Conspiracy theorists
(files.catbox.moe)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
That's not how physics work. The weight of the tower above the impact was supported by the structure below with no problem up until that point. The only force working is the momentum created by the collapse of the few floors where the plane struck - the weight above remains constant.
And even then, what would have happened if the collapse was caused by the crash, is the upper tower would tip to the side of the impact and fall asymmetrically to the side of the building - not fall in its footprint. Such a collapse is textbook controlled demolition with carefully placed detonations going off at just the right time. There is no way this could be reproduced three times in three different buildings having sustained various degrees of damage at random points just by mere accident.
Gtfo with this bs, you're not convincing anyone with your ridiculous lies, jewboy.
The collapse was not caused not caused by the crash, it was caused by jet fuel burning, bending the steel beams supporting the structure of the tower.
I can do some math for you:
Each tower weighed about 500,000 tons. The airplanes hit around floor 80. The towers had 110 floor. About 25% of the tower was above where the airplanes hit. That means that the section of the towers coming down, weighed about 100,000 tons, more than enough to crush the floor below and continue down without losing any momentum, once the support of the structure below gave out.
Genius, the point is the buildings were designed so that the weight above the impact (100.000 tons) would be safely supported by the beams below it. If that weren't the case, the building would collapse under its own weight and wouldn't be viable for exploitation at all. This is basic engineering.
Some of the beams were compromised by the impact and by the jet fuel supposedly. But that's only at the site of the impact and not throughout the whole building. Which means the floors where the beams were intact wouldn't collapse (there was no added weight upon them - they already supported the upper floors with no problem).
The beams would be able to support 100.000 tons yes, but not 100.000 tons falling on top of them, that is the difference.
An example would be if you hold a 100.000 ton anvil above one of the towers, with the same surface area as the towers, and dropped it upon the tower, the beams would not be built to handle this, and the whole tower would end up collapsing from the impact of the anvil dropping on top of it: one floor at the time, each floor collapses in about 1/10 of a second as the weight of the anvil above falls on top of it: in 1 second 10 floors would have collapsed.
This is why I said in the beginning the only difference is the momentum from the couple of floors where the beams got severed. But as we know from the 3rd law of mechanics the force generated from that momentum would eventually be neutralized by the resistance from the floors below where the beams are intact.
No, that's a wrong analogy. Dropping an anvil assumes adding additional weight that isn't part of the structure. That's not the case because no additional weight was added as I stated before. The building wasn't designed to support a 100k ton anvil on top of it, but it was designed to support itself even in the case of structural damage (it could withstand a few planes crashing at it compromising sections of the beams). At this point I have to say you're deliberately skewing the facts and strawmaning.