are not 'solid' mass as you think. The most popular cross-section is like the letter "H". Most time when a boxed section is utilized, it is mostlikely hollow. so the one who gave you that information is economical with truth. Technology has indeed improved and I think we need to bring into perspective the fact that the Twin Towers was built in the 60s.

Except I get some other concrete evidence that it's those planes that crashed into the buildings that caused such a disaster, I will not believe anything that's posted in here as facts.

The plane wrecked losts of physical havoc on the towers but it was not the sole reason why it fell. It is the ripple effect of the crash that brought the towers down. The physical impact, extreme heat (not temperature), the knocking off of the fire resistance and sprinkler systems, the lowering of the steel strength coupled with the fact that the columnss integrity were compromised by the lack of bracing led to the complete collapse. All these factors can be related to each other by sound engineering judgment.

@denex,

It is the stories the US government is churning out that are conspiracy theories.

What stories did the US govt churn out? My conclusions are based on scientific facts and my knowledge of structural engineering. I have read several papers authored by professionals too and I see no conspiracy so far on the part of the govt.

The conspiracy theorists however keep hammering on controlled implosion and that cannot by any shred of the imagination hold up to scientific scrutiny. When they find the first law of physics that is violated by the 911, they should please bring it forward for close scrutiny.

@Ono,

If bombs could not reduce a number of once standing edifices in Stalingrad at the time to rubbles, how on Earth did planes laden with jet-fuel only caused such catastrophic destruction of lives and a well fortified structure as the WTC at New York in 9/1/1/2000 AD?

You need to have an understanding of the mechanics of materials to understand the diffenre in this case. Concrete is very difficult to destroy by impact, including explosive impact. Why do you think countries today are seeking technology for bunk-shattering bombs?

Have you ever considered that bomb shelters are made of reinforced concrete and not steel? Accepted, if the WTC was built with R.C., it likely would not fail like that if the perimeter walls were thick enough. But that is not the case. High rise buildings are built with steel and not R.C. because of the inherent properties of each. And the higher you go up on the high rise, the lighter the steel material used for the columns due to the lighter loads.

The bottom line is that you need to compare apples to apples. You can not expect steel to behave like reinforced concrete and vice versa. Each material has its advantages and disadvantages.

@topic,

I appreciate the fact that people are asking questions about this. However, would it suffice to conclude at this point that no conspiracy theory can prove scientifically any other means by which that structure came down than what we witnessed on 911? k0be started this topic stating the laws of physics were violated and he is yet to prove one.

What I'd like you guys to consider also is this. If you refuse to accept the opinion of scientists and engineers, what explanation (scientific) do you have that can hold up to scrutiny? It is so easy to disagree and condemn without offering explanations and ideas.

@Justgood,

swing, no doubt say those people dey act like savages sometimes but should we give people the j[b]ustification to act in such ways by provoking them [/b] and brining out any such instincts in them.

Excuse me. Please tell me how they have been provoked that is different from how Christians have been provoked. Rushdie wrote satanic verses and dem wan kill am. Dan Brown on the other hand is moving around freely. Do you know how many people were killed over the Satanic verses due to their connection with Rushdie? Dan Brown on the other hand, not only wrote a book, but dem do film on top of am! I still never see Christians declare a worl wide day of anger because of it.

When you start blaming yourself for others behaviour, you are gradually signing over your freedom to them. Please think on these things.

@k0be,

the heat weakened strong steel, all the way from top to bottom. even if heat generated by the impact of the airplane (which is still considerably low) caused the melting of the steel, how did it completely weaken the bottom floors to the extent that they couldn't resist the top floors that came crashing down? everything just flew off very fast and completely.
how do you explain everything in shattered ruins as they came splashing down like things flying as a result of detonated bombs.

The heat did not weaken the steel from the top to the bottom. Please follow my arguments closely. The heat weakened the steel on several floors close to the point of impact. The cascading floors cannot be held by the "clips" sustaining each floor so that they all come crashing down. The columns on the other hand become "slender" and cannot be self-supporting. In addition, the torsional forces experienced by the columns were not anticipated. All these factors are so easily verifiable. They are within the ambit of science and engineering.

Again how do you explain the collaps of WTC 7?
was the heat generated from the airplane also used in collapsing wtc 7? if so do you still believe that there would be sufficient amount of energy to cause th building to fall that quickly - How did they know to evacuate people from WTC 7 - did somebody tip them off that the building would be imploded?

Like I said, I do not have that much information about WTC 7 and it appears all you've got are speculations as well. Did you go through the links I provided. There are answers there if you are really seeking for it.

@denex,

Even the presence of thermite and specialized explosive thermate on the debris has been explained away.

If to say undetonated bomb was found there, them for still talk say e fall from one of the rescue workers pocket.

