How Did Jet Fuel Melt The Steel Beams In The Twin Towers? | Blowing-Up History
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- When it was completed in 1973, the World Trade Centre was the tallest building in the world, thanks to many of its revolutionary construction methods. But none of these methods was enough to survive the attacks on September 11th where jet fuel fires led to a weakening of the steel that held the structure together, and ultimately caused both buildings to collapse.
Subscribe to Discovery UK for more great clips:
www.youtube.com...
Follow Discovery UK on Twitter:
/ discoveryuk
I'm still amazed at how the black boxes, which are supposedly indestructible, how they were destroyed, but the passport of one of the supposed terrorists- a passport that flew right into the tower inside the plane- how that passport was somehow spit right out of the tower without any burn marks. Now that's pretty incredible.
The passport actually got spat out of the terrorist's pocket, out of the plane, out of the tower and the blazing inferno and landed safely on the ground. Obviously it is the terrorist's passport, whose else cloud it be?
The passport got covered in the fireproofing the plane scraped off before it flew into the FBI’s lap.
I called the New York office of the FBI and asked to talk about the black boxes from the jets of 9/11. To was passed off to the “9/11 expert”. When I asked if the black boxes were ever found, he told me that was a good question but he did not know. He told me he would find out and call me back. This was in 2008. He never called back. “Must have written my number down wrong or lost it all together. Riiight
@@marklafreniere4016 Why would the FBI talk to you about the black boxes anyway?
@@spaken2768
Yea, it’s top secret! National security would be compromised if the FBI talked to me, a reporter or anyone else that took the time to call them. The official story none of the “black” boxes were ever found for United flight 11 and American Airlines 175. Nope never found - first time in “black box” history they were not recovered!
This was the start of all the bull sht world we now live in!
bingo
I agree life was hell after this day
People who knew, such as college physics professors, there was something wrong with the narrative put forth by mainstream media and *CHOSE* to remain silent are mostly responsible for the current situation the United States is in.
People who obey authority without question are responsible for the current situation the United States is in.
Good call.
Well said..
'It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled' - Mark Twain.
Mark Twain was a gr8 man indeed.
wow nice quote mate, copy and paste no originality
@@issac7787 what copy???? He gave credit. He just quoted sth said by a gr8 writer in the past. What's wrong with u??
@@direconsequences5760 if I can have a nickel everytime this quote is pasted on any video that attract conspiracy theorist... I do have at least hundred or thousand nickel by now
ABSOLUTELY TRUE❗️
My favorite part is how the narrator talks like nothing has happened yet, like the towers are still there
They didn't want to spoil the ending for you.
Did jet fuel make it all the way to Building 7 too??
LOL maybe it was from the fumes
@@tayooo1000 lmao!
No but fire did apperentaly 💀
Who knew localised fires and falling debris could make a skyscraper fall in less than 10 seconds perfectly into its own footprint.
@Super JLK there was no sign of damage or fire... until the collapse of it.
For all those who studied this story it's difficult to bear this outrageous BS. I just hope the real culprits will face justice sooner or later.
ruclips.net/video/6LFwWXkvUOw/видео.html
Dan Black - What seems to be the problem?
never happens
because
crimes of blue star flag are never investigated in the US
@@MFitz12 troll. How many times have you actually suckered people into your BS? A&E911Truth has disproven all of your nonsense here in the comments. A&E911 sources are credible, and trump your arguments. It's now a legal process issue. I will not be intimidated by you. You are not interested in what actually happened at the WTC complex on 9-11. You will die with that bs narrative, and burn in hell with it
@@MFitz12 the repeated lies.
Brought to you by the U.S. department of propaganda.
yep
Bahaha
This was uploaded by a British channel tho
💯
You want to feel so WOKE that you probably thought of getting your eyelids surgically removed huh...Stop PRETENDING you even have a Clue Sir...People do not think you are COOL for PRETENDING to know what happened...Time to grow up...Be well
Wrong title…. Jet fuel which is burning in open air is not able to melt steel. Melting steel requires far higher temperatures. But it will definitely weaken constructions considerably.
Wrong title indeed. Correct title should be "how did nanothermite melt steel beams?"...
What you mean?
The title is asking the question. It’s not stating jet fuel melted the steel is asking if it was possible. Try to read correctly before commenting.
@@forbello my point is that the steel beams did not melt because the burning jet fuel does not reach the temperatures to make that happen. The beams weakened and collapsed under the weight but did not melt. The title suggests that the beams melted and is incorrect for that reason. It would have been correct if it read: “Did the steel beams melt [….]?”
@@forbello > asking if it was possible
No it's asserting, the asking title would be "Did the jet fuel melt steel beams?"
The title itself, without the rest, is already factually wrong. Based on a wrong premise.
You can call that a mistake, we call that manipulation.
@@sinekonata nanothermite is an explosive/propellant not an incendiary like traditional thermite, i.e. it doesn’t slow burn and melt structures like traditional thermite, if used it would act closer to a normal explosive.
Most of the jetfuel would’ve exploded on impact, so the idea of a significant amount dripping down to the other floors is strange. Also, yes the impact area would have temperatures hot enough to bend the steel, but that temperature isn’t uniform throughout the building. So not all the steel is compromised, and this doesn’t explain the presence of molten steel found at ground zero, or the footage where there is thermite present.
Good for you. You know people have read your comment. I on the other hand have spent a considerable amount of time going into details elaborating what you have stated. For me I don’t know what is going on. For example I talk about the molten steel dripping from the south tower just before it collapsed. I explain that if it was molten Aluminum, the droplets would have formed a silvery skin way before they fell twenty floors, and that with video analysis we can see that the droplets are still orange twenty floors below the source. Yet, I get zero response! No thumbs up no thumbs down, no agreement comments, no disagreement comments! Nothing! 😳😂😂
@Common Sense Realist the better question is ( how in the fq did the airplane fly into the building and turn the steel beams into butter as it entered, and left nothing after entering. The wings, tail, and others not only didnt fall apart from the hull, but also melted into the building.
There was molten steel that burned for over 3 weeks under 1, 2 and 7... Not only there but there was molten steel dripping out of the towers.... which is not possible.
@@awashburn6944 Cause molten steel doesn't look anything like the other things you mentioned. As well, molten steel was burning under towers 1, 2 and 7 for over 2 weeks, some say as long as 4 weeks but I don't about about that for sure. None of the other towers, had that under them, just 1, 2 and 7...
@@awashburn6944 I guess it could have been anything in those towers. tin, aluminum but it was mostly make of Steel...
Either way, it doesn't matter cause a plane can not make that happen. So, that means these were ignited most likely on impact.
Amazing that some steel beams left at ground zero looked like they were cut clean through at an angle. Now, I know jet fuel can be hot, but I didn't know it could cut through steel at a perfect angle.
Some columns (not beams) at ground zero were cut clean through at an angle. That process started on October 7th when workers using thermal lances started clearing the base tridents as part of the debris removal process in the rubble pile.
@@MFitz12 I disagree. I think that the steel columns had been clean cut through because of thermite. This is common with a thermite explosion. Cuts clean through steel. If it was jet fuel that caused it, it wouldn't have been a clean cut. Weeks after the 11th, there was still molten steel, a pool of molten steel still burning hot like it had been that day. No way jet fuel can make steel so hot it burns for weeks. We're talking 3000° here. We know jet fuel is only capable of burning at 1500°. Steel melts at 2700°. And molten steel burned for weeks after 9/11. This defies science.
@@cs-7 You can disagree all you want but the evidence won't support you in the least and in the end it only matters what reality was, not what you want it to be.
