If you can find my response to daedalus001, I explain the collapse process in detail.
A column can fail in either of two ways: in buckling or in shear. In buckling, it would need enough room and plasticity to bend. If there is no freedom to bend or it is too rigid to bend, then it will fail in shear. It turns out that when a column fails in compressive shear, the break is always at 45 degrees. It turns out that is the angle at which the combined force and the bearing area result in the highest shear value. I have no idea whether demolition explosives are configured this way. I suspect it wouldn't matter. If the column is weakened, that is how it would shear anyway.
Buildings that collapse don't atomize the concrete and don't reduce down to a fraction of their original height. If you compare the truck loads of debris hauled away with what they used to build the towers with, there's no explanation for the vast difference in what was removed during the collapse. They collapse to about 1/3rd of their original height, not to the 6 floor height of what was remaining. Along with the reports of explosions in the basement while the towers were still standing. Who do you work for? CIA or Mossad?
When they go down like a stack of pancakes, they create a lot of dust from the fracturing concrete. I've seen this in a video from the conflict in the Middle East. A bomb or missile hit adjacent to the foundation of a multi-story building, and the building collapsed like a concertina. There is no way that mass was added in the collapse and you probably have a mistaken idea about how much was used to build the Towers. Constructed, they weighed 1.5 million tons (including 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete). Rubble is not a solid mass and will therefore be less dense than the original materials of construction, therefore bulking a larger volume for removal.
"Reports of explosions" are meaningless, as many violent sounds can be mistaken for explosions. What people hear is the shock wave overpressure, and pneumatic compression can create that as well as an explosion. A burst truck tire can sound very impressive. Guns make a similar report.
Your insults just demonstrate that you have no independent foundation for an explanation. I have Occam's Razor on my side.
If you can find my response to daedalus001, I explain the collapse process in detail.
A column can fail in either of two ways: in buckling or in shear. In buckling, it would need enough room and plasticity to bend. If there is no freedom to bend or it is too rigid to bend, then it will fail in shear. It turns out that when a column fails in compressive shear, the break is always at 45 degrees. It turns out that is the angle at which the combined force and the bearing area result in the highest shear value. I have no idea whether demolition explosives are configured this way. I suspect it wouldn't matter. If the column is weakened, that is how it would shear anyway.
Buildings that collapse don't atomize the concrete and don't reduce down to a fraction of their original height. If you compare the truck loads of debris hauled away with what they used to build the towers with, there's no explanation for the vast difference in what was removed during the collapse. They collapse to about 1/3rd of their original height, not to the 6 floor height of what was remaining. Along with the reports of explosions in the basement while the towers were still standing. Who do you work for? CIA or Mossad?
When they go down like a stack of pancakes, they create a lot of dust from the fracturing concrete. I've seen this in a video from the conflict in the Middle East. A bomb or missile hit adjacent to the foundation of a multi-story building, and the building collapsed like a concertina. There is no way that mass was added in the collapse and you probably have a mistaken idea about how much was used to build the Towers. Constructed, they weighed 1.5 million tons (including 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete). Rubble is not a solid mass and will therefore be less dense than the original materials of construction, therefore bulking a larger volume for removal.
"Reports of explosions" are meaningless, as many violent sounds can be mistaken for explosions. What people hear is the shock wave overpressure, and pneumatic compression can create that as well as an explosion. A burst truck tire can sound very impressive. Guns make a similar report.
Your insults just demonstrate that you have no independent foundation for an explanation. I have Occam's Razor on my side.