Thermite is simply a tool for welding and I see no reason why its presence should raise any concerns at the WTC. also, explosive thermates could wel have been used to cut some of the steel at the time it was been relocated.

The bottom line is that the issue of implosion does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Only those who do not know otherwise or are better served by the rumours and conspiracies keep holding on to it.

@denex,

The steel were sold to a willing buyer. What sort of investigation do you want to carry out? There is nothing that that one could be looking for on that site that was not present one way or another several blocks away. The air was filled with debris on properties and people. Anyone with a genuine desire could have gotten some samples then to conduct their independent investigation.

Besides, the results of the investigation are made public. What you plan to add or subtract, i do not know. In the mean time, everything I see, combinesd with the results I have read are consistent with what I have said so far.

And if I may ask. If you think the government was behind this event, don't you think it would have been much easier for them to find WMDs in Iraq to justify the invasion? Abi how can you have the sophistication to carry out this massive attack undetected and yet can't concote a few WMDs to implicate Saddam and justify Bush?!

@denex,

How does this impede the forensic investigation? The fact that the site of the event was shipped to a different Continent?

The sit wasn't shipped. Ground Zero is still there. Are you aware that forensic investigations have been done and there is no one claiming they had inadequate materials to work with. As I said before, forensic investigations do not require having all the materials there. You only need samples.

How would you like one of those crashed planes in Nigeria to be shipped to the South America? Would that aid independent investigators?

The steel was not shipped to China for investigation.

@denex,

It even gets worse when you find out that they shipped the debris to China and when you go through the official explanations.

What as that got to do with the way the tower collapsed? Besides, how does that impede the forensic investigations?

@denex,

Your link does not lead to any particular paper. I notice however that you are on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's page. Here is a link to their FAQ's on 911. It should shed more light for some - http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

@Esss,

Hmmm!! I'm still not convinced.

That's okay. But it will take a violation of science and engineering to explain the collapse by controlled implosion.

1. The collaspe; The buildings were impacted at an angle. let us believe that the entire pillars, beams and other supporting features on the impacted side were totally destroyed, then the collaspe should have tilted in one direction rather cave into itself.

True the impact was to the side of the tower and the border columns were destroyed due to the impact. The reason why the building still stood is because of load redistribution which is designed into the structure. When one element fails, others takes up the load it was carrying. That should tell you that already, the other structural members are stressed more than expected. Falling into intself is due to gravity and nothing else. Besides, the height to width ration of the structure was 6.8 and it is almost impossible to apply a force to that structure that will tip it over its side. This I can explain more if you so desire.

2. The speed of collaspe; The buildings both crumbled at an alarming speed. It looked as if there was no resistance whatsoever by the pillars or beams (weakened or not). Those buildings were designed to withstand earth tremors/earthquakes of about magnetude 6 - 8 ricther scale. Sesmic reports have shown some strange waves were emitted proir to the collaspe of the buildings. The impact of the plane was not enough to totally compromise the structure of that building. http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

I have explained the speed of collapse earlier if you will care to read it. There is nothing out of place about it.

3. The steel; I think we should all remove the idea of "heat melting the steel" from our arguements, because it holds no water. Most of the jet fuel burnt out on impact which eliminates it as the source of the heat. So were is the origin of this heat?? Abi na ozone layer??

True. The heat never melted the steel, but it weakened it severely. And remeber that the structural members were already stressed out again due to load redistribution. All this combined factors made the tower collapse.

4. Building 7; Please explain that one?

I do not have enoguh information to speak one way or the other on WTC7. Do you?

@topic,

Serves the Nigerian Christians right. When are they going to take their destinies in their hands and stop living like second class citizens in their own nation. I would have thought the sharia thing will be in court at this stage on its eventual destination to the Supreme Court. What is CAN and PFN doing that they cannot initiate this move? What about the mostly affected Ibos who are usually the victims? This will be a worthy cause for Ojukwu and the other champions of Biafra. let them take this up as a matter of importance and we'll see if it doesn't change things.

Until the Supreme Court makes a declaration, we will continue to deal with this constitutional mess that we bogged down with.

@denex,

And why did they have to ship the debris to CHINA? In order to give independent forensics investigators easy access to the debris in "nearby" China?

Buildings collapse everyday. You don't just export the debris.

You don't need all the materials in a fornsic investigation. Which lab will you trasnport all that debris to? You need enough samples to carry out your research. That is consistent with forensic and every other area of science and engineering.

I remember my first lab test in the engineering lab at U.I. The test was to verify Hooke's law and we had just a litle piece of steel to confirm that the law holds true for any stell, anywhere in the world. that is the same thing here.

@Afam,

Now, I am going to get a dog and the name shall be TayoD. Anything I call the dog I will remember a slowpoke that uses nairaland. How's that for a deal?

