Correct.
I heard figures closer to 30% of the building height should be left standing if it had indeed collapsed the way the official narrative said. But anyway you look at it, it is not 2%!!
Oh and before any one says the planes were full of fuel and this burnt and softened the steel, you're wrong.
Aviation fuel can burn no where near hot enough to melt of even weaken steel.
And no, the airliners would have only been fuelled for the flight they were making, a diversion in case of bad weather to a predetermined airport, and a minimum amount required on landing. When I worked out rough figures, the aircraft hitting the WTC would have had around 1/3rd (possibly slightly more) of max fuel load.
Not only that but in the pancake theory one would expect the pancakes to become detached from the core verticals, and so in the final picture there would remain a central core standing right up to the height of the impact, at least.
This was one of my many red-pill moments about 9/11. How was the rubble pile so small? Most of the 100 floors of each tower were filled with desks, furniture, computers, file cabinets, etc. Not to mention the structure itself.
The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." "But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
Actually, the undamaged floors and foundation compromise 90% of the structure of the North Tower and 78% of the South Tower.
Regardless of the damaged upper sections, they are STILL designed to hold ALL the weight above them.
Think Jenga.
Failure of a few floors at the top would cause that section to pancake and perhaps tip over. but not set off a chain reaction of undamaged floors.
It was a demo. It's clear as day.
100% correct...
Steel beams turning to dust is suspect.........
Correct. I heard figures closer to 30% of the building height should be left standing if it had indeed collapsed the way the official narrative said. But anyway you look at it, it is not 2%!!
Oh and before any one says the planes were full of fuel and this burnt and softened the steel, you're wrong.
Aviation fuel can burn no where near hot enough to melt of even weaken steel.
And no, the airliners would have only been fuelled for the flight they were making, a diversion in case of bad weather to a predetermined airport, and a minimum amount required on landing. When I worked out rough figures, the aircraft hitting the WTC would have had around 1/3rd (possibly slightly more) of max fuel load.
Not only that but in the pancake theory one would expect the pancakes to become detached from the core verticals, and so in the final picture there would remain a central core standing right up to the height of the impact, at least.
The core steels were massively stronger than the outer shell, but they disappeared too. (Remember that column in the rubble with a 45 degree cut in it? - they were snipped with thermite - EDIT: the angle cuts are discussed at length in this debunk piece https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-wtc-9-11-angle-cut-column-not-thermite-cut-later.9469/page-3#posts , doesn't change the implausibility of a plane collapsing each tower completely)
This was one of my many red-pill moments about 9/11. How was the rubble pile so small? Most of the 100 floors of each tower were filled with desks, furniture, computers, file cabinets, etc. Not to mention the structure itself.
The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C." "But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview