Correct. But the fire created by it does create enough heat for the steel to begin to lose strength. This basic fact is learned in any engineering curriculum.
The World Trade Center was supposedly one of the strongest, most well-built, most well engineered buildings in the world. And it was the first time a skyscraper has been felled by a fire, and it happened three times (also tower 7 which was not even hit by a plane), demolition style. Not jet fuel
Disagree. Jet fuel burns at over 1000 C. Steel loses half its strength at only around 600 C. Extrapolate that and the steel has probably lossed close to 60 to 70% of its strength. Couple that with a plane taking out one side of a building's support and you'll have a collapse.
You frame the fact that this would have been the first time a skyscraper succumbed to fire. But you conveniently leave out the structural damage caused by the impact.
I'm with you on say WTC 7 and how that's rife for controlled demolition. But no. The Twin Towers fell due to structural damage and the intense heat of the fire weakening the steel.
So it’s just a coincidence that that tower seven also fell into its own footprint?Three buildings, three perfect falls, demolition-style. Too much of a coincidence for me to get on board with all that. I might agree with you if one of the buildings toppled over, but all three fell perfectly into their own footprint.
(post is archived)