When you look at this video keep something in mind. Remove a floor and the column it connects to reduces in strength by a factor of 8. Remove 2 floors and the column strength reduces by a factor of 27.
Now put an increased load on it and set the place on fire.
I have a question, if the buildings were destroyed due to fire damage (which has never happened before nor since) then why didn't the core survive as it should of
@danmiddleton7893 The buildings collapsed due to a COMBINATION of temperature AND buckling of the steel structure. The high temperature was a result of the burning fire, and the buckling was a result of the high-velocity impact of the plane. The LOCATION of the plane impact on the structure also determined its fate. The first building to collapse was the second one hit by a plane because the impact was lower down (more weight above the weakened structure), and it was also more off-center.
As far as the fire heating the building goes, shouldn't most of the jet fuel burned up on impact? Wouldn't that leave the fire relatively small?
And if such a small fire really could bring down the towers, why didn't that big fire (30 years ago?) cause the towers to collapse? (And this was before the sprinkler system was installed.)
That's the only part of this I am skeptical of and don't understand.
Salamati, the high velocity of the plane on impact would mean the jet fuel would spread along with the momentum of the plane inside the building, causing it to be rather widespread. One must understand that the collapse of the towers was not a result of temperature alone, it was a combination of temperature and buckling of the structure. The damage to the structure itself was severe, and the fire basically weakened the strength of the steel to hold the weight above the damaged floors.
If you look at north tower just before it falls you will see a massive fire from the crash area to many floors above, the north tower fell 2nd over 1hr after been hit a building this size has never been destroyed so how can people way its not possible
@grenseel I presume the large fireball when the north tower collapsed was due to the air inside the tower blowing the fire outwards as the floors above fell on it. The air had to go somewhere and the only way it could go is out. This air presumably blew outwards the fire.
you guys watch these videos with prejudices, believing before thinking that it is all false.
Look how the towers collapse yourself, as they crock first in the damaged points, all falling then as a consequence.
It does not look like a controlled demolition at all. In this latter cases the buildings fall down all at once with the structure going down in all its parts at the same time.
I agree, you know, i read some comments about all the conspiracy theories and I am amazed and sickened how dumb and insensitive people are. But, it's a free world we live in...everyone has a right to believe what they want. Makes my heart sink and weep when i think of all the people who died there that day.
One of the architects of the WTC said it best when he said if it was a controlled demolition and the collapse started on the floors on the impact how did the explosives survive the impact without being damaged or incinerated to soon?
"..total progressive collapse".....so rare that it's never EVER occured anywhere before or since. What a wonderful free world of propaganda we live in today.
Wait a second, titheelgood. Perhaps it's rare because it's not everyday that a commercial airliner deliberately slams into a high-rise building! I can only imagine the propaganda that you've been exposed to.
Yeah and no building has taken a fully loaded 767 hitting it at 575mph either. That is a pointless remark because the WTC faced a situation UNLIKE any other.
Genghis, you are missing the whole point of the demonstration. The professor is using the model to demonstrate that with intermediate floors missing, the structure will not be able to support the same amount of weight as it would if the floors were still there.
techno is right the model that is shown in the video is both meant as a demonstration and not accurate with regards to the type of material (modulus elasticity is different when you have a structure that is significantly larger)
again, do you want us to rebuild the towers and fill it with office equipment and people and hit them again with planes and see what happens? He is breaking it down part by part showing how they fell, and why each part of the building fell. You obviously do not want to see anything but what you consider "truth"
The core remained standing after the collapse. This is proof of a progressive collapse, as opposed to bombs in the building.
MazJax 3 months ago
When you look at this video keep something in mind. Remove a floor and the column it connects to reduces in strength by a factor of 8. Remove 2 floors and the column strength reduces by a factor of 27.
