Reason why the Twin Towers Collapsed 3
Uploader Comments (Techno5555)
Top Comments
-
i was waiting for somebody to actually respond to the "Rosie O'Donald" conspiracy theories
- thanks
-
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)
Video Responses
All Comments (17)
-
The core remained standing after the collapse. This is proof of a progressive collapse, as opposed to bombs in the building.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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!!
-
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
-
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?
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
"..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