All valid points. There are points in the other direction too ... the 1968 WTC had a state of the art exoskeleton design, modern fireproof coatings, modern fire suppression systems and I'm sure a few other design advantages over the 1930 empire state building.
As Trump said ... something like "The full truth about 9-11 has yet to be revealed."
the 1968 WTC had a state of the art exoskeleton design, modern fireproof coatings, modern fire suppression systems and I'm sure a few other design advantages over the 1930 empire state building.
Those weren't advantages. The construction of the Empire State Building is solid. The construction of the Twin Towers was like tissue paper by comparison. When the planes hit the towers, the massive engines drove through the outer walls, and the fire was injected into the heart of the buildings. It actually came out the other sides of the buildings. This blew off the flimsy, sprayed-on fire resistant coatings that covered the support steel, allowing the fire to get directly to the steel. The steel was softened by the head, and collapsed, creating a pancake effect.
What really brought down all three towers of the World Trade Center was their design, which was similar. It did not work against fire. It was a faulty design.
All of that, and the construction itself was a very modern suspended floor design that allowed for maximum windows. That is, the floors were suspended around the central column from the corners with no rigid structure in the way old-school girder and panel building were constructed. Break a couple of those floors by mechanical stress and they all start coming down around the center column.
This picture, taken in 1972, illustrates this. The buildings had no interior walls when constructed, so you can literally see right through them. https://pic8.co/sh/z0i5OE.jpg
This is correct. This is why when people say, "but muh steel building", is dumb. Each design brings significant differences. This specific issue is why fire retardant spray is a REQUIREMENT for structural integrity of the building in fires. Additionally it's rating only lasts for specific durations at specific temps. The fires well exceeded the safety margins. Never mind it was over due for replacement and well documented as fraudulently installed (never up to code) in the first place. Additionally, much had come away from the structure, which is why they were due for a complete re-installation. Which was a requirement for their continued insurance coverage.
WTC7 FAGGOT
The construction of the Twin Towers was like tissue paper by comparison.
Steel Exoskeleton design vs aluminum airplane. The exoskeleton sliced those planes like an egg slicer at 250MPH. Each floor was fully supported by the exoskeleton, there were no interior load bearing walls. The planes hit, were sliced and diced by the exoskeleton, blew through the windows, through the whole floor with minimal resistance (cubicles, no heavy load bearing walls, elevator shaft, power/water/communications room) and to some extent emerged out the windows on the other side. I would not call this design tissue paper.
This blew off the flimsy, sprayed-on fire resistant coatings that covered the support steel, allowing the fire to get directly to the steel. The steel was softened by the head, and collapsed, creating a pancake effect.
That IS the official narrative they want everyone to believe so no one bothers to research it more deeply.
Explain Tower 7? No impact, no fire, collapsed in it's own footprint along with the others. Why?
Shortly after the towers were built, there were concerns that the fireproofing - which amounted to mostly spray on retarder - was poorly, improperly, or not even installed.
No one cared of course, that would cost money.
And that premise is the foundation for the official narrative ... impact flaked the old fireproofing off the beams exposing them to the direct heat.
Consider a model of the floors impacted, exoskeleton on the outside. The plane full of fuel crashes into the building, beams slice through the aluminum, parts and fuel fly through the building and blow out the windows on the other side. The fuel dispersion pattern should be wider at the exit side vs entry side. The wind was also fueling the fire and forcing the majority of heat out the leeward side of the building. One would expect major temperature variations on each side of the building. The windward side steel should remain cooler, more fresh, cool air circulates around the exoskeleton on the windward side ... whereas the leeward side is exposed to all of the heat and flame emerging from the building. I would think if any steel beams were to fail first, it would be those beams blanketed in heat and flame, not the windward side that receives cool incoming air over 50% of it's surface area.
So we have a building where the steel exoskeleton supposedly fatigues from heat and collapses. For the building to fall into itself and it's own footprint, all sides of the exoskeleton would need to fail simultaneously lest the tower will naturally lean to the weakest side as it fails, and not fall into it's own footprint ... which didn't happen.
The whole thing reeks of glowies. We'll probably never know the truth about the thing. But that's not really my point, mine was:
1: Even in the 1980s, fireproofing was shown to be a suggestion in most places and was already coming off of beams, not that the beams would burn in the first place... 2: Jet-A, being Kerosene with stuff in, will burn at well over 2000°F when given some airflow, and probably did so because of all the ample polyester, pressboard, and paper present in an office.
I'm not even going to guess at the root causes of the situation. I'm just a bird, after all.
Agreed. Just to hammer my point home using some bullshit napkin math:
180mph * 10tons = 1800 (slowed and in dirty config looking for airport)
350mph * 400 tons = 140000
Obviously these numbers are bullshit, but they do illiterate the massive difference in energy. Tweak the numbers all you like, but the magnitude of scale in difference remains massive no matter which numbers you use.
You are focused on impact energy. The WTC towers wobbled but remained standing after each impact. So the impact itself didn't take them down.
Want to delve into the thermodynamic differences between the two events? Me either. Lots of hard math and assumptions ...
But, if one believes the heat from burning fuel weakened the steel supporting the towers causing their collapse, one must also explain why tower 7 that was neither hit nor on fire, collapsed.
The official narrative doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I admit, this video doesn't provide a direct comparison, just some similarity of events 71 years apart with a much different outcome ... to get people to think about it instead of swallowing the "official narrative." Anons know why they did it ... Patriot Act, DHS, weaponizing govt against the citizens all in preparation of where we are now, and where they want to take us.
7 is the oddball, isn't it? That one should not have come down.
It's irrelevant is if it did or did not. The entire point of my commentary is to highlight that such videos can ONLY destroy credibility of those attempting to present other information. It can serve no other purpose. The simple math is to highlight why this is the case. The difference in energy is like that of a bullet versus explosion. Vast difference. As such, not comparable in the least.
(post is archived)