People who argue that since that the damage was concentrated at the top of the building it could not have totally collapsed simply do not understand the physics behind momentum. There is a massive difference between supporting a stationary weight, and supporting a falling weight.
From Wikipedia:
Oh, and before someone has a go at me, I used to be a conspiracy theorist. I understand the government doesn't care about me, but there are far better reasons to dislike the government than having to resort to making stuff up.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:While the buildings were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse....and the source: http://web.archive.org/web/2007080923245...-22-07.pdf
Oh, and before someone has a go at me, I used to be a conspiracy theorist. I understand the government doesn't care about me, but there are far better reasons to dislike the government than having to resort to making stuff up.