@@MFitz12
@@seizetheday8298 - Are you referring to the core columns at the base of the North Tower that were cut on 10/29/01 during the debris removal process by workers with thermal lances? I hardly see how that is going to help you understand building collapse mechanisms but Donald Friedman, an engineer on site during the cleanup describes the process in his book if you are interested.
This video melts my intelligence
So do conspiracy theorists
Lol
@@Charlie-fu6ep I’d love to hear your theory
@@andrewyoung4275 hijacked planes flew into a building designed with old design flaws. Made before the planes that flew into them even existed.
The truth is more scary then so called conspiracies. There is no reason to think of a reason, because there is none. And wear your mask.
@@Frietuurs they got lucky though didn’t they two planes 3 buildings they didn’t even have to worry about being intercepted by fighters!
no one talks about building number 7. which also collapsed beautifully from a simple fire near twins
It wasn't one "simple" fire, it was multiple fires that spread throughout the building _without a drop of water put on them._ You are also ignoring the massive damage caused when the collapsing towers impacted it! The firefighters who were there described a 20-story gash torn out of 7's south face with "fire on nearly all floors."
@@Buy_Bitcoin21 “Skyscrapers require explosives at all core columns to be taken down. It's basic physics kid.” That’s neither basic physics nor true. Considering the core columns were not monolithic lengths of steel and changed shape and location going up through the towers you wouldn’t have had to compromise every single column to eliminate their ability to support the building.
@@Hello-ts5kh The core column system was 47 columns tied together laterally. Thus, the 47 columns were 1 column. The columns were 54"x22" and had 4in thick walls. This tier of columns ran from the anchor plates in bedrock 7 storey's below ground level through the 66th storey. This tier of core columns could carry the entire weight of the tower. A tower weighted 500,000t.
You don't know what you're talking about!
@@JasonHickerson-rr7ic no once again you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should really stop trying to have these arguments with me. Unless you’re saying the entire 500000t could be held by a single core column I don’t think you understand my above comment.
@@Hello-ts5kh LMFAO!!!... THE CORE COLUMN SYSTEM HAS 47 COLUMNS ACTING AS ONE. UNTIL I TOLD YOU, YOU HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE DIMENSIONS THAT I'VE SHARED HERE WITH YOU!
In their test they are focusing a flame that is so hot that its entirely blue, focused on a single spot of steel with not compromised fireproofing but abosultley no fireproofing coat, situated conveniently and directly under the weight. Is this what happened to building 7 when it didn't get hit by a plane?
What do you think happens when a building had over 500,000 tons falling onto it
@@sluxy3736 over 500,000 tons? The rooftop area was 3003 m2. If we were to put 500,000 tons of water (1 cubic meter = 1 ton) on that surface area it would have to be 166.5 m tall. You are a troll
@@lukeforsyth792 no each tower weight about 250,000 tons each so even if one tower had collapsed the outcome could be predicted to be almost the same
Lllloooooolllll, perfect!!!
@@sluxy3736 there's no point trying to argue with them mate, they don't care about facts or evidence, only pushing an immensely flawed narrative with no ground to stand on, just to make them feel special. You're wasting your time if you think anything can change their minds. He is in fact, the troll.
Firefighters at the scene saw melting steel dripping down on the outside of the towers and at ground zero several days later. Burning fuel can weaken steel but it cannot melt steel.
Actually that report came from inside Building 6.
Elevator improvement project ... paint the beams with nano thermite which can be ignited by jet fuel and once lit burns at 2800 Degrees more than enough to cut through the steel . I much more believe the Fire men then the Government liars
How about jet fuel,
More dangerous than ordinary fuel.
@@bradhardy2629 - And when you tested that hypothesis how did that work out?
Did it match the obvious and visible collapse initiation mechanism of sagging floor trusses in the impact and fire zones causing the inward bowing of some of the perimeter columns by up to 5 feet until they buckled?
@@MFitz12 you think your $10 word's mean you know what you're talking about. Cause someone else already said what you typed . Just another MSM Opinion. I worked for the Railroad for year's and watched and helped the Welders. Thermite welding the ribbon rail ends together. Once the ignition part lights the thermite. The WHITE HOT Metal is poured into a bonding mold to fuse the rail together. If you added copper to the mix it would cut instead of bond. Copper deposits were indeed found on the WTC cut through areas of the steel beams in the elevator shafts. Funny how most of the wreckage was shipped to a secure location and then to a smelter in China. No chance of a leak .huh. not...
"Its like that time the US governmemt attacked itself to get oil"
Edit: and things other than oil
Why tho? there is a shit load of oil in North America? Especially in Alaska. I’m from Australia and I know our government and their government are willing to do very nefarious things but I just don’t get the motivation for oil if you already have so much where you live.
@@shawnhorning2125 Not sure myself to be honest, but a lot of sketchy shit took place before, during and after 9/11. A common theory which i cannot verify is that shifting the blame onto the talibans was a convincing way to establish a terror threat, one that could be dealt with by using more surveilance and harsch, outright illegal techniques.
@@isakjohansson7134 didn’t the states help the Taliban when they were at war with the USSR? I don’t understand why they would attack the US. I’m confused.
@@shawnhorning2125 i havent done any research on that so i dont really know but the US government is clearly able and willing to do messed up things.
@@isakjohansson7134 so why didn’t the taliban claim the attack if it wasn’t them?
Next time , you want to do demolition work on building just pump the jet fuel / kerosene into the building. No need to hire professional. The world tallest building demolished so clean just like perfect demolition work .
And In its own foot print
Ive never seen a better controlled demolition...
TWICE!!! and forget 7.
Y’all are stupid as hell
Forgot about the 80+ ton weight of the plane hitting it at height and most of the weight sitting up there... doesn't need to be a nuclear scientist to understand this.
It’s great to see people talking sense in the comments.
They will have us believe a few burning beams are going to take down 3 whole buildings? If people are that naive, I don't know if we humans have any chance of... well... any chance of a future at all. It's amazing to me the nonsense people will swallow up.
Lol
@@crafty4722 So the lower beams are 4 inches thick and strong but the ones at the top were only a 1/4 inch thick???
They will have us believe the weak beams on top, took out the 4 inch beams on the bottom?
Are they Kidding me? Really?
Falling at nearly free fall? You might like to notice that the liberated debris is out pacing the collapse by quite a wide margin.
two planes caused 3 buildings to turn to dust? bullshit.
A better question would be how the jet fuel didn’t melt the magic passport, asbestos again? Lol
Ask the real questions lol
@Dee Their expecting a magical response to a not so magical result as to how this could happen. TruthERS don’t exactly understand mathematics or statistical probabilities, so the reasonable explanation you gave is hard to comprehend. You see, this video has very damming evidence that shows what happens to unprotected steel in an intense inferno. Thus when a argument/point is debunked the TruthER simply moves to the next argument/point.....only to again be debunked. It’s kinda like rinse, wash and repeat. Unfortunately they’ve wandered into the dark with ZERO light and I don’t expect they can find a way out to reach clarity. Whether that’s by design or on purpose is the real debate here yea? Myself, I’ve given up trying to explain reason to the ‘9/11 was an inside job’ ass hats. It’s best you do the same because as I said, they’re wandering in the dark denying help from the light by keeping their eyes closed.
Keep in Mohamed Atta was flying the plane, so notion that it flew out on to the streets isn’t far-fetched at all. But since his crazy mom has called the United States liars and that her son is alive fuels the conspiracy dodo brains. He was in the cockpit yea? Well, in the real world he was...So, there is a very strong probability that parts of him and or things on or brought with him blew through the building onto the streets. Simple and probable
ASBESTOS : It is non-flammable and non-combustible and has a melting point of around 1600 degrees Fahrenheit.
