Warning. Long, angry post to follow.......
A few points of interest for the topic:
1) Fireproofing. Sure, Some of it was damaged from the impact and whatnot. However, anyone that works in Fire Safety will know that Firewalls and Fire Proofing/Fire Retarding rarely works. The problem with firewalls is that contractors (electricians, plumbers, etc) will poke big holes thru the wall to run pipes, wires, etc. While this is an acceptable practice, they are supposed to fill the extra gap with a heat/flame retardant filler. This rarely happens.
Further, fire retardant material only works when it is applied properly. COMPLETELY. meaning that 100% of any surface must be coated to recommended thickness. If the beam is supposed to have 1" of coating, and somewhere there is only 1/4", than the coating will fail much earlier than it's supposed to. If there is a small spot on the top that wasn't coated because it was hard to get to, it will fail. Further, if someone was running pipes/wires/etc *after* the coating was applied, and damaged the final coating, it becomes ineffective without repairs.
More on that note - Many of the materials used for fireproofing are meant to not exceed temperatures that could be achieved by "room and contents". Jet fuel burns MUCH hotter than Class A Combustibles.
2) The structure. I watched an interview with one of the guys that designed the towers. They were constructed in such a way that they could take the impact of an aircraft....at the time that the towers were built. We now have larger, heavier, faster planes that will do significantly more damage for obvious reasons.
In the same interview, the architect said that the building collapsed just as it was designed. Most skyscapers are built so that should they fail, they will basically implode upon themselves, reducing the chance that a 1000' building will topple sideways.
As for why it crumbled the way that it did...one floor than the next? Anyone that studies construction/collapse can tell you that if the top floor falls in, it exerts more pressure on the next floor down that it was intended to hold...causing it to fail. The subsequent failure of that floor causes a cascading failure of each floor below it as the materials fall.
And finally, I'll address one of the most complete posts from the Gentoo forums. I'll address it in parts as the original author asks many questions, each with their own explanation.
World Trade Center: Why did the towers collapse totally after burning for such a short time?
Again, Jet fuel burns much hotter than the materials were protected against. The architect speculated that the jet fuel got into the elevator shafts, which was supposed to be the strongest portion of the building. Take out the strong parts.... and well, you get the idea.
Again numerous explosions were heard and reported on nation wide TV, but the official version still claims that the towers fell because of the fire burning in the top floors. How come these explosions aren't mentioned anymore?
Perhaps because they weren't bombs? Elevators were suspended hundreds of feet in the air by UNPROTECTED steel cables. I'm guessing that several of them burned free and fell 40,50, 60 stories before crashing into the sub-basements. The fires were burning in the top floors. When the structural supports gave way at the top, the force caused a pancake collapse. When I started in the fire service, I was required to take a 36-hour fire class to become a firefighter. Even at that point, I was well aware of what/how/why a "pancake collapse" is and occurs.
The lobby and the first couple of floors were devestated right after the planes hit the towers. Why would windows brake and why would panels fall off the wall in the lobby when the plaine hit the top floors?
The ventilation and elevator shafts provide a direct outlet for the sudden pressure change in the upper floors. The increase in pressure will release through the simplest means (taking the path of least resistance). High density glass provides more resistance than a sliding aluminum and steel door. Elevator door blown off at the top, pressure follows down, blows the door off at the bottom.
Firefighters made it up to were the fire was burning and thought that they had a chance of putting it out. If these floors would have been a blazing inferno, which would be necessary to bring the towers done (assuming it is possible at all), do you think the firefighters would have thought to be able to fight it?
This is the hardest point for me to address. Not because I think that they thought..... but because as a fellow firefighter, I don't want to think that my "brothers" were too stupid to think about what they were doing before they did it. 343 Firefighters died that day because year after year, they put themselves in harm's way, just to laugh at fate and walk away from fire after fire, in which they should have been seriously injured or killed. We firefighters get to a point at which many have developed a god complex. We're indestructable. We can do anything. We can't be stopped. Those guys lived for the thrill of doing the impossible.
Now, go back a step further. At a point LONG before the towers fell, the chiefs outside figured out "hey this is a bad deal, we can't win" and ordered an evacuation. Due to communication problems (lack of radios, poor reception inside the building{the towers themselves had the radio repeaters on the top floors, which were knocked out in the impacts.}) The guys inside never got the evacuation orders.
As for "do you think the firefighters would have thought to be able to fight it?" I can't tell you that I think they could have put the fire out. I watched on TV as the events unfolded... I thought to myself "man, they're crazy. They'll never get that put out." But I can tell you, 100% certain, that they tried... that I would have too. Despite the odds.
I've been in much smaller buildings that were engulfed in flames, trying to knock out a fire that was threatening to destroy people's lives. I was there trying to save what I could of their belongings. Now you take that a step to the larger scale - can I help save (potentially) thousands of lives? You bet that every firefighter there was gonna try, no matter the cost.
I know I'm probably overly passionate about this topic for some silly reasons. ... but it almost feels like an insult that some crackpot comes up with a theory that our government planted bombs to kill thousands of people, then come up with silly reasons why it happened.
Seriously folks, find someone with an education (in physics, science, construction, etc) that can explain to me why they think a bomb did this. I've got my degree in fire science, which includes physics, construction, mathematics... and I think the bomb theory is a joke.
