I always found the (popular mechanics?) explanation plausible but will straight up concede, especially now, that I don't know.
Immediately after 9-11 you had literal fuckwits like Rosie O'Donnell espouse the theory and say "It is the first time in history fire has melted steel"
This and the sheer scale of the operation of putting shaped charges on every load bearing member on the WTC leads me to believe the "Controlled Demolition" theory was the counter propaganda by the deep state to muddy the waters, associate theorists with literal bloated bags of piss and wind (O'Donnell) and to control the narrative from both sides like they always do.
So:- The engines are massive chunks of extremely hard materials now travelling at Mach 1 with the kinetic energy of a "Dumpster full of crap dropped from space(for shits and giggles).
They are going to penetrate the building regardless of the steel as the I-Beams have large holes in them. The wings vaporize and the full fuel load in the wings is heavy liquid (like water) traveling at Mach 1. It is going to get in and start a hellacious burn./
Tensile strength of steel reaches critical failure point as temperature in the "Oven" of I-Beams and floors increases. Heat can not simply escape like the bridge in the example OP has given. Critical failure. One floor collapses on the next which is weakened too and this continues for several, weakened floors. By the time it hits unweakened floors, (if there is such a thing after this impact) the sheer weight continues collapsing floors in succession.
Also it was not neat at all, there is a fucking tremendously massive cloud of shit raining down.
As for building 7, that is a whole different story that I am not very well versed it.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN ANYMORE
To me this explanation of the main towers collapse is more believable than
"they cut through the dry wall near every support in every floor in the entire building and placed shaped charges on every load bearing member on the main 2 towers without anyone noticing explosives and miles and miles of detonation cord being placed"
I still think it is. But Bin Laden was a CYA asset.
The bridge is facetious I assume, it's not the same situation.
I did watch the 9/11 whistleblowers video, one of the people featured worked for UL who originally certified the steel in the towers. The claim made there was that the certification should have prevented the weakening required for longer than the time that it took to collapse. It's worth watching, it has a lot of good info.
So at least according to that, either the steel was not matching the certification, the certification missed some aspect that allowed the failure, or something else was involved that is not part of the official story.
The idea of a controlled demolition of the towers does seem highly improbable and difficult to undertake. Although there were stories about some unusual "renovations" that had been going on that could have provided some cover for something along these lines.
One thing about the jet fuel - it seems likely to me that it would have flowed into the core and all the various shafts that connect down to lower levels? In fact I thought that was the official theory of what happened. But that would divert the fuel for the fire to other locations than the floors where the planes hit, where it appeared to begin collapsing.
I think I can get behind the idea that "I don't know anything for certain anymore"!
No probs. I believe the unusual renovations were building 7. As for the steel, the steel in our nuclear submarines has been fucked with and the "grade" is insufficient so the steel in the WTC being less the the full bottle is well within the realms of possibility.
You have raised some good points, like the fuel making it's way down shafts and stair wells.
One thing I am sick of is people (like OP) comparing it to situations that are completely different like the bridge in question. (facetious or not, cause you can never tell)
The idea of a controlled demo that is conducted with nobody noticing, is on the surface of it, utterly fucking preposterous.
Re renovations i remember years ago seeing some stuff about some art group that had access to lots of parts of the building and i thought there were renovations or something as well, in the towers.
Re. the fuel, I would imagine there would be huge gaping holes into the elevator shafts and service plenums that go down at least as far as the express levels 1/3 of the way down the building.
But it may be that we never know exactly what happened there, since most of the evidence has been destroyed by this point.
First off I have been down many other rabbit holes that cause me to believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9-11 is an inside job.
Here is a preview for one of them, well worth a watch if you can get your hands on it.
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/featheredcocaine
I always found the (popular mechanics?) explanation plausible but will straight up concede, especially now, that I don't know.
Immediately after 9-11 you had literal fuckwits like Rosie O'Donnell espouse the theory and say "It is the first time in history fire has melted steel"
This and the sheer scale of the operation of putting shaped charges on every load bearing member on the WTC leads me to believe the "Controlled Demolition" theory was the counter propaganda by the deep state to muddy the waters, associate theorists with literal bloated bags of piss and wind (O'Donnell) and to control the narrative from both sides like they always do.
So:- The engines are massive chunks of extremely hard materials now travelling at Mach 1 with the kinetic energy of a "Dumpster full of crap dropped from space(for shits and giggles).
They are going to penetrate the building regardless of the steel as the I-Beams have large holes in them. The wings vaporize and the full fuel load in the wings is heavy liquid (like water) traveling at Mach 1. It is going to get in and start a hellacious burn./
Tensile strength of steel reaches critical failure point as temperature in the "Oven" of I-Beams and floors increases. Heat can not simply escape like the bridge in the example OP has given. Critical failure. One floor collapses on the next which is weakened too and this continues for several, weakened floors. By the time it hits unweakened floors, (if there is such a thing after this impact) the sheer weight continues collapsing floors in succession.
Also it was not neat at all, there is a fucking tremendously massive cloud of shit raining down.
As for building 7, that is a whole different story that I am not very well versed it.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN ANYMORE
To me this explanation of the main towers collapse is more believable than
"they cut through the dry wall near every support in every floor in the entire building and placed shaped charges on every load bearing member on the main 2 towers without anyone noticing explosives and miles and miles of detonation cord being placed"
I still think it is. But Bin Laden was a CYA asset.
Thanks for the detailed answer!
The bridge is facetious I assume, it's not the same situation.
I did watch the 9/11 whistleblowers video, one of the people featured worked for UL who originally certified the steel in the towers. The claim made there was that the certification should have prevented the weakening required for longer than the time that it took to collapse. It's worth watching, it has a lot of good info.
https://odysee.com/@ConspiraciesFromCatholicPerpective:2/911-Whistleblowers-(FULL-DOCUMENTARY-2019):7
So at least according to that, either the steel was not matching the certification, the certification missed some aspect that allowed the failure, or something else was involved that is not part of the official story.
The idea of a controlled demolition of the towers does seem highly improbable and difficult to undertake. Although there were stories about some unusual "renovations" that had been going on that could have provided some cover for something along these lines.
One thing about the jet fuel - it seems likely to me that it would have flowed into the core and all the various shafts that connect down to lower levels? In fact I thought that was the official theory of what happened. But that would divert the fuel for the fire to other locations than the floors where the planes hit, where it appeared to begin collapsing.
I think I can get behind the idea that "I don't know anything for certain anymore"!
Appreciate the response!
No probs. I believe the unusual renovations were building 7. As for the steel, the steel in our nuclear submarines has been fucked with and the "grade" is insufficient so the steel in the WTC being less the the full bottle is well within the realms of possibility.
You have raised some good points, like the fuel making it's way down shafts and stair wells.
One thing I am sick of is people (like OP) comparing it to situations that are completely different like the bridge in question. (facetious or not, cause you can never tell)
The idea of a controlled demo that is conducted with nobody noticing, is on the surface of it, utterly fucking preposterous.
Building 7 on the other hand ?
Re renovations i remember years ago seeing some stuff about some art group that had access to lots of parts of the building and i thought there were renovations or something as well, in the towers.
Re. the fuel, I would imagine there would be huge gaping holes into the elevator shafts and service plenums that go down at least as far as the express levels 1/3 of the way down the building.
But it may be that we never know exactly what happened there, since most of the evidence has been destroyed by this point.
and then there's building 7 ;)