It got up to 1,000 degrees in many places.
SO more than enough for steel to lose 50% strength (around 600 degrees) and 90% strength (1,000 degrees) but not enough to 'melt' asbestos.
That's why. "Lol"
LOL because it was made out of some alien material and not paper
The jet fuel had the same properties as the magic bullet where the fuel jumped from the towers to building 7
kerosene MAX burn temp is only 900c in a STOCHIOMATIC mixture. these guys are heating the beams with propane, which burns twice as hot
@@farmerx165 And they're focusing the energy on one area of the beams.
@@scottvines4093 beam... singular. They're focusing the heat on one spot on a single beam, but the buildings fell straight down in less than 10 seconds. This isn't science, it's a magic show.
@@scottvines4093 lots of energy too... what a joke
Yes...a cloaked Romulan Warbird hit it. Doesn't anyone know that?
Airline pilots said that it was impossible for the planes to reach 500 mph at that altitude because of the thickness of the air !!!
Source: trust me dude!
By the way, this event is the proof that it is possible. It is on record, you can calculate their speed yourself.
@@juzoli that is the complete oppisite way to look at it
@@tomgreenleaf1918 Yes, I’m looking at facts, and draw conclusions. You have your conclusions already, and make up facts.
Watch the video frame by frame, and calculate.
No i meant you say it's proof because it happened, when you should look at it the opposite way, and not blindly trust what you are told@@juzoli
@@tomgreenleaf1918 That’s the point. “Airline pilots said” -> this is what you are told. You shouldn’t trust it. This happens to be a question which can be easily researched by an individual.
Everytime I see this video, it refreshes my anger.. not of those who committed the act, but those that are trying to hide the reality of the act. We’ve all grown up watching all the effort it takes to drop a building into its own footprint. Serious predemolition work cutting steel beams setting det cord to explosives all timed exactly to ensure there’s no tipping of the buildings and destroying nearby buildings and property. In our minds eye, we see this construction of both towers and the angle of each aluminum aircraft slicing into its associated tower. One really near the top floors and the other in the mid section. Yet both towers dropped to their footprints as if exactly on cue. A few thousand Americans lost their lives... but that’s the cost of doing business with the powerful money hungry elite. The BIG PICTURE of Iraqi oil sits on the other side of the globe.. we need control of that resource.. we need to fire up the American people, get em mad at someone.. we need a war. Mr president, we need you out of the picture.. plausible deniability. A school, reading to children.. that’s a good cover. We’ll handle everything. The cogs of the American government were put on notice. Both towers need to go. 100% destruction. These towers, if we are to believe were hit in different places at different trajectories yet both collapsed in their footprints rather than slicing off their tops and tilting towards the least resistance... you’re incredibly stupid.
@Christian DiPaola WTC 7 was brought down by fire and it was burning for 7 hours, it was partially damaged by debris falling from the north tower when it came down. A firefighter I know Mickey Kross was one of the first responders on the scene looking for survivors, everyone was working, looking up at building 7, working, looking up, and it wasn’t until someone said run that it started to give way
@Christian DiPaola How can an aluminum airplane do the deed? I am simply not buying the official government fable!!!
@@lemmythebulldog8812 Chumpy: sure.
And what about Barry?
He stepped over dead people.
The firefighters who saved him and mr Hess from building 7 warned him not to look down.
Plus: a 100 meter wide building does not collapse symmetrically due to fire.
It is seriously ridiculous to think that a fire could weaken all of the supporting structure over a 100 meter wide building in such a way that it would collapse symmetrically.
Not even a braindead child would believe such nonsense.
@@lemmythebulldog8812 hey Chumpy: is it because Barry was black and mr Hess was white that we do not believe nor hear anything about Barry anymore?
He gave his eye witness account just after he was rescued on that day.
He also backed it up in a different interview.
But when MSM got involved, he backed off.
He got scared.
So, Chumpy. Tell us: Is this man full of lies?
The black guy telling his story right after he got rescued is lying but the white guy is telling the truth here?
Come on now.
Im white.
But im ashamed of being white. Because of people defending such obvious manipulation of evidence and testimony.
That guy from loose Change showed it. And he was right to show it.
And you can not take it out of context.
It is exactly as it is said there.
Barry stepped over corpses.
And he did hear explosions before any of the 2 towers came down.
But because he is black, and mr Hess is white and has more powerful friends..... that is why we dont hear Barry's story much.
@@lemmythebulldog8812 There is no way a fire can demolish a building like building 7 and to have it come down symmetrically.
Meaning: All 4 corners of the 100 meter wide building started falling at the same time.
Simple.
There is no way that a fire can do that.
Else demolition companies would not have to plan ahead. Would not have to use explosives.
Would be out of a job, basically.
It is seriously ridiculous to even think a fire could do that.
We have simulations of almost everything.
but there is not a single realistic simulation of what happened to these buildings.
Yet we have very realistic simulations for other stuff.
Even a child understands that if he puts a block of wood ontop of another block of wood..... the top block wont just fall down through the lower block as if there was no lower block.
And that is what happened.
In all cases.
The top section fell as if there was no lower block.
No resistance.
No Jolt what so ever.
No slowing down.
Try to achieve that while hammering in a nail into wood.
Try to have the hammerhead keep its speed while driving in the nail. In 1 strike.
What a nonsense bullshit.
Don't forget about explosions you could see before free fall and first hand witnesses stating you could here explosions long before the towers collapsed.
Not disagreeing with you at all. I do remember people talking about lower level explosions occurring, probably basement pipes. Who knows, so many conspiracies.
@@jrkarmagetubih Worth looking into the William Rodriguez account, since he was in the basement.
@@nemac23 Thanks
That was the fire being flushed out from the buildings Collapsing
@@milesanderson8088 Nope, there were explosions before the first plane hit.
Hey how did a fire bring down building 7 .. do that one next !
And where's the plane that hit pentagon?
@@isakjohansson7134 Or even so much as a wheel from a plane out in that field, just a deep crater, like a tomahawk missile hit. No debris field of plane parts and bodies. It would scatter all over that area. Just look at any other plane crash, makes a huge and obvious mess. Who the hell is held captive by a utility knife?
"Hey how did a fire bring down building 7 .. do that one next !" - It's been done many times. Stop being ignorant.
@@Steve-O_FPV Cool. So 130+ eye witnesses saw what exactly?
Oh Yeah that one. Well a bunch of molten hot jelly beans fell from the towers on to it causing its structure to give way... Umm yeah nothing to see here keep moving.
Rest in peace to those who died
My respect goes out to their loved ones
I am so sorry
Thank you to those who tried saving another life during this including firefighters, police officers, nurses and doctors 🕊🤍
Thank you to those who built the World Trade Center as well 💛💛
Hope they are doing well currently
Same here, I spoke to a WTC worker who worked on the 82nd floor and lives in the Bronx
Was bodies ever recovered /verified on #93 ?
The fact that they can literally sit here at the beginning and explain how strong the building was constructed, and then with a straight face try and debunk the construction with office fires is HILARIOUS 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You forgot something.
It wasn’t simply office fires planes going fast mixed with thin Columns and no fire proof equates to the beams giving way
im still waiting on the "VID" on how we wound up boots on ground next-day......id sure like the tell all/expose on that "operation"
Jackson - October 7th.
All while pretending that buildings free fall without help.
Nothing has changed they do exactly what they want no matter the cost of life
Why do they do this?
