Hit 1000 miles on my bike this morning and it got me thinking about 9/11 truthers

So I've been biking every day for the last 4 months and I finally hit the 1000 mile mark today. I was just cruising along and I started thinking about how some people still insist the towers fell because of controlled demolition. My buddy Dave swears by all the steel beam evidence and I told him about the NIST report but he just laughed. Has anyone else had a debate about this where you actually looked into the thermal expansion vs the cutter charges angle?

2 comments

2 Comments

shane_perry2911d ago

Wait, did you say thermal expansion vs cutter charges? That's not really the right way to frame it. The NIST report never claimed thermal expansion alone caused the collapse, it was a combination of things like sagging floors pulling on the columns. And the steel beam evidence I've seen mostly shows that the temperatures weren't high enough to melt steel, but they didn't need to melt it, just weaken it enough to buckle under the weight above. Have you actually looked at the NIST report's section on how the fireproofing got knocked off?

thomas_wright4111d ago

People always want one simple reason for things falling apart, whether it's a building or a relationship or a job. But real life is messy, everything is a chain of small failures piling up until something gives. The fireproofing getting knocked off is a perfect example, it's like when you ignore a tiny crack in your driveway during winter and then spring comes and the whole slab is broken. Nobody wants to believe that something huge can be taken down by a bunch of little things, they'd rather think there was one big sinister plan behind it. It's easier to picture a giant smoking gun than to accept that the world is just a bunch of fragile systems waiting for the right combination of pressure and weakness.