I can see Bingo's bitch is back so soon with the freesby. Next time I'll be sure to throw the freesby in the direction of a moving train!!

@Denex,

Hmmm, so building 7 is the jackpot?

I expect that to be the focus of conspiracy theorists once they realise their arguments don't hold water with the twin tower collapse.

I don't know about building 7 and I've not been so busy looking at the structural damage over and over again. But just by looking at the collapse of the twin towers, I just tire.

I don't have that much info about WTC 7 as well. However, I am not surprsied by the collpase of the WTC. It is so consistent with science and engineering behind the whole event.

I was watching the return of the Shuttle Columbia when it superheated and exploded. Yet NASA kept claiming everything was alright and that the Shuttle had landed safely. It was when people started reporting Shuttle debris across 3 states that it was finally admitted.

I don't know about NASA's claim the shutle landed safely when the explosion took place on live TV for all to see.

If the Shuttle had exploded on one spot and NASA had it secured, those of us saying the Shuttle exploded would be seen today as conspiracy theorists.

Well, the whole nation, infact the world saw the tragedy live as they did 911.

For God sake, after teaching us physics for centuries they want to bend it to fit just one event.

What laws of Physics are violated if I may ask? It is the conspiracy theorists that are stretching everything to fit into physics. So far, I see nothing amiss.

If buildings as tall as the twin towers, more than 400 meters each, can collapse almost straight on their own foundations, then how come there are millions of demolitions experts, how come they still have a job? Je ne crois pas!

I don't get what you are saying here. The buildings collapse on itself is to be expected. The mass we call WTC is what is called an egg-crate construction. It is made up of about 95% air which explains why the rubble from the collapse was only a few stories high.

I'm reading the WTC7 structural damage. So far, they're basing it on possible debris contact from WTC1 and WTC2. There's also suspicion of the level of shock vibrations and resonance.

These are consistent with structural statics and dynamics.

All na arrangee.

Your opinion with no scientific backing.

Over the years, I've refused to read any information on the WTC collapse. But now Nairaland people don involve me.

Well, it is good to deal with the rumors and disabuse the minds of those who may have believed the conspiracies into seeing the truth.

@Denex,

I'm reading the structural design of the WTO. It had masonry i.e concrete.

Of course it has concrete. The floors are made of concrete slabs which are suspended by trusses that span across from the inner core to the outer columns.

Sheetrock may have being used for some partitioning as well but that does not make them structural members. To understand a building's collapse, you have to look at its structural members.

@Afam,

M

ake una no forget the saying that " He that is down need fear no fall". Na wetin dey worry the olode wey dey do consultancy work for a telecommunications company for hin spare time.

The guy has been able to prove that intellectually he is no where but the dangerous thing is that he thinks otherwise, how can life be this wicked to just one person? TayoD, kpele ooooooo.

O. Bingo's bitch is back again! Let me throw out the freesby. Watch him run after it. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

@Mariory,

Thanks for those links. I was going to get to the nitty gritty details later but you anticipated me. The fire-coating on the steel was actually knocked off by the impact of the plane and that left the steel susceptible.

My take on this is the same as in all others. People are quick to believe rumors and take a following after those who spread them, rather than seek the opinion of experts. 911 suddenly turned everyone into structural engineers and explosive experts. How funny!

@Tornadoz,

I am yet to find where I referred to Tayo in my post.

Is that so? Don't you think you should have highlighted the following statement along with the one you did? "I'd rather stay in Nigeria than going to America and marrying a crack LovePeddler to get American citizenship."
In responding to Afam's direct attack on me, you mentioned he echoed your sentiments exactly. You now went on to say something to the effect of calling my wife a crack LovePeddler. Do you expect me to fold my arms and watch you continue with such drivel? Your family may be very important to you, but my wife is the most important person to me. You will do well to keep her out of our conversation and I will be sure to not say a word about your family.

@Denex,

I

mean, am just curious, but why use my hand to stab someone, O peaceful and respectful TayoD.

Now you are clinging at straws. If the words you guys spoke that were quoted in context are making you two uncomfortable, maybe my assertion earlier that Afam's response to your request that he provides proof was "raining abuse on you" was right afterall. If not so, what is biting you so much? Or are you taking back what you siad?

See, I no get time for this little chit chats that are not intelectually stimulating. I will just ignore if it continues. I provide proofs for the things I say and I don't expect anything less from anyone, unless of course you are the crowned nairaland minister of misinformation. A role that is ably filled than no other than Afam.

@Seun,

Exactly! What others are suggesting is that there was an explosive force that brought down the towers

No single explosion force brought down the tower. Abi no be d twin towers u dey talk about?

First, you need to understand that the resilience of the towers even surprised engineers. No building was designed to handle the kind of damage that the WTC was subjected to.