Now put an increased load on it and set the place on fire.
roquefortfiles 3 months ago
I have a question, if the buildings were destroyed due to fire damage (which has never happened before nor since) then why didn't the core survive as it should of
danmiddleton7893 1 year ago
@danmiddleton7893 The buildings collapsed due to a COMBINATION of temperature AND buckling of the steel structure. The high temperature was a result of the burning fire, and the buckling was a result of the high-velocity impact of the plane. The LOCATION of the plane impact on the structure also determined its fate. The first building to collapse was the second one hit by a plane because the impact was lower down (more weight above the weakened structure), and it was also more off-center.
Techno5555 1 year ago
I just have a couple questions.
As far as the fire heating the building goes, shouldn't most of the jet fuel burned up on impact? Wouldn't that leave the fire relatively small?
And if such a small fire really could bring down the towers, why didn't that big fire (30 years ago?) cause the towers to collapse? (And this was before the sprinkler system was installed.)
That's the only part of this I am skeptical of and don't understand.
salamati7 2 years ago
Salamati, the high velocity of the plane on impact would mean the jet fuel would spread along with the momentum of the plane inside the building, causing it to be rather widespread. One must understand that the collapse of the towers was not a result of temperature alone, it was a combination of temperature and buckling of the structure. The damage to the structure itself was severe, and the fire basically weakened the strength of the steel to hold the weight above the damaged floors.
Techno5555 2 years ago 2
If you look at north tower just before it falls you will see a massive fire from the crash area to many floors above, the north tower fell 2nd over 1hr after been hit a building this size has never been destroyed so how can people way its not possible
grenseel 2 years ago
@grenseel I presume the large fireball when the north tower collapsed was due to the air inside the tower blowing the fire outwards as the floors above fell on it. The air had to go somewhere and the only way it could go is out. This air presumably blew outwards the fire.
mpc1209 10 months ago
you guys watch these videos with prejudices, believing before thinking that it is all false.
Look how the towers collapse yourself, as they crock first in the damaged points, all falling then as a consequence.
It does not look like a controlled demolition at all. In this latter cases the buildings fall down all at once with the structure going down in all its parts at the same time.
gnegno2000 3 years ago
I agree, you know, i read some comments about all the conspiracy theories and I am amazed and sickened how dumb and insensitive people are. But, it's a free world we live in...everyone has a right to believe what they want. Makes my heart sink and weep when i think of all the people who died there that day.
radekbayek 3 years ago
One of the architects of the WTC said it best when he said if it was a controlled demolition and the collapse started on the floors on the impact how did the explosives survive the impact without being damaged or incinerated to soon?
thecandidate0607 2 years ago 2
i was waiting for somebody to actually respond to the "Rosie O'Donald" conspiracy theories
- thanks
YFRPOOL 3 years ago 6
"..total progressive collapse".....so rare that it's never EVER occured anywhere before or since. What a wonderful free world of propaganda we live in today.
titheelgood 4 years ago
Wait a second, titheelgood. Perhaps it's rare because it's not everyday that a commercial airliner deliberately slams into a high-rise building! I can only imagine the propaganda that you've been exposed to.
Techno5555 4 years ago
@titheelgood
Yeah and no building has taken a fully loaded 767 hitting it at 575mph either. That is a pointless remark because the WTC faced a situation UNLIKE any other.
How that is propaganda i fail to see!!
roquefortfiles 1 year ago
this model would have it falling over. it's a crock
genghis6199 5 years ago
Genghis, you are missing the whole point of the demonstration. The professor is using the model to demonstrate that with intermediate floors missing, the structure will not be able to support the same amount of weight as it would if the floors were still there.
Techno5555 5 years ago
techno is right the model that is shown in the video is both meant as a demonstration and not accurate with regards to the type of material (modulus elasticity is different when you have a structure that is significantly larger)
llamagoelz9 4 years ago 6
again, do you want us to rebuild the towers and fill it with office equipment and people and hit them again with planes and see what happens? He is breaking it down part by part showing how they fell, and why each part of the building fell. You obviously do not want to see anything but what you consider "truth"
4220220 3 years ago