this is dumb

Ever seen the aftermath of a house fire? Sometimes things you’d never expect make it through ok, and other stuff is completely destroyed. Fire doesn’t operate by a simple set of rules…

Fire does have a set of rules ... and behaviors.  It's how fire inspectors determine causes and origin points.

Rule #1 -- Fire needs 3 things to exist:  Fuel, heat and air/oxygen

Rule #2 -- Fire will follow the path of least resistance where heat, fuel and air are available.

if you browse through any scientific study of fire, you'll see age-old discussions on the chemistry, properties, behaviors and variables that affect fire.

https://www.nist.gov/el/fire-research-division-73300/firegov-fire-service/fire-dynamics

Given that fire is predictable if the variables are known, it's more than possible, for instance, for a home to be utterly incinerated while leaving small, often unprotected, items or areas seemingly untouched. 

As fires burn, they consume the fuel available. I.E. the structure changes.  As doors are destroyed, windows broken and roofs collapse, the balance of fuel and air is always changing. 

In the case of a passport, what if it's in a wooden box inside a drawer inside a desk?  By the time the fire reaches the inside of that wooden box, the fuel, air and heat may have been reduced to such a degree due to rapidly consuming the rest of the house that it can't sustain itself to the same destructive level.

It's difficult to explain why one thing burns totally while another is not burned the exact same way.  Unless you reenact the fire with the same environment and circumstances, it's a futile debate.

What kind of power source would be required to burn down skyscrapers and a thousand homes?

Didn't anyone think it seemed odd that all 3 buildings came straight down when it collapsed like a well planned demolition and all the other buildings around it are still standing today?  Not even a slight tilt coming down which might have severely damage other buildings.   

What kind of power source would be required to burn down skyscrapers and a thousand homes?

the f8cking sun

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CBa5tvBg6BV/

Didn't anyone think it seemed odd that all 3 buildings came straight down when it collapsed like a well planned demolition and all the other buildings around it are still standing today?  Not even a slight tilt coming down which might have severely damage other buildings.   

That's a testament to the engineering and construction of the towers.  They were designed to hold up a massive amount of weight and not fall over. 

The collapse was a domino effect, starting at the top.  Once started, each floor added to the weight and force of the falling debris causing the next floor to buckle and collapse.

The Twin Towers were what engineers call "tube" structures. They had a central steel core, which was connected to the outer load-bearing wall by steel trusses.  The surrounding buildings were nowhere near 110 stories, so their design and construction were much different.  None of those buildings suffered a direct strike from a 737 carrying 10,000 lbs of fuel. 

When asking, "Why did those fall and not every building next the them," you have to remember what the differences were.  Besides the obvious above, they were not underneath the falling floors as they cascaded down.  Therefore, the weight of what the surrounding buildings had to support was not that much more than usual.  Also, they didn't have a tube design with a steel core weakened by an hour of burning fuel and combustibles within the buildings.

Being curious about why things happened the way they did is natural.  Questioning the engineers' answers with nothing more than "that looks odd" will get us nowhere.

That's a testament to the engineering and construction of the towers.  They were designed to hold up a massive amount of weight and not fall over. 

The collapse was a domino effect, starting at the top.  Once started, each floor added to the weight and force of the falling debris causing the next floor to buckle and collapse.

The Twin Towers were what engineers call "tube" structures. They had a central steel core, which was connected to the outer load-bearing wall by steel trusses.  The surrounding buildings were nowhere near 110 stories, so their design and construction were much different.  None of those buildings suffered a direct strike from a 737 carrying 10,000 lbs of fuel. 

When asking, "Why did those fall and not every building next the them," you have to remember what the differences were.  Besides the obvious above, they were not underneath the falling floors as they cascaded down.  Therefore, the weight of what the surrounding buildings had to support was not that much more than usual.  Also, they didn't have a tube design with a steel core weakened by an hour of burning fuel and combustibles within the buildings.

Being curious about why things happened the way they did is natural.  Questioning the engineers' answers with nothing more than "that looks odd" will get us nowhere.

Which is why I brought up WTC7, it's no where as tall as the towers.  And I don't see other like buildings who caught on fire and fell in a similar manner.  NM that it housed the records of the 1 trillion dollars that was "misplaced".

What kind of power source would be required to burn down skyscrapers and a thousand homes?

Same power that lets hover boards go on water. "Hover boards dont go on water...unless you got POOOOWWWWWAAAAHHHHH (Jason Scott Lee)).

Which is why I brought up WTC7, it's no where as tall as the towers.  And I don't see other like buildings who caught on fire and fell in a similar manner.  NM that it housed the records of the 1 trillion dollars that was "misplaced".

47 stories tall.

Built over a Consolidated Edison power substation, creating unique structural design constraints.

... the structure was substantially damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the
World Trade Center collapsed. The debris ignited fires on multiple lower floors of the building,
which continued to burn uncontrolled throughout the afternoon. The building's internal fire
suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires.