Also, please note that the tower didn't collapse for over an hour after the impact. This time was sufficient enough to weaken the remaining structural components by reason of the heat. Like I said, the failure of the steel through heat lead to the collapse of the floors and the sound one may think was explosion was that of steel on steel.

No scientific explanation can account for explosives as the means through which that tower fell. Please try and find out the papers written by experts to explain this.

@denex,

For somebody that is for peace yet not afraid of war, I wonder why your method of maintaining peace include pitting Afam and denex against each other. Quite peaceful of you and very unwarlike too.

Cheap shots like this don't cut it. Did I quote you or Afam out of context? If I did, then you can accuse me of whatever it is you want. If I didn't, maybe your exchanges then were not the pleasantries you guys are making it to be. Why are people so afraid of their past?

@k0be,

the buildings’ free-fall collapse is tip-off number one.
(NIST) has admitted the South Tower came down in ten seconds and the North in nine.
a mechanical engineer(judy wood), has observed that even objects in free fall, encountering only air resistance, would require at least 12 seconds to hit this means the buildings were actually destroyed at a speed faster than freefall.

There is nothing strange about the speed of the towers' fall. An object that falls with the momentum that the WTC fell will do so faster than the speed of gravity which is 9.8m/s. Let me give you an example. When you shoot a gun downwards from a particular height, it will reach the ground faster than when the bullet is dropped in a vacuum. Why is that the case? It is because the bullet is propelled by a force which gives it a high momentum. Same thing is the case with the collapsing floors of the WTC. Each floor gives way under the momentum provided by the collapsing floors above it, and the nearer to the ground the floor is, the greater the momentum it receives.

without something below the collapsing debris removing the building’s natural resistance(such as the hard steel), there's just no way it can fall that fast.

there is nothing removing the support. Each floor is supported by trusses which are either welded or bolted to the columns with the help of plates. These welds/bolts are designed with a compound factor of safety that can't be more than 3. That means it is possible that it could handle the weights of 3 floors (that is if the FOS is 3), under optimum condition. That was not the case when the floors came crashing down. Not only were the steel severely weakened because of the heat, a phenomenon we call load redistribution already implies that every member was carrying more load than was planned for after the plane crashed in. There are a lot of factors that contributed to this collapse which I hope to explain as we go. Hopefully we'll get there.

WTC 7, came down though it wasn’t hit by an airplane.  it followed the convention of an implosion.

I have not seen the collapse of WTC 7, but I can imagine the combined effect of the heat and foundation displacement creating the kind of conditions that brught the twin towers down. If we understand that debris was found many blocks away from the twin towers, then it is not too far fetch to assume that jet fuel and other debris were propelled to the WTC7 on impact of the plane.

The Twin Towers on the other hand, were blown up from top to bottom turning to saw dust.

There is absolutely no scientific way to explain the collapse of the twin towers based on what you are saying. Conspiracy theorists are just propagating these stories to fulfil an agenda. They are feeding on the ignorance of most people with respect to engineering and science. Please talk to a structural engineer and they'll confirm the things I'm saying to you.

i mean it requires a lotta energy, I don't see how that airliner can provide that much energy

The energy didn't come from the airline. The airline succeed in destroying the outer columns and part of the core column. The heat from the fuel reduced the yield streghth of the steel which the gives way under its own weight. The falling weight then provided the energy required to destroy itself. That seems to be the best way I can explain it to a Lay-man.

Let me just share this thought with y'all. I think you give this Government a lot of credit when you claim they could pull out such a feat without being found out. A CIA agent's identity was leaked and someone paid for it. If they couldn't hide that, how can they have done the same thing here? And more importantly, if they could pull off such stunt, you don't think it would have been a piece of cake to suddenly produce WMDs in Iraq to justify their invasion? Logic just don't add up when we think of all these factors!

@laudate,

Anyway, that was a digression. Am still scratching my head, trying to understand the reason for your hostility towards Afam! I don't get it o! Why can't we all express our minds in a milder, civil manner, ehn?

I entered this discussion with the hope that issues can be discussed. However, I came across this personaity called Afam and my experience so far suggests that he propagates misinformation. I didn't mean any harm when I showed him some of his recent posts to reveal his inconsistencies, and just like every liar, he didn't want his words brought out into the open for all to see.

I never revealed those quotes out of context, but gave a backdrop before pasting them here to show that I never said anything without a reason for it. That was all I did o and hell broke loose. It isn't by force to say anything on nairaland but if you must, please provide proof. That is one thing Afam never does and it suggests someone who is here with an agenda and want to force-feed others without appealing to the intellect. I was hoping for something better this time and it appears it is too much to ask from someone who is set in his ways. You can check out his last post again and ask him to provide proof and he might end up abusing you.

So you see, while I am for peace, I am not afraid of war.