Alright, you got me to watch the entire video. You need to ask yourself why you believe that everything that was stated in the video is a fact - and suddenly everything refuting these claims all of a sudden is false.
Let's start with this temperature issue. It doesn't matter what temperature the steel can withstand. That is not the only factor involved in the failure of the steel. Do you understand the huge factor that is pressure!! Try this. Take a lighter to a metal spoon or fork or whatever. See how long it takes for it to bend with nothing acting on it except gravity. Now try the same experiment, but hold both ends of the utensil and attempt to bend it while you are heating it. Guess what?! It's going to bend much more quickly when you help out the process by applying pressure to the weak points. Do you think that 20 or 30 or 40 floors of building might aid in the process of weakening the steel at the explosion point? It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.
I do understand what pressure is. I am an engineering major and have taken my share of phsyics and chem so to avoid anyone else trying to explain things such as gravity to me, it is not necessary. And no I am not trying to be all knowing I am graduating college so I have conquered the world guy. This is but my opinion. Yes the pressure of the thirty some floors above falling down on the lower seventy or so floors would have done some damage to the building but even from your viewpoint, the top of the tower would have teetered one way or the other, not fallen straight down. Even if it did fall straight down those top thirty some floors would not have been enough to bring the rest of the building down. That building was over engineered to withstand almost anything.
They kept talking about secondary explosions happening in the building around ground level or just above. OK. What did that have to do with anything? The building collapsed from the top down, it didn't fail at the bottom. What was the point they were trying to make? They had all these detonations at the bottom of the building, but they must have miscalculated because they didn't aid in bringing the building down. What was the point of the second explosion 9 seconds later? I can think of a million different scenarios where something would heat up and explode after a primary explosion and subsequent fire. Doesn't that make sense to you. Have you ever seen a chemical fire on the news? There are additional explosions all the time. This secondary explosion didn't cause the building to collapse, so what was it? A bomb? Yet another attempt to help make the building collapse that failed?
The point they were trying to make about the secondary explosions is that the entire building wouldnt have fallen if it wasn't in fact for those explosions. Exactly what I said would have happened, the top would fall and maybe damage some of the building but it would not have brought the entire thing down. And yes the second explosion nine seconds later could have been completely insignificant. Like I said, I never said I bought into the entire movie. They speak of the explosions so much in the video because they are trying to say that is what aided the building in falling. There is an interview in there with firefighters that were running from the building as it was falling and were only a block or two away and not only did they escape unscathed but they said they turned around and saw every floor being blown out consecutively. Something a bulding falling wouldnt do, but bombs however...
Now your comment about there not being enough mass above the explosion to cause a symmetrical collapse. Prove this to me!! Show me some equations. I don't need to defend this - I saw it with my own 2 eyes a hundred times. Those buildings came straight down. Just because some idiot wanted publicity and said that this couldn't happen doesn't make it so. When the majority of structural engineers all band together and agree that this couldn't have happened without help, and they show me data to prove their theory, then I will start believing the building was wired with explosives. Once again, why believe this with no evidence? Do you just want this conspiracy to be true? By the way, can you give me one example where a building actually failed and part of it tipped over?
First off there is no evidence of explosives becuase all but 150 pieces of the steel was shipped overseas to be scrapped and recycled. None of the steel was investigated for anything. So I can't give you concrete evidence that there were bombs. And I by no means want this conspiracy to be true, but from the knowledge of physics that I have (not by any means an expert) I just can't see how that building would come down like that without aid.
You say that these theories are hard to refute given all the facts. Once again, why do you believe what was said is factual? Did you take any time to check a single stated fact? I actually heard a guy talking on the radio a couple weeks ago who was part of the initial crew sent in to respond to the Pentagon attack. He said he saw one of the engines of the plane that crashed into the pentagon and said it was definitely the size of a airliner engine. Why go on the radio and make such a claim unless it's true? It doesn't exactly make him look cool or anything. He's on the radio!! They talked about a cruise missile hitting the pentagon, but early on in the video they talk about power lines being knocked down!! Well which one is it??? Did a cruise missile knock down power lines without detonating?
And you are correct I don't know that all of the information presented was factual. However I DID take a lot of time to research some of the things presented on various websites and the vast majority of what I looked up held up. To respond to what that guy said on the radio, yeah ok if he saw the engine then why did the Pentagon say the plane was incinerated upon impact melting the entire plane? People will say anything to be someone. I'm not saying the guy was lying, and there are photos of the wreckage, many of them, none of which have his supposed engine in it. And why did the FBI take all the survielance tapes from surrounding buildings?
Finally the most telling part of this conspiracy is the sheer number of people that would have needed to be involved in the cover up. Think about it!! If everything in that video were true, how many people would have had to know about these events happening? What happened - did the government pay them all a billion dollars to keep their mouth's shut??!! Think about it!!