@@aurora9252 oil maybe
@@aurora9252 Because they can.
@@aurora9252 because they're republicans
What makes your life mean more then progression?
What a terrible example with the can. So you're telling me they built these buildings knowing that if a single column is weakened the entire structure will come down with 1000s of people in it? Of course not.
That's not what happened. The point of the can demonstration: The walls are incredibly strong as long as they remain properly aligned; once they begin to buckle the strength is lost.
Do you know metaphors?
Steve Lion - That was not at all what the can demonstration was about. It was about how structural integrity degrades with column buckling.
@@AgentEvo metaphors work when the example you use replicates exactly with the real world situation. Did yall know the first plane hit floors 93-99 and the second hit 77-85 thats about 6 to 7 floors on fire (which conveniently ceiling sprinklers didn't work that day) but you say less than 10 floors on fire will bring down the other 90+ that were intact?.. engineers build buildings with that very purpose in mind to where if one column fails the others have enough strength to support the structure, WTC7 was hit with debris yet fell perfectly uniformly of course that makes a ton of 'can sense metaphors'.. also check the empire state building plane crash of 1945. After that NYC builders literally made the case to build 'plane crash proof buildings' in case of an accident including the twin towers.. look into it.
@@LIROELQBREGA the only people gullible enough to beLIEve this tripe are those absolutely indoctrinated into buying establishment lies.
Now do Building 7
Fires. You're welcome. Anything else?
@@TheMiddleClassholes stay asleep. No jet fuel in building seven. It fell in a controlled demolition.
@@boboleary6607 Oh, so you're saying that the fire department was in on the plot? That's a wild accusation if I say so myself.
@@TheMiddleClassholes I did not say that. I said the building fell on its own footprint. It wasn’t hit by a plane or jet fuel. The only answer is controlled demolition. Physics says what you believe is impossible.
@@boboleary6607 So you weren't aware that the FDNY evaluated building 7's condition and determined that it was unstable and eventually going to collapse?
I don’t think they processed the amount of heat they would receive from this video
epic comment :)
tower 7?
CRICKETS. YES.
Imagine building something for 10 years, 30 years later it falls in 10 seconds
Those buildings were due for major renovations. Top of the list was safe removal of asbestos insulation. The cost of which alone would rival total rebuild as a more cost effective option if the buildings no longer existed. Did Lucky Larry get the clean up bill or was that federal responsibility. There was also massive investment to be made in technical upgrades. CIA/Mossad to the rescue.
With help from explosives
It is always easier to destroy than it is to build.
@@gbonkers666 like everything in life
@@charleswest6372 omfg 🤡
How does weakened steel perpetuate the building to collapse on its own footprint? What is the explanation for the second tower falling first? How did some firefighters and police officers alike have priemtive knowledge that the buildings would collapse, including building 7?
How does 1/3 of the building find the energy to destroy the other 2/3 of the structure below, in such a symmetrical fasion that BOTH building fall in their own footprint?
Thw debunkers of years past have always claimed jet fuel falling into the elevator shafts. Never have they mentioned aluminum water explosions.
Even so, how do the planes reach the molten temperatures required and how do they maintain that temperature long enough to severely weaken the structure to the point of symmetrical collapse near free fall speeds, TWICE!?
Then there's building 7 which was never hit. The official "narrative" always will be a joke on humanity. There wasn't enough energy from the top 1/3 to ever crush the lower 2/3rds into its own footprint so perfectly. Plus, why wouldn't the "terrorists" want to tip the buildings over? Red flag it was preplanned by the U.S. Gov't and friends.
The second tower fell first because the plane hit the tower on a lower point than the north tower. That means the south tower had to carry much more weight.
lol. They didn’t fall in their own footprint. And no the firefighters did not have preemptive knowledge that the buildings would collapse. Stop spreading stupid conspiracy theories.
The buildings had spikes up the middle, they guided the upper part to fall as seen. As for the tempretures, the aircraft was aluminium, the building was steel, thats the ingrediants to make thermite, and the incredible pressures resulting in the impact would start that reaction meaning large amounts of the structure got destroyed leaving it with just enough to hold it, but when those remaining structures got hot, they became softer and unable to hold the weight of the upper floors after a certain amount of time which was determined by the amount of weight, hence the building hit lower failed 1st despite being hit 2nd.
.
This is cute, but the science isn't there the top of the buildings should have toppled over not pancaked all the way to the ground.
Absolutely agree.. I watched the documentary and not one demolision expert said it was jet fuel. All of them said it was Thermite and they showed the difference and it looks just like what happened when it came down..
There’s no way they could get thermite to all the locations and time it out. The sounds you hear are the pancaking floors. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Why then add the complexity of getting onto a plane, holding people hostage and flying into the building? That’s not sound logic and not sound science.
@@MissLilyputt to attack countries for oil
Structural steel weakens at 425 C and loses half of its strength at 650 C. The fires from a 90,000 L jet fuel fucking Molotov essentially were burning rapidly for around an hour weakened the steel support beams. Them weakening combined with the immense vertical load from the sheer mass of the towers caused the steel beams to bow outward, causing the floor by floor collapse that was witnessed. I could go on explaining the ton capacity of each floor and how the domino effect collapse occurred in more detail, but I realized there’s no way to change someone’s mind like you.
Nope. Why? It was the only way such a Tube Structure would collapse. It was peeled like a banana, because the perimeter columns were pulled inwards destroying the first lightweight floors on their way down, their connections to the perimeter walls. Without those walls, the WTC was doomed. The WTC was very strong, but only if everything was intact.
But the fire was NOT through the entirety of either structure. The cold, hard, thick steel columns below the fires, which were designed to support every floor above them, were un damaged. This explains neither the molten (liquid) steel pouring out of the tower(s) while they were still standing, nor the molten steel seen for months at ground zero after they collapsed. I’d say this is weak journalism, but they know what they’re doing.
*”The cold, hard, thick steel columns below the fires, which were designed to support every floor above them”* Ummm…no! That is not how they were designed. The columns themselves had zero to do with directly supporting the floors. The floors were only supported by the truss seats. All the floors in the WTC had the same load capacity with exception to the 3 mech floors. The load capacity was 6 floors worth of dynamic weight or 12 static. Once 6 or more floors worth of weight started down NOTHING below was going to stop it. This is a mathematical and engineering fact…
@@Oldschooldan1 Burning jet fuel AKA kerosene doesn't even get close to melting steel. Steel melts at around 2.2k ° Kerosene would only reach a burning temperature of around 1/2 of that. Wake up People. It was a NWO FALSE FLAG EVENT. War = $ and always follow the $ . The military industrial complex made out like bastard rats over this event.
FACTS
@@tillyloustinkypoo3457 *"Burning jet fuel AKA kerosene doesn't even get close to melting steel."* Steel loses half its strength at 1100F. The jet fuel induced fires burned 1800F. Steel does not have to melt to fail. REAL FACTS!
@@Oldschooldan1 Ok, what about the dozens of floors below the fires where the steel didn't even get hot. How exactly did they collapse to dust at freefall speed? Are we expected to believe that a 450 tonne plane knocked down a 250,000 tonne building like skittles?
@@TruthTortoise81 *”what about the dozens of floors below the fires where the steel didn't even get hot.”* What about them? I will repeat myself and point out the fact that all the floors had the same load capacity and that capacity was 12 floors worth of static weight or 6 dynamic. Drop more than 6 floors onto any floor below and the collapse will progress all the way to the ground. This is an engineering and mathematical fact.