The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered cascading failure
of nearby columns throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of
a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. This initiated progressive collapse of the entire
building at 5:21:10 pm

Found this video on Bldg 7

https://rumble.com/v3g2f5q-building-7.html

I wonder if it's more probable that buildings as tall as the towers that fell were designed specifically to "fall into their own footprint."  That way, when it inevitably came time to replace them, removal would be less destructive to adjacent properties?

No building lasts forever, especially with the corner-cutting that seems to go on in construction in certain areas.  We are talking about New York City after all, where bribing city officials and getting contracts by cutting costs (and design specs) have been a common problem for decades.  We just don't build things to last like we did 75-100 years ago.

People like to believe the attacks were coordinated by insiders, but they don't believe the buildings themselves prevented a wider area of destruction.

Something to ponder.

I wonder if it's more probable that buildings as tall as the towers that fell were designed specifically to "fall into their own footprint." 

If they are then I'm never going inside one again.

I wonder if it's more probable that buildings as tall as the towers that fell were designed specifically to "fall into their own footprint."  That way, when it inevitably came time to replace them, removal would be less destructive to adjacent properties?

No building lasts forever, especially with the corner-cutting that seems to go on in construction in certain areas.  We are talking about New York City after all, where bribing city officials and getting contracts by cutting costs (and design specs) have been a common problem for decades.  We just don't build things to last like we did 75-100 years ago.

People like to believe the attacks were coordinated by insiders, but they don't believe the buildings themselves prevented a wider area of destruction.

Something to ponder.

I confess as to being one of the skeptical conspiracy theorist nuts out there and has been all these years.  However your post Flapp has me thinking about this possibility.  Certainly makes a lot of sense.

So I started researching to see if any reports came out that day and the months and months not to mention years that followed that came straight out and said that the WTC buildings were built and designed to implode upon itself whether it be deliberate for new construction or in the case of 9/11, an attack.

Instead of the hundreds of pages of designers and architects detailing out minute by minute as to why the building fell the way they did, why didn't they just say they were designed that way?  And that the fires that resulted from the plane crashes simulated what a typical demolition operation would do?

If it is declared that the buildings were designed to implode upon themselves whether deliberate or through an act of terrorism, I don't think many people would have been as skeptical.

I dunno.  Just my thoughts.  Maybe somewhere in the hundreds of pages of reports and analysis, it was mentioned and I just missed it.

How Building 7 fell is another story.  At least for me it is.

Buildings weren’t designed against progressive collapse until well after 2001. Lots of lessons learned from WTC and other attacks. Like Oklahoma City and those two embassy bombings.

The design of the WTC towers (at least if I recall correctly) were unique for the time. Non-structural skin on outside and skeleton rings/layers interior.  That contributed to how the towers failed.

If they are then I'm never going inside one again.

Because you’d be less dead if the building fell over instead of collapsing vertically?

I confess as to being one of the skeptical conspiracy theorist nuts out there and has been all these years.  However your post Flapp has me thinking about this possibility.  Certainly makes a lot of sense.

So I started researching to see if any reports came out that day and the months and months not to mention years that followed that came straight out and said that the WTC buildings were built and designed to implode upon itself whether it be deliberate for new construction or in the case of 9/11, an attack.

Instead of the hundreds of pages of designers and architects detailing out minute by minute as to why the building fell the way they did, why didn't they just say they were designed that way?  And that the fires that resulted from the plane crashes simulated what a typical demolition operation would do?

If it is declared that the buildings were designed to implode upon themselves whether deliberate or through an act of terrorism, I don't think many people would have been as skeptical.

I dunno.  Just my thoughts.  Maybe somewhere in the hundreds of pages of reports and analysis, it was mentioned and I just missed it.

How Building 7 fell is another story.  At least for me it is.

I suspect the reports don’t say the buildings were designed to collapse into their own footprint because they probably weren’t designed with that in mind.

As I understand it (and I’m not a structural engineer), the sides of the buildings began to bow inward as the fire weakened the structure and the floor(s) began to sag. As each floor collapsed, it pulled the walls of the building inward in a kind of chain reaction.

I suspect the reports don’t say the buildings were designed to collapse into their own footprint because they probably weren’t designed with that in mind.

As I understand it (and I’m not a structural engineer), the sides of the buildings began to bow inward as the fire weakened the structure and the floor(s) began to sag. As each floor collapsed, it pulled the walls of the building inward in a kind of chain reaction.

Either way, we know the design caused them to collapse within their own footprint whether it was a design feature or not.

The result remains a fact even if it was not a specific objective of the chosen design.

There's such a thing as luck even in a disaster, like when my apartment complex exploded.  A couple was saved from the collapsed floor above them by the waterbed frame they were sleeping in.  Not an intended feature, but the design made it happen nonetheless.

FWIW

Because you’d be less dead if the building fell over instead of collapsing vertically?

Dont u know that 1 can outrun a building falling over. Just run left or right and not straight in the path of the shadow.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Because you’d be less dead if the building fell over instead of collapsing vertically?

I’d prefer buildings that were designed to not self destruct.

Demo teams charge big bucks to make them drop like that

I’d prefer buildings that were designed to not self destruct.

Demo teams charge big bucks to make them drop like that

And they made $ on 9/11 on 3 occassions.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk