My thoughts too. Although even an airliner won't bring down a building like that this event was a bad comparison. A much better comparison would be when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945. Did some damage and killed some people but the building never flinched.
I'm familiar with that event. A B-25 weighed 17.5 tons and flew at 230 mph, about a factor of 20 difference in momentum compared to a 767, with a much smaller fuel load. I could shoot you with a .22 and you would look down and say, "What the hell was that?" Or I could shoot you with a 10 mm and you would look down and wonder where your heart went, then collapse. If I shoot a big building with a Big Game Rifle, it will succumb. Rhinos and elephants drop in their tracks. But if you go after them with a .45 Colt, they will drop you in your tracks. Same idea. Folks on this page can't seem to differentiate the effects of magnitude.
You have ignored 100% of the evidence of explosives. Also, the Empire State Building wasn't specifically engineered to be immune to jet planes flying into it.
Flying a huge plane into one side of a building cannot possibly cause the entire building to have explosions on lower levels and drop within its own footprint and leave very little debris. I have seen videos of huge sections of the metal structure dropping through the air and turning to dust midair. Witnesses heard the explosions. All three buildings were controlled demolitions. Before #7 fell, "Lucky" Larry actually said on camera to "pull it," which means to set off the demolition.
No evidence of explosives. You have to consider the chemistry. There is only evidence of melting and combustion of aluminum and iron,
The Empire State Building might not have survived the impact of a large jet airplane. But the Twin Towers did. They stood there for about an hour, before taken down by the effects of the fires.
"Explosions" on lower levels were from the air compression of floor collapses. Does a tire blowout require an "explosion"? It sure sounds like an explosion, doesn't it? So, the people were hearing only that. Yes, you don't expect to hear it because hardly anyone is familiar with what happens in a collapse, but each floor suddenly compressing to, say, a tenth of its previous volume will compress the enclosed air to a pressure of 150 pounds per square inch (or about 10 tons per square foot). What happens to you in the way of that? Not an explosion, but you would not be sensible of any difference. It's called physics.
Catastrophic failure at the crash floor simply propagated downward. The columns at those levels had lost their supporting strength. Failure was immediate, in shear. The downward acceleration of the upper floors created momentum that resulted in even higher compressive loads on the next lower floor, and its immediate failure in shear. The hesitations were on the order of 3 hundredths of a second. Down it goes, accelerating all the way (as observed).
Anything consisting of concrete or similar material would pulverize because such material cannot withstand mechanical stress, so beams covered in such stuff would certainly show pulverization. Reinforced concrete beams could essentially disintegrate. Leaving "very little debris" is an absurd claim. Both buildings shed pulverized debris in a large radius and ended as mounds of debris.
There is no evidence for any demolition. There is only evidence for the catastrophic compression failure by reason of a complete loss of supportive strength in the columns exposed to the fire temperatures.
My thoughts too. Although even an airliner won't bring down a building like that this event was a bad comparison. A much better comparison would be when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945. Did some damage and killed some people but the building never flinched.
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/empire-state-building-plane-crash/
I'm familiar with that event. A B-25 weighed 17.5 tons and flew at 230 mph, about a factor of 20 difference in momentum compared to a 767, with a much smaller fuel load. I could shoot you with a .22 and you would look down and say, "What the hell was that?" Or I could shoot you with a 10 mm and you would look down and wonder where your heart went, then collapse. If I shoot a big building with a Big Game Rifle, it will succumb. Rhinos and elephants drop in their tracks. But if you go after them with a .45 Colt, they will drop you in your tracks. Same idea. Folks on this page can't seem to differentiate the effects of magnitude.
You have ignored 100% of the evidence of explosives. Also, the Empire State Building wasn't specifically engineered to be immune to jet planes flying into it.
Flying a huge plane into one side of a building cannot possibly cause the entire building to have explosions on lower levels and drop within its own footprint and leave very little debris. I have seen videos of huge sections of the metal structure dropping through the air and turning to dust midair. Witnesses heard the explosions. All three buildings were controlled demolitions. Before #7 fell, "Lucky" Larry actually said on camera to "pull it," which means to set off the demolition.
You and everyone here responding to this killer space robot need to recognize 2 things.
You are not going to convince him/it of anything.
He/it is not worth convincing even if you could.
He/it is either a part of the apparatus or simply drunk on its ideology. Or both.
No evidence of explosives. You have to consider the chemistry. There is only evidence of melting and combustion of aluminum and iron,
The Empire State Building might not have survived the impact of a large jet airplane. But the Twin Towers did. They stood there for about an hour, before taken down by the effects of the fires.
"Explosions" on lower levels were from the air compression of floor collapses. Does a tire blowout require an "explosion"? It sure sounds like an explosion, doesn't it? So, the people were hearing only that. Yes, you don't expect to hear it because hardly anyone is familiar with what happens in a collapse, but each floor suddenly compressing to, say, a tenth of its previous volume will compress the enclosed air to a pressure of 150 pounds per square inch (or about 10 tons per square foot). What happens to you in the way of that? Not an explosion, but you would not be sensible of any difference. It's called physics.
Catastrophic failure at the crash floor simply propagated downward. The columns at those levels had lost their supporting strength. Failure was immediate, in shear. The downward acceleration of the upper floors created momentum that resulted in even higher compressive loads on the next lower floor, and its immediate failure in shear. The hesitations were on the order of 3 hundredths of a second. Down it goes, accelerating all the way (as observed).
Anything consisting of concrete or similar material would pulverize because such material cannot withstand mechanical stress, so beams covered in such stuff would certainly show pulverization. Reinforced concrete beams could essentially disintegrate. Leaving "very little debris" is an absurd claim. Both buildings shed pulverized debris in a large radius and ended as mounds of debris.
There is no evidence for any demolition. There is only evidence for the catastrophic compression failure by reason of a complete loss of supportive strength in the columns exposed to the fire temperatures.