Right?
Deep down, everyone must see the truth by now. That there exists a concerted, organized effort to enslave all of humanity through medical tyranny or by any means necessary.
Most are afraid to admit it. Which is reasonable, because it is terrifying. But if we don't all wake soon, the real terror begins.
The next time I'm talking to someone asleep, I'm going to say this and see what happens.
I can imagine it in theory too, with a frangible material - remove enough material and what remains is simply crushed. Or a shape/form that relies on complete integrity for a great proportion of its strength like a cylinder, demonstrated by standing on a coke-can and denting the side. But I'm not sure these cases apply to the three world trade centres (for the towers most of the strength was in the core, which would have been essentially undamaged by a 'plane). Video: https://files.catbox.moe/pprq2z.mp4
The controversy rages on...
False. The outer shell was just as much the strength of the twin towers as the 47 inner columns. They built them that way for that exact reason. The architect was interviewed discussing it.
I don't know about Building 7's structure.
Ok, I will give you that, kind of. Perhaps I misunderstood the line (from the engineer/architect) "the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building" (insomuch as the lateral stiffness is delegated to the skin alone). But follow along here: the floors would anchor to the core and the skin, and one would expect them to share that load about equally, yes? but there remains the weight of everything inside the core, yes? which would be bourne by the core alone, so it would be reasonably to say that the core carried more of the weight than the skin, would you agree?
So in effect more of the total weight carrying is bourne by the core than the skin, although maybe not more of the total strength (which includes also twist stiffness etc which by design was only bourne by the skin, which was damaged).
Maybe I am splitting hairs, but presumably the skin was more damaged than the core, and the theory was the floors detached from the core and pancaked down, so under those circumstances, wouldn't there still be a core left standing above the pile of destroyed building? (maybe not all the way to the top, but some of it)
I would still wonder about that core not remaining, everything went down. So the controversy remains...
Regarding the twin towers, you could think of them as "a building inside of another building." The inner structure was one structure, and the outer structure was another structure. (It was not merely a "skin," and referring to it that way implies a weakness, which is not valid.)
Each could stand on its own strength. The floors were attched to these two structures. It was a unique design, and the designer made it that way for the specific purpose of (a) being the tallest in the world at that time, they wanted extra strength, and (b) being in New York City, they were concerned that an airplane might hit one of them one day (which had already happened with the Empire State Building. So, it was designed to withstand multiple Boeing 707's -- largest at the time, and about the size of the planes that hit. The designer said a plane hitting it (even multiple planes) would be like sticking a pencil through mosquito netting, not because of the inner structure but because the outer structure was so strong.
There is no chance that the so-called "pancake theory" could be correct. There is no chance that they could just collapse like that. Unless, of course, both inner and outer structures were cut, just as witnesses attested to (seeing and hearing explosions).
Also, they were made of steel (as most skyscrapers are) partly due to heat transfering across the metal in case of fire. Heat does not concentrate in one are, but rather spreads across the structure so it won't concentrate. Therefore, claims that it "just melted" cannot be true.