Checking back, wanted to add some details on this topic.
I think people wanted the investigation reopened, should first read the 11,000 page 4 year study of the NIST report to congress, before calling for the investigation to be reopened.
The question of "why the hell why did they collapse like that?" Brought about a serious scientific investigation conducted by NIST. I'm really disappointed that the makers of that documentary never mentioned NIST.
wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htmwtc.nist.gov/NIST is a major scientific institution which had tons of debris shipped to Gaithersburg Maryland, and did a 4 year investigation of the collapse. There's an 11,000 page summary of how the towers collasped. This report was not mentioned anywhere in that documentary. The organizations they mentioned, such as FEMA, are not scientists. Other engineering organizations were referenced which is good. FEMA's opinion doesn't bare a lot of weight compared to scientific/engineering organizations.
Some of the statements and comparisions are terrible.
*The Steel Net with the Pen was incredibly oversimplified.
What impact does ramming an airplane into a building have on the foundation when the horizontal force is transfered to the ground/foundation? The steel net comparision makes no reference to Netwons 3rd law.
*Aluminum melts at around 660 C, or around 1300 F
The aluminum siding is not going to give any support at all. The 3 nm native oxide layer of aluminum will melt at 2200 F, but a 3 nm layer won't help, it's just too thin. The steel would loose strength and be warped as was stated, +1, that's completely accurate (except for the aluminum).
*The comparision of the furnace running at 1200 F,
The furnance did not have tons and tons of weight warping the hell out of it when it heated up. You cannot compare the structual integrity of a non-load bearring furnance to an unevely heated/warped load bearring structure.
*What happened to the critical column?
That's a very good question. NIST answerwed it 2 years ago.
2004 NIST report
*Claimed that fire cannot hurl metal.
That's an accurate statement, and what about when I take tons of weight, and slam it on an object on a non-flat surface? Does it stay put, or does it shoot off?
*Claimed that the building would take the path of least resistance.
Fluidic flow, electron flow, and other things take the path of least resistance. However a falling object does not. If I drop a penny, with my desk in the way, does the penny take the past of least resistance and move around my desk as it plumets towards the ground? No, and it'll maintain that path, unless something of much greater momentum forces it to move.
*Claimed that a falling building cannot gain speed.
All falling objects accelerate, gain speed, until they hit their own terminal velocity. I'm not going to hunt out the details, in the NIST report, but I understand if the core gets screwed up, the building may fall at the acceleration of gravity. (This is a question I cannot more fully answer at this time).
*The buildings didn't take the same amounts of time to fall.
Did the airplanes hit both buildings at the same floor in the same manner? No? Ok, that statement isn't relevant.
I could keep going, but I think that's enough. You can't make a documentary, expect people to believe it, while you ignor the scientific investigation that was done/make no reference to it.
This was not a horrible documentary, but they failed to make their case in my opinion. Ok screw it, it was fastly lacking.