*”How exactly did they collapse to dust”* No steel turned to dust only light weight concrete, glass and gypsum. These were the majority of the elements that made up the dust. No steel was found in the dust samples.
*”freefall speed”* No bldg. fell at free fall and free fall is not speed, but a measure of acceleration.
Your lack of knowledge about the construction of the towers and the day’s events is quite humorous….
This is a black comedy doc yes? I can't wait for the Building 7 episode, that should be hilarious!
"How the bbc reporter knew building 7 would fall before it did"
@@janetairlines1351 Yes among many other curios anomalies......
@I'm that guy
Because they're seven hour's ahead of the US 😂
Um. It's pretty easy to understand the collapse of that building. It wasn’t a controlled demolition
@@joshb3425 So what was it Josh, please inform us how it just collapsed like a controlled demolition due to some office furniture smoldering away?
Frankly incredible that they are testing "...floor beams indentical to those used in the twin towers", which are completely different to the trusses that were actually used, which you can actually see in images shown in the film. Even the voice over calls them 'beams' and 'trusses' interchangeably, when a beam is a different object to a truss. The trusses were even more susceptible to weakening through fire as they are not solid beams.
Yeah, this is not a documentary but a propaganda film attempting to mislead the public that the collapse has nothing to do with the design of the building.
Just about every info here is inaccurate like how 767 is much larger than 707 which is just plain false as they are about the same size and weight.
@@tonamg53No they aren't. Look up the actual specs of the planes. Plus, what does it matter. The building survived the plane impacts just fine.
@@johneckert1365 From Page 6 chapter 1 Final report on the collapse of WTC towers:
“An additional load, stated by The Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a *Boeing 707* the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at its *full speed of 600 mph*
Do you want me to slap your face even harder by copying the spec of 707-320, the largest plane when they were designing the building at the time or are you done pretending to be a Koala?
@@tonamg53so what you're saying is, when someone claims that their product will do something, this will always be correct? Never seen a bridge collapse, for instance? An Iphone taking water damage despite being IP*6/7 certified? Never had an experience with something that was claimed to handle something, but turned out not to? Never had a bad meal at a restaurant? No? Oh, must be a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people in the know who somehow all manage to stay silent and not leak any information to the public then. Yeah that sounds way more plausible than a terrorist attack by religious and cultural zealots and a combination of unfortunate coincidences causing an over-engineered and over-ambitious building to collapse...
please excuse yourself for stating 600 mph @@tonamg53
This experiment doesnt satisfy me
Explain to us how the building next to the twin towers fell just like a scheduled demolition.
Progressive collapse. The water main feeding the fire risers for WTC 7 ran underneath towers 1 & 2. It was severed in the collapses. In addition WTC 7 was hollowed out from falling wreckage making it weak throughout the structure. The Vierndel redundancy was compromised. Once the fire weakened enough of WTC 7 it gave way.
You got your answer lol
@@susbox5554 😂
@@joshb3425 progressive collapse? You have got to be shitting me? The whole fuckin building came down at nearly free fall speed into its own footprint. All the columns failed at the same time? The fires were not even that bad and there is no reason all the core columns could’ve gave way simultaneously unless it was controlled demolition. Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC 7 and leaseholder of the complex admitted 7 was pulled, which is a term for controlled demolition despite what these experts on these documentaries say. He wasn’t talking about the firemen because they weren’t in the building fighting the fire since you said it yourself there was no water to extinguish the blaze. The firemen and police in the area did get final notice of a countdown as to when 7 was going to come down. Now why would they need a countdown if the time of the “collapse” if it merely fell from fire. They wouldn’t have known for sure if it was coming down. Just because 1 and 2 came down didn’t mean 7 would, despite it having some fires on a few floors, not enough to bring the building down though. Giuliani’s bunker was in there as well as many other government agencies. The University of Alaska Fairbanks conducted a 4 year study on WTC 7, headed up by Dr. Leroy Hulsey. His team constructed a computer model, using the original blueprints and concluded fire and minimal structural damage done to the building could not have caused its total demise. Wake up. Every building with the World Trade Center label was destroyed that day. The propaganda is not convincing any one anymore. People are awake.
@@themaverickfiles2020 there was a massive gash in 1 side that was 7 stories long and DEEP into the building and was on fire all day. Jesus u need to get a life if u think that was controlled. Idiots like u need to rethink life
Thanks for explaining that jet fuel was not the cause of molten steel reported by everyone cleaning up ground zero.
20000 gallons of jet fuel fire and office furniture combined with broken windows Fanning the flames
50 cubic yards of jet fuel on a 2,160,000 cubic yard tower, yes, not the reason
especially when the 2 are put in scale
ruclips.net/video/JEkVsj88Xsg/видео.html
@@cherkas009 ruclips.net/video/HLW0_wCYyqY/видео.html
Actually investigators said they found traces of thermite at ground zero… look it up… thermite is the ONLY thing hot enough to cut through steel beams.. for instance and I know this is going to sound corny but hear me out.. you ever play rainbow six siege? The character Thermite can cut through reinforced steel.. the ONLY character to do that.. and his name is literally Thermite… not why would investigators find traces of thermite at ground zero if this was an true untouched terrorist attack
@@jayking8182 yes
It didn’t ‘melt’ the steel beams, it weakened the steel beams.
Are you from Purgatory Iron Shills ?
@@Larry26-f1w I’m afraid not . I’m from the real world not from Conspiristan.
The heat demonstrated on the beam was concentrated on a single spot. Of course, something will bend like that. But if you look at the way the building was falling. It looked similar to implosion and concentrated. The heat from jet fuel does not melt metal like that.
exactly and notice how the "beam" fell, it sounded like another type of metal used for this documentary, heavy steel doesnt bounce/sound like that
@@DeBassHeadI'm assuming you've applied thousands of degrees of heat to steel beams then?
The 47 columns in the center of each tower are four inch thick steel plates at the bottom. I have welded 4" steel plate. They thin out to 2" thick at the top. You can burn five times the amount of jet fuel a 767 carries and never get 2" plate hot enough to bend, let alone melt and fall 1,000 feet, while turning into dust! It would take 1,000 times more heat energy than that plane contained to destroy those 47 columns.
@@HarvesterYT I have cut, welded, and fabricated steel from sheet metal to 5" plate for 37 years. This video is smoke, mirrors and bullshit. There was 400,000 TONS of steel in those two towers, yet only 50,000 tons were hauled away. It takes a LOT of energy to make a ton of steel "vaporize", multiply that times 350,000.
They keep talking about the cross beams, what about the 47 core columns, they just disintiegrate. See the film Up From Zero to see how large they are.
the scale of bullsh.. this documentary emanates is almost overwhelming.
ruclips.net/video/qgfvn4X-h00/видео.html molten steel. explain that you fu..
There is no way fire can destroy concrete and steel. The steel was incased in concrete. This was a inside job. These towers were blew up from the top of down.
@@GalaxyBoss7 Well said. I reject any inside job claim because I sat in front of my television watching how the whole saga unfold, including the planes flying into the buildings. I saw it with my own eyes. End of story. I have no explanation for building 7, but thats all.
@@GalaxyBoss7 Wow you sure added a lot in there. Of course planes hit the twin towers, and they collapsed. The government gained nothing? Are you high bro? Also, the government struggling to bring explosives into the buildings? Lol. I watched Stephen Paddock bring an insane amount of guns and ammo into the Mandalay Bay and he is just one dude. I watched a movie something like Man on Wire where a guy sneaks in with people into the towers and sets it up so he can wirewalk between them. Give your government some credit. Whats more outrageous is the thought that some people who dont know shit about 767s invented this plan to hijack some planes and smash them into a tower thinking it would collapse, when that has never happened in history. Wow how amazing. And then out of as I heard some witness in one of many videos exclaim, hundreds of thousands of papers were falling from the sky! They find the passport lol. Shut up dude.
