Planes are primarily made of aluminum, which would fold up like a tin can - if it wasn't shredded by the fuel explosion, which it would be. The impact would likely dent a few adjacent steel columns and the explosion would blow partitions, office furniture and other loose objects through metal stud and drywall walls, but as numerous structural engineers have stated the fuel fire would not have melted steel and the impact damage would not have triggered a collapse. Even if upper floors collapsed due to column damage at the point of impact, they would have tilted toward the point if column failure and most definitely NOT result in the perfect packing of the entire structure. The odds of the same exact thing happening to the second tower, due to a different impact location (and presumably velocity and trajectory angle) have got to be extremely high - if not incalcuable.
The simulations of the kinetic process of the airplane colliding with the building resembles cheese going through a slicer. The airplane penetrates most of the building---but the steel columns slice it lengthwise.
The fuel in the fire was essentially kerosene, which has an adiabatic flame temperature of 2,093 C. Iron (steel) has a melting point of 1,538 C. Aluminum has a melting point of 660 C. So, it is credible that the steel may have melted. It is certain that the aluminum would have melted. The flame temperature of burning aluminum vapor (which would evaporate from hot molten aluminum) is 3,732 C (in pure oxygen, lower when in air). If aluminum had been burning, not only would the temperature have been high enough to produce molten steel, it would also produce quantities of aluminum oxide. (In other words, what unwitting people will mistake for "thermite" in the wreckage.)
I suggest the structural engineers are not combustion engineers, or strength of materials engineers. Steel loses a great deal of strength as the temperature gets into the thousands of degrees. As I have elaborated elsewhere in this thread, when the load-bearing strength of the floor column array reduces to the load limit, it only takes one column failure to initiate a chain reaction of column failures, to occur within a few tens of milliseconds. The upper 12 stories would have had no time to tilt as they fell. The collapse proceeded at a steady acceleration of 0.7 g, which meant that the crushed structure was opposing the oncoming load to the extent of 0.3 g.
What happened on 9/11 had nothing to do with "odds." It was possible and it happened. Post-facto expectations to the contrary are only signs of ignorance.
What evidence? No detonations. Presence of aluminum oxide and melted steel accounted for by combustion environment. Diagonal column fractures from shear failure. You've already argued that it should have been impossible for the airplane to do what it did, so how was it possible for the mysterious saboteurs to know how far up to place their demolitions and no farther? But if the airplane was impossible...how was it possible?
You really need to address the question and stop carping about the answers that don't conform to your narrative.
I do not "carp," and you can stop the personal attacks. You don't know me so you have no basis whatsoever for feigning intellectual superiority over me.
I do concede that you made valid points with respect to the combustion temperature of kerosene and the melting points of steel and aluminum. However, your argument that the upper floors would "not have time to lean" is flawed. The Initial impact damage to columns on that floor is unknown, but it is presumably that the force could have dented them a bit. I am not making that argument. Assuming that your assertions about the columns reaching their yield limit due to the heat of the fire, that could only have occured in the columns which were directly or very near the fire itself. Those columns would have bent first before failing completely, and the asymmetric forces one adjacent columns would occur as dominoes falling, in essence. This would absolutely NOT have resulted in a perfect demolition footprint a one 110-story tower -- let alone TWO, also in it's perfect footprint with no asymmetric collapse.
I have seen videos of the controlled demolition explosions going off sequentially toward the ground.
Save your snide remarks for someone who will accept it from you. I will not stop yo your level in that regard. After all, what is the point of creating animosity toward perfect strangers, when we are only addressing our divergent perceptions of what happened? The answer is, there is NO point. Direct your bitterness and feigned intellectual superiority elsewhere.
Not quite -- unless it's a very small planet. Kek
Planes are primarily made of aluminum, which would fold up like a tin can - if it wasn't shredded by the fuel explosion, which it would be. The impact would likely dent a few adjacent steel columns and the explosion would blow partitions, office furniture and other loose objects through metal stud and drywall walls, but as numerous structural engineers have stated the fuel fire would not have melted steel and the impact damage would not have triggered a collapse. Even if upper floors collapsed due to column damage at the point of impact, they would have tilted toward the point if column failure and most definitely NOT result in the perfect packing of the entire structure. The odds of the same exact thing happening to the second tower, due to a different impact location (and presumably velocity and trajectory angle) have got to be extremely high - if not incalcuable.
Just my 17 cents, fren . . .
The simulations of the kinetic process of the airplane colliding with the building resembles cheese going through a slicer. The airplane penetrates most of the building---but the steel columns slice it lengthwise.
The fuel in the fire was essentially kerosene, which has an adiabatic flame temperature of 2,093 C. Iron (steel) has a melting point of 1,538 C. Aluminum has a melting point of 660 C. So, it is credible that the steel may have melted. It is certain that the aluminum would have melted. The flame temperature of burning aluminum vapor (which would evaporate from hot molten aluminum) is 3,732 C (in pure oxygen, lower when in air). If aluminum had been burning, not only would the temperature have been high enough to produce molten steel, it would also produce quantities of aluminum oxide. (In other words, what unwitting people will mistake for "thermite" in the wreckage.)
I suggest the structural engineers are not combustion engineers, or strength of materials engineers. Steel loses a great deal of strength as the temperature gets into the thousands of degrees. As I have elaborated elsewhere in this thread, when the load-bearing strength of the floor column array reduces to the load limit, it only takes one column failure to initiate a chain reaction of column failures, to occur within a few tens of milliseconds. The upper 12 stories would have had no time to tilt as they fell. The collapse proceeded at a steady acceleration of 0.7 g, which meant that the crushed structure was opposing the oncoming load to the extent of 0.3 g.
What happened on 9/11 had nothing to do with "odds." It was possible and it happened. Post-facto expectations to the contrary are only signs of ignorance.
No ignorance here, but nice try.
Controlled demolition evidence is clear.
What evidence? No detonations. Presence of aluminum oxide and melted steel accounted for by combustion environment. Diagonal column fractures from shear failure. You've already argued that it should have been impossible for the airplane to do what it did, so how was it possible for the mysterious saboteurs to know how far up to place their demolitions and no farther? But if the airplane was impossible...how was it possible?
You really need to address the question and stop carping about the answers that don't conform to your narrative.
I do not "carp," and you can stop the personal attacks. You don't know me so you have no basis whatsoever for feigning intellectual superiority over me.
I do concede that you made valid points with respect to the combustion temperature of kerosene and the melting points of steel and aluminum. However, your argument that the upper floors would "not have time to lean" is flawed. The Initial impact damage to columns on that floor is unknown, but it is presumably that the force could have dented them a bit. I am not making that argument. Assuming that your assertions about the columns reaching their yield limit due to the heat of the fire, that could only have occured in the columns which were directly or very near the fire itself. Those columns would have bent first before failing completely, and the asymmetric forces one adjacent columns would occur as dominoes falling, in essence. This would absolutely NOT have resulted in a perfect demolition footprint a one 110-story tower -- let alone TWO, also in it's perfect footprint with no asymmetric collapse.
I have seen videos of the controlled demolition explosions going off sequentially toward the ground.
Save your snide remarks for someone who will accept it from you. I will not stop yo your level in that regard. After all, what is the point of creating animosity toward perfect strangers, when we are only addressing our divergent perceptions of what happened? The answer is, there is NO point. Direct your bitterness and feigned intellectual superiority elsewhere.