Another thing would be: If that building did collapse, it sure doesn't look like it'd collapse in on itself to me. It looks like it'd topple over to one side.
Nope look at most nations bombed, it's the same story. It often gets worse the more shots fired. It depends on the munitions and impact used. Russia might be trying to lessen some causality but are knocking out snipers or resistance using their cover. Instead of bunker busting a military installation.
It's a dumb topic. A plane versus that munition type, is a much smaller detonation without any attempted conspiracy.
Naa just send a bunch of typically fat lazy corrupt American construction workers to build for them. They'll pocket all the money and use shite quality substandard materials so then the buildings will fail the first time anything hits them and so will any others they built nearby.
Hey, the weaponized passenger plane thing is a great idea! Even though it never worked before or since, I'm sure every two planes could render at least 3 buildings into dust, and heavily damage two more.
Whoa, even better: put some old fertilizer on board and you can wipe out whole cities!
Unironically, an airliner plane would have a much bigger payload than most missiles. Way more mass, and filled to the brim with flammable fuel.
but jetfuel can't melt steel beams
A fuel-fed fire will blaze for a long time. When trapped in a building, that heat becomes an inferno. The fire can massively weaken the integrity of the supports in the building. With the crushing weight of the rest of the building, it's not hard to believe the building would collapse.
Planes are mostly filled with empty space. The fuel is in two tanks in the fat parts of the wings. In a catastrophic plane crash, at top speed say, maximum destruction, the majority of that fuel burns off in the fireball resulting from crash impact. Fires are then prolonged by whatever other "fuel" is present at the location of the crash which was set alight by it - for example the wreckage of the plane itself and the matter it crashed into. The flammability of that material, and access to oxygen, would be the determining factors as to how long that fire would last.
And every floor would have provided resistance all the way down. Which in turn would slow down. Everything is just not going to give out and crumble to the ground.
Surely that Ukrainian paper mache building outrivaled twin wonders of contemporary engineering and architecture using vastly superior materials.
Dosent seem to be much steel in it
and guess what? NOBODY was killed. riiighttt. this is totally a real war.
what a fucking ruse. manufactured crisis. fake war for the media
Another thing would be: If that building did collapse, it sure doesn't look like it'd collapse in on itself to me. It looks like it'd topple over to one side.
Or perhaps Ukraine builds their high rises to a higher standard than the old WTC?
Nope look at most nations bombed, it's the same story. It often gets worse the more shots fired. It depends on the munitions and impact used. Russia might be trying to lessen some causality but are knocking out snipers or resistance using their cover. Instead of bunker busting a military installation.
It's a dumb topic. A plane versus that munition type, is a much smaller detonation without any attempted conspiracy.
You meant those Mafia made towers, that wobbled in the wind, colliding into a jet full of explosives? Okay
Naa just send a bunch of typically fat lazy corrupt American construction workers to build for them. They'll pocket all the money and use shite quality substandard materials so then the buildings will fail the first time anything hits them and so will any others they built nearby.
Ther'mite more to it!
It needed more jet fuel.
Hey, the weaponized passenger plane thing is a great idea! Even though it never worked before or since, I'm sure every two planes could render at least 3 buildings into dust, and heavily damage two more.
Whoa, even better: put some old fertilizer on board and you can wipe out whole cities!
Unironically, an airliner plane would have a much bigger payload than most missiles. Way more mass, and filled to the brim with flammable fuel.
A fuel-fed fire will blaze for a long time. When trapped in a building, that heat becomes an inferno. The fire can massively weaken the integrity of the supports in the building. With the crushing weight of the rest of the building, it's not hard to believe the building would collapse.
The building becomes it's own blower.
Planes are mostly filled with empty space. The fuel is in two tanks in the fat parts of the wings. In a catastrophic plane crash, at top speed say, maximum destruction, the majority of that fuel burns off in the fireball resulting from crash impact. Fires are then prolonged by whatever other "fuel" is present at the location of the crash which was set alight by it - for example the wreckage of the plane itself and the matter it crashed into. The flammability of that material, and access to oxygen, would be the determining factors as to how long that fire would last.
So what weakened the bottom 80 floors?
The sheer weight and momentum of the top floors crashing down.
And every floor would have provided resistance all the way down. Which in turn would slow down. Everything is just not going to give out and crumble to the ground.
And this is some shitty ass apartment condo lol