@@ronalddanner1792 Nonsense.
Passenger Jet fuel will be JetA. It is similar to a high grade kerosine. You could say it is a very light cut of diesel fuel for those not experienced with kerosine.Moving along, liquid JetA would be fuel for basic combustibles. Wood, paper, furniture, etc.. Without pure oxygen, it cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Period.
The black smoke might provide a clue to the lack of oxygen and therefore to the fire temperatures possible. The blow torch in the program has oxygen supplied to an optimum ratio to achieve its temperature. I'll bet that most people, having seen such programs, are satisfied that all the questions have been answered, not noticing that the question in the title (melt) was never addressed- much less answered. Anyone can wear a hard hat and then authoritatively--but selectively answer designed incomplete questions.
@@josephboxmeyer5730 Right. I mean, there wasnt even real fires at WTC. Can you see flames in that building? I cant
I still don't understand with all that happened, how is this not a national holiday of remembrance. Instead, we have pride month.
right I don’t think we should have work / school on 9/11
Does Pride make you feel threatened?
@Tim22222 : Nope. The lack of importance that really matters to America is what's threatening. Who gives a shit about people being gay. Let them be, but celebrating it doesn't seem something that important to me. Pretty soon, we'll be celebrating waking up day, or the sun set today day, or heterosexual month. It's not important.
@@darkknightlight "Pretty soon, we'll be celebrating heterosexual month. It's not important."
Strange that...because "heterosexual day" is celebrated every single day of the year, in ads and tv shows and movies and everything else you see around you. So, if it's so "not important", why aren't you protesting against that being the case?
@mooneyes2k478 : Nope, not protesting any of it. It's not important. I just don't give a shit. An attack on our country is important. That is what I care about. I was just making a point. I noticed you didn't use the other examples to make your point, just the one that struck a nerve. As far as the whole pride thing, I don't know if you noticed it's everywhere now. On TV, magazines, Disneyland, stores, in schools it's everywhere now. It's becoming the norm. To me, it's not important, just like being heterosexual, who cares. Let's start having a memorial for lives lost and the attacks on the USA 🇺🇸. That is important.
How did jet fuel melt the steel beams in the twin towers?
It didn't.
Jet fuel nor fire melted any steel beams. The high temperatures generated weakened the steel's structural integrity, leading to it buckling under the weight of the floors above.
@@andrewl.9736 .your reply is so simple and true.amazing the people who don't believe in gravity lol
@@Herecomesthethruth I can guarantee you there was not enough heat generated to weaken the steel that far below where the impact happened. Most of it was vaporized on impact. I believe the firefighters who said they heard and saw explosions going up and down the building before it collapsed. You can see the same thing in the world trade center 7 footage. Those buildings were brought down using pre-planted cutter charges.
@@andrewl.9736 There are several other examples of similarly constructed skyscrapers which burned out of control for many hours without collapsing.
Nope, but thermate sure did.... JUSTICE NOW
What about the fact that people inside the buildings heard explosions.
the plane exploded?
Barry Jennings, who heard explosions when he was trapped in the building "died" on the hospital two days before the NIST explenation, he was apparently in good shape before this, wierd isnt it.
@@isakjohansson7134 but this sound of explosion could be the tons of steel collapsing on each other. what i find odd is that 500 scientist said its not an inside job while another 3000 said the investigation wasnt done properly
@@doni654321 those building would not have collapsed line that, if at all, especially not building 7 which Barry was in.
Well I mean an airplane just crashed into a building you think it’s gonna be quite?
This dude’s little demonstration with the cans proved that what we saw was a controlled demolition. The beams do not bend uniformly at the exact same time they will go every which way in the building with topple over not collapse inward
No. It did not prove controlled demo. You're welcome.
Wrong dude!! Every single gravity load in the building is directed straight down to the foundation. There is more than enough space for the building to fall through itself. We're not talking about a stack of bricks.
@@roquefortfiles enough space?. Sure thats why it's collapsing like a volcano.
@@thomasbrevink No. It is collapsing like a volcano because the floors are being stripped off the exterior walls. No lateral support? the walls can't stand. They peel off outward like banana. The rest of the concrete and dry wall is being pulverized. The floors were 4 inches of light grade concrete.
@@roquefortfiles I don't understand, you are saying that the connection between the floor and the exterior walls failed. How does this meet with the official story that the floors were bending and pulled the outer wall in? The connection is intact OR it fails, it cannot be both.
8 years of college down the drain when he slices his hand open on that 50 cent aluminum can for demonstration purposes
This video jusifies Student Loans Forgiveness
The aluminum can example is very accurate!!. Has nothing to do with beer cans. The example illustrates how the columns work.
@@roquefortfiles
Yep but the can shot out to the side, the towers both fell straight down at free fall velocity, couldn’t have happened without the lower part of the tower somehow 🤔 being weakened as the collapse took place.
@@brucemitch928 Not at all. The structure below is ONLY designed for static loading. It is not designed for Dynamic loading in the gravity direction. And 24 stories collectively failing is a gigantic Dynamic load. The fact he couldn't hold the can in place is irrelevant. The fact it failed when the side was buckled is relevant. What you got here is called thin wall buckling. The exterior wall of the WTC was a...... thin wall
@@roquefortfiles
But surely the weight of the upper structure would have diminished at an equal rate to the lower structure it was acting on therefore the collapse should have stopped way before ground level…..that’s ignoring the speed achieved by the upper section which would have us believe there was little or no resistance by the undamaged lower section.
This is a cover up to real crime scene
7:42 EVEN if this process of collapse could be proven, it will NEVER happen at the speed of FREE FALL. No amount of debate/arguments and pseudo "simulations" could ever break the laws of PHYSICS!
here here
I think it was a fast-motion simulation.
It didn't actually collapse at free fall. It collapsed a few seconds slower than free fall, in line with what computer simulations predict for the floors breaking away and collapsing as the floors above them fall.
@@YourLoyalDeserter The computer simulations are bullshit and didn't include the whole of building 7. NIST's work has been criticized heavily. You're not telling the whole story as it is.
@@StillTrustNo1 "Criticized heavily" by truther idiots with less than 100 functioning brain cells, yes.
It warms my heart reading the comments, critical thinking is not dead and the people are not blind. We still call out bullshit when we see it.
Critical thinking? Lol, whatever helps you sleep at night.
No. Critical thinking involves actual thought. It is not random speculation that we see here.
@@fredjones7705so you are giving your self assessment?
Or are you the (un-)official YT comments section moderator for this particular “hit-piece”…?
Bc Fred,
You are all up and down in this here comments section…
lol 😮
Or is my observation of your presence being “all up and down in this comment section “ speculation as well…?
@@ToeKnee7613 You'd need to be more specific before I could answer properely. Yes I debunk truthers. Several reasons. I actually knew 2 people who died there.
One was a travel agent and one was a security guard. In 2004 I started seeing an explosion of nonsense regarding the attacks. By 2008 it was totally out of control. Then in 2010 it became possible to track the origin of comments. Appearently it was possible before but they made it easy. In 2010-2014 60% of truther cpmments originated in the middle east and 20% came from russia.
I used to love outing russians and it was easy. They'd always say "my friend" in their comments. They'd also mess up syntax in ways an American wouldn't. They're a lot better now but there's not nearly as many as there used to be but I still find them. Your's is also a bit off. Where are you commenting from if you don't mind me asking? I don't think you're russian.
