Is it possible... (WTC)

That overtime, the WTC's could have lost it's strength up until the attacks?

[edit on 31-8-2006 by BigMoser]

Unless there was some outside force working on it (earthquakes, etc) and causing damage to the columns, I don't think there's any way that it could have. Steel doesn't weaken with time, at least not without a lot more than 30 years. I could be wrong, I'm not a structural engineer or something, but I'm pretty sure there's no way for it to weaken.

Originally posted by BigMoser
That overtime, the WTC's could have lost it's strength up until the attacks?

The towers became frail and vulnerable due to thier age?

frail
1. having delicate health; not robust; weak
2. easily broken or destroyed; fragile.
3. morally weak; easily tempted.

vulnerable 
1. capable of or susceptible to being wounded or hurt
2. open to moral attack, criticism, temptation
3. (of a place) open to assault; difficult to defend

dictionary.com...

[edit on 31-8-2006 by In nothing we trust]

metal fatigue is real.
as a former tow truck guy, whose seen the same boom fold from towing the same weight that it has always towed.

materials.open.ac.uk...

i doubt that the towers 'decided' to undergo catastrophic failure because of simultaneous metal fatigue.

the NIST would've been all over it.

[edit on 31-8-2006 by billybob]

Originally posted by billybob
as a former tow truck guy,

Ha! I knew you were a former tow truck guy billybob!
Nah just razzin you man.
Nah BigMoser, I seriously doubt that the towers fell due to 'old age', even if they had, concrete just doesn't atomize in a fire related free fall collapse, and steel doesn't cut itself into bite sized pieces for easy removal, fatigued or not. Even if had collapsed due to metal fatigue, it wouldn't have been symmetrical.