Good work. That pretty much seals the deal. Anyone else saying otherwise is a spinster of truth. Two towers being hit allegedly by airplanes and collapsing into their own footprint is statistically impossible.
An important point about the collapsing, and tis applied to WTC7 that was never hit by a plane, is that it happened at "freefall speed."
That means that the floor above, suddenly, did not have anything below it to hold it up. If there was some support then it would need to be bent out of the way and that takes time. Each floor would have added more time to the collapse but that never happened. When the upper floors started moving there was no resistance and there was no resistance over the whole area not just a corner that may have melted.
When a building is demolished using explosives they blow up all the supports below a particular floor at one time. The WTC buildings collapsed just like that and it is not possible to get that level of consistency with a fire..
Doesn't affect what I said. The curtain walls of the Twin Towers would have posed no impediment (they are called "curtain walls" because they are not essentially structural; they are there to hold up the exterior covering). They were thin and mostly glass. The rest of the tower was open space between steel support columns. Read up on the 1945 collision of a B-25 bomber with the Empire State Building. It's not like these things haven't happened before.
But it does show that a very high speed collision can obliterate an airplane into small fragments.
The floors were each an acre of 4" thick concrete. That may have made a dent? There was more concrete in a WTC floor than there was in the block in the phantom test - and the plane must have hit at least two of them.
110 floors, 4" thick so around 36 acre feet of concrete. And wasn't there some steel in there, too?
What did hold the building up? The steel box sections were made out of 5" thick steel at the base.
The outer walls were load-bearing and so WERE essential to the structure.
The other point about "physics" is that, presumably, this is a well-understood and well-known effect? Can you find another instance anywhere in the world where a steel-framed, high-rise building collapsed into its own footprint at free-fall speed due to a fire?
I recall the floors as concrete-clad steel trusses. The acted as blades to slice up the airplane as it penetrated into the building. So also with the columns. I've seen a rather appalling computer simulation of the 767 heading into the building as though it were a potato being diced.
The airplane did not encounter 110 floors, so I don't know what that has to do with the situation.
The vertical columns held the building up. Loss of strength would mean catastrophic collapse.
Yes, there were columns in the exterior wall, but between the columns was mostly window. It wasn't at all like a thick reinforced concrete wall. You really ought to read up on the 1945 B-25 / Empire State Building collision, only suggestive of the greater damage caused by a high speed 767. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
I will leave you this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ
Good work. That pretty much seals the deal. Anyone else saying otherwise is a spinster of truth. Two towers being hit allegedly by airplanes and collapsing into their own footprint is statistically impossible.
An important point about the collapsing, and tis applied to WTC7 that was never hit by a plane, is that it happened at "freefall speed."
That means that the floor above, suddenly, did not have anything below it to hold it up. If there was some support then it would need to be bent out of the way and that takes time. Each floor would have added more time to the collapse but that never happened. When the upper floors started moving there was no resistance and there was no resistance over the whole area not just a corner that may have melted.
When a building is demolished using explosives they blow up all the supports below a particular floor at one time. The WTC buildings collapsed just like that and it is not possible to get that level of consistency with a fire..
That^ my friend is only one of the many fallibility of the 'official' story.
Doesn't affect what I said. The curtain walls of the Twin Towers would have posed no impediment (they are called "curtain walls" because they are not essentially structural; they are there to hold up the exterior covering). They were thin and mostly glass. The rest of the tower was open space between steel support columns. Read up on the 1945 collision of a B-25 bomber with the Empire State Building. It's not like these things haven't happened before.
But it does show that a very high speed collision can obliterate an airplane into small fragments.
The floors were each an acre of 4" thick concrete. That may have made a dent? There was more concrete in a WTC floor than there was in the block in the phantom test - and the plane must have hit at least two of them.
110 floors, 4" thick so around 36 acre feet of concrete. And wasn't there some steel in there, too?
What did hold the building up? The steel box sections were made out of 5" thick steel at the base.
The outer walls were load-bearing and so WERE essential to the structure.
The other point about "physics" is that, presumably, this is a well-understood and well-known effect? Can you find another instance anywhere in the world where a steel-framed, high-rise building collapsed into its own footprint at free-fall speed due to a fire?
This one, for instance, is still standing.
I recall the floors as concrete-clad steel trusses. The acted as blades to slice up the airplane as it penetrated into the building. So also with the columns. I've seen a rather appalling computer simulation of the 767 heading into the building as though it were a potato being diced.
The airplane did not encounter 110 floors, so I don't know what that has to do with the situation.
The vertical columns held the building up. Loss of strength would mean catastrophic collapse.
Yes, there were columns in the exterior wall, but between the columns was mostly window. It wasn't at all like a thick reinforced concrete wall. You really ought to read up on the 1945 B-25 / Empire State Building collision, only suggestive of the greater damage caused by a high speed 767. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash
Have you looked at the vast expanse of glass in WTC1 and WTC2?
Thought not.
As for the 110 floors, something was holding up all that weight. Whatever it was was not trivial in the strength department.