So many Conspiracy theorists who are structural engineering experts 😂😂😂 have some humility and self awareness you ignorant losers.
If there was an explosion when theyhit the towers, how would jet fuel be able to pour anywhere? Its highly flammable which means the jet fuel would have ignited during the initial impact.
When you light liquid alcohol or kerosene does all of the liquid burn immediately?
@@TheQsanity Does a airplane run off of kerosene or alcohol?
@@milwaukeechris4603 Jet fuel is kerosene on steroids, and yeah it's highly flammable, and yeah, logically, most of it would have evaporated with the fireball witnessed upon the impact. A college professor (Steven Jones?) stated the black smoke, is indicative of 'oxygen deprivation', i.e. not enough oxygen for fires to continue for the next dozen hours or so.
@@pellergin if Steven Jones told you you wouldn’t die if you jumped off a building backwards, would you do it?
@@milwaukeechris4603 yes it does run on kerosene...
Didn’t just melt steel but evaporated it. Pretty impressive.
Nano thermite.
In close videos of the towers you can see steal melting down like mud
ruclips.net/video/Qamecech9m4/видео.html
@@Avegotem it wasn't steel, it was aluminum
@@Avegotem Did you examine the melting materials? It could be copper from all the wires melting.. but most likely tons of aluminium from the plane. All sorts of material there that could melt (framework for the inside walls etc.)
Man, if that architect was alive to see that his creation was destroyed by a bunch of idiots, he would have be so heart broken.
He was alive and watched it happen.
@@fredjones7705 No he wasn't. Minoru Yamasaki died in 86.
@@nomad1517 You are correct. I was thinking of the chief engineer.
I was thinking the same thing.
@@nomad1517 Did you know that David Rockefeller was the mind behind the WTC Project? He presented the idea in 1949.
I like how all of a sudden everyone becomes a structural engineer and knows what the melting point of steel is or is not.
And by that forgetting that steel does not have to melt at all to lose its structural strength
I like how everyone explains the pentagon being hit in the exact room where they are investigating the 3 trillion dollar shortage from the countrys coffers.
@@williamgee6654 there wasn’t a $3 trillion shortage, and DoD financial audits aren’t confined to one physical office.
Its called research it's what some people do to get accurate information to put pieces together to make sense, something most don't do cause their lazy and just believe what the government tells them. Try it sometime you be surprised how much you learn this far could be lies.
@@dp9948 yeah, but people can also do a great job convincing themselves out of the truth by doing bad research on subjects they already don’t understand very well. You can find biased yet seemingly authoritative sources on just about any subject thanks to the internet. If you already lack the background to determine what is reasonable it’s easy to develop beliefs that don’t comply with reality, hence the underground nuke and directed energy weapon wing of the conspiracy movement.
my main goal is to blow up....... and earn enough money to rebuild the towers, buy 767’s and simulate the attacks again
Lmfao😭😭😭
I'm with u😏
Count me in, I'll fly the airplane for you, lol
the only way to know for sure.
....and then act like you don’t know nobody 😅
They already lied! The exteriour skin does not support most of the weight.
really appreciate Discovery UK to keep the comments on for these kind of subjects. got more guts than Sky, bbc, guardian and few more like itv news.
Yup, it’s almost worth a like. I chose dislike because this deserves the ratio too.
I have never seen so many improbable events happen in a single morning
Not only was a good portion of the fire-proofing bond disjointed/eliminated, 95% of the kerosene in the fuel for the jet aircraft was burnt up, nearly immediately.
Yes 90% burned within the first 30 seconds. Considering that the 767 had 80,000 pounds of fuel on board that only left 8,000 pounds or 4 tons of fuel to torch the buildings.
@@fredjones7705 How much fuel was in those planes at the moment of impact?
Right. And 6 floors were instantly set on fire. That's 6 acres of fire. And the sprinkler system was rendered inert from the collision.
none the less kerosene does not get hot enough to melt steel
@@denasewell Nobody said it melted steel. And it doesn't need to melt
"Towers were designed to take direct hit from Boeing 707 at any point, without causing major structural damage." Max fuel capacity and weight of smallest B707 is 65.600l/112t, flights that hit WTC had similar specifications.
Ok, but that's irrelevant in the scope of things. Air regs state that max speed below 10 000ft is 250kts, this aircraft was double that speed. Simple physics will tell you that if two identical aircraft crash into a building, with one flying at 250 kts, the other at 500kts, it will have 4x the energy of the 250kt aircraft. Sure, it could handle the hit of a 767/707 at 250kts, but this was like getting hit by an A380 at 250kts.
@@codaalive5076 saying it could take a hit from a jet was the dishonest part.
Obviously it couldn't.
Lord knows engineers have never been wrong about the real capabilities of their design. Buildings can collapse under their own weight without a jumbo jet crashing into them
The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.
They couldn't model what the fuel would do in 1966 because they didn't have the fluid dynamics simulations we have now. Sure the building could survive the impact and it did. For about an hour until the fuel fed fire unpicked the rest.
@@codaalive5076 The Pyramids and the WTC share nothing remotely in common design wise. Retarded example!!
So for me not to be a conspiracy theorist all I have to do is accept what I’m told? Might aswell just switch your brain off
YOUR BRAIN WAS NOT SWITCHED ON TO BEGIN WITH.
@@johnshaw8228 says the Wikipedia level expert?!
You don't have to "Just accept" anything, but use a level of understanding, and determine for yourself if you agree with what's being said. Given that I'm about to finish a degree in Engineering, and Strength of Materials is something I'm studying and have a strong understanding of, I could have predicted the outcome of his experiment at the beginning of the video, so by applying my knowledge of structure mechanics and strength of materials, I believe/agree with what is being said in this video, and can visualise and understand why the heat caused the beams to bend and fail, it actually has a name, its called Creep, which is essentially where a heated material will plastically deform (Plastic deformation basically mean it's permanently deformed) Creep occurs below the yield strength of the material, Lead will fail due to creep at room temperature. Therefor, when the steel is heated, even though it has the same load to support, it becomes soft so to speak, and begins to creep, the material will continue to creep overtime until it eventually fails, hence why the towers did not collapse instantaneously when struck by the plane.
Now obviously you don't have to agree with what I've just said, but you don't need a degree in Engineering to understand how heating a material can soften it and cause it fail even under very small loads. The structure was not designed to withstand such high temperatures, or to withstand being struck by an aircraft of that size.
@@elliotlaw1590 have you ever really looked into the actual collapses in depth? You might find it interesting with the degree you are doing. One thing I struggle to understand is if the towers fell due to heat and then the floors collapsing I’d imagine a lot of the buildings contents would be trapped between each floor as it fell to ground level and I would expect a pile of debris would you not agree that’s what you would expect? But what we have is most of the buildings contents gone they didn’t find much and how could parts of the lobby still be standing if the buildings collapsed down with all that mass and not crush them? And off course there’s building 7 that’s interesting too.
@@awashburn6944 on both buildings parts of the lobby was still standing think we’ve all seen those iconic photos so if the building is collapsing in a pancake fashion why was the lobby not crushed?
Building 7 got so scared seeing the towers fall it collapsed in on itself
lmao! So I guess the whole building just melted? Then building 7 melted too. Makes perfect sense.
Since fire destroys tens of thousands of buildings every year, yes.
@@MFitz12
WE CAUCASEAN PEOPLE MUST ARM OURSELVES FOR THE COMMING RACE WAR.
I was assigned to monitor the collapse of the buildings but I took a nap.
@@shillhunter2.074 wow calm down mate what did I ever do to you?
And tower 7 ?
157 people combined on two aircraft and (one) passport effortlessly floats down to the sidewalk in perfect condition to conveniently identify (one) pilot? so what happened to the other 156? Now That's Magical.
@@awashburn6944 You do realize that comment just hit the top shelf of a new level of ignorance right? One passport survives all this destruction to float effortlessly in perfect condition to land on a sidewalk blocks away to (conveniently) identify (one) pilot? (Seriously) now thats one magical passport even in a childs mind.
@@awashburn6944 Its not weird it's downright absurd and defies logic at any level of explanation ... in other words (impossible) it's on the same level as telling someone to walk across Niagra Falls.
@@awashburn6944 ruclips.net/video/9-PQXN3n-xs/видео.html
@@awashburn6944 You have no idea how many passports were on that flight and it was mandatory to have a passport to board any flight inside the continental USA back then. Regardless you missed the point by a donkey's age. (its Impossible) end of explanation.
@@awashburn6944 What's also absurd is when the BBC reporter live on network television claimed building #7 had collapsed as it stood behind her for over half an hour. There seems to be two realities going on here. one where people believe the passport story to be true and #7 collapsed even tho it wasn't hit by anything. ... this level of stupidity boggles the mind
you know the weird thing is that 2.3 trillion dollars went missing from the government on the 10th just one day before 9/11 happened and then a fire fighter came out and said that there was TNT inside all seven buildings
Bot??
No it didn’t.
$2.3 trillion was “missing” from the Pentagon eh? That seems like an awful lot of money. Do you even have any concept of how much money that is? That’s the entire defense budget for FY1992 through FY1999, so the Pentagon did not pay any soldiers, buy and tanks, ships, planes, bullets or guns for 8 years!
You would think someone would have noticed.
Did anyone check under the cushions on the sofa?
Point of fact: No money was ever _missing_
On 9/10/2001 then SecDef Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech about an ongoing audit that was being hampered by the Pentagon’s scores of outdated and incompatible accounting systems that don’t/can’t talk to each other.
_Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track 2.3 trillion dollars in _*_transactions_*_ . We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building. Because it's stored on dozens of different technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible._ - Donald Rumsfeld
The $2.3 trillion dollars was a sum total for _transactions_ that couldn’t be tracked because of outdated and incompatible accounting systems. So $2.3 trillion is merely the total value of transactions included in the audit. This is an accounting problem. It is not about missing money. The Rumsfeld speech was not an “announcement”. It was a sales pitch aimed to get Congress to fund an overhaul of the Pentagon's accounting systems. This had _all been in discussion in Congress and reported on in the media since at least July 2000_ .
It was _not news_
Think about it. If the government was trying to steal $2.3 trillion they wouldn’t publicly announce the money was missing? And the terrorists who attacked on 9/11/2001 couldn’t have cared less about any of it.
There are 46 accounting offices scattered all throughout the Pentagon, ALL of them involved in the audit. The only office hit on 9/11 was a U.S. Army Reserve payroll office. The audit is in fact still ongoing today, now including over $9 trillion worth of transactions.
There is a reason why this dead horse, despite being flogged countless tens of thousands of times over the last 18 years by Loose Change fanboys has never once gained _any_ traction at all.
But you guys keep repeating it again and again and again anyway, expecting different results. There's a term for that.
You really should have actually bothered to read the speech, maybe done 5 minutes of fact checking instead of just mindlessly repeating other peoples bad ideas off the internet. Even the _Loose Change_ guys who started this myth no longer stand behind it. Now you just look like a bit of an ass.
his little can trick was cute , now explain how the building fell in its own footprint , also his heating of the beam was funny also was the 20 foot span beam with no support under it . NO building falls in it's own footprint unless imploded !!!
I found that scene with the metal beam ridiculous too. It really didn’t even fall if you actually watch the corners, the half inch of “support” appeared to simply wiggle out from under it.
But nice dramatic effect for anyone intellectually challenged enough to believe that came anywhere close to a representation of what happened. A sprinkle of common sense is enough to see through the lies.
Every one involved with the planning, carrying out and covering up of that day should be so ashamed of themselves that day to day existence is now excruciating!🤬
Except it didn’t fall into its own footprint! The entire debris piles were spread over 16 acres. Explain to me where you saw the the twin towers fall into the 1 acre of space of their own footprint. It’s an absurd statement that’s verifiable false that it fell into its own footprint. Stop regurgitating the silly things you hear without at least attempting to verify a claim.
It didn't fall in it's own foot print, have you seen any videos after the buildings collapsed?
@@elchuzalongo4339 I have seen the videos and it’s you who has a hard time understanding what your looking at. The debris filed was spread over 16 acres, that’s 8 times the size of both the buildings footprints combined. Your just wrong. The buildings didn’t fall into themselves into there own footprint, they literally fell from the top down, both of which began form where the planes impacted.. Capeesh?
@@cc92873 what’s hard to understand? This video shows how unprotected steel will sag when exposed to high temperatures. Then they show a video where you can clearly see the exterior columns being pulled in. What would cause that you wonder? Next they show how the outer columns are connected to the inner core with steel floor trusses. What doesn’t add up you?
This is satire at it’s finest.
No. It is fact.
@@roquefortfiles ur a fool
This exact experiment has been recreated several times... its like you people WANT to live in a make believe world
@@ramiere1412 I agree with you
@Ramiere
tell me which exact experement has been recreated? please do not tell me the experement in this video
Looked like the two towers vaporized while collapsing how no one knows and building 7 collapsing for no reason so many questions and no answers.
Professor of Engineering, Dr. Leroy Hulsey's 3 to 4 year scientific study and report clearly shows office furniture fires did not initiate the collapse of WTC 7 as has been stated by both NIST and the 9/11 Commission. It appears there is now legal proceedings in progress to get NIST to acknowledge they got it wrong.
@@pkgum6910 at this juncture it’s quite obvious the official story they came up with is nothing but none sense.
Exactly. Explain tower 7, scientifically. I'm all ears.
@@pkgum6910 So how did tower 7 fall?
Demolition according to the worlds leading demo co. that have done countless demo jobs including the King Dome. 9/11 starts and ends w Tower 7.
"today we're going to show you how jet fuel melted steel."
*Fails miserably
The title is clickbait.
Nobody ever said the steel melted bud.
Thanku it so easy to figure this bullshit out I lived with a family and a 13 year old girl figured it out ON HER OWN THROUGH MATH WHICH NEVER LIES
@@joechapman2981 Figured what out?
You just failed to comprehend the demonstration. They weren’t trying to melt the steel. Steel does not need to be liquid to deform enough to lose structural integrity and collapse. ‘Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams’ is true because it doesn’t need to melt to collapse. It deforms 2-3 stories of beams and the bolts to the floor boards which causes some floors to collapse on top of other floors, exponentially increasing in force, cause all of the steal beams even at the bottom to give way
Most of that kerosine would have been gone from the explosion
Absolutely!
Woman had 80% burns she was in lobby also people trapped in elevators above burning fuel
@@WiredCountDuckula thermite is the only thing that could melt the steel beams, its a conspiracy. The twin towers was already designed to withstand a plane crash.
@Neil Anblomee There were fires obviously. The office furniture, carpets etc. No one doubts that. The lobby has been subject to an explosion, but was not on fire. Plenty of reports. Jet fuel would have mostly been completely consumed in explosion. Any left to go down elevator shaft would not have made it very far and would not have burned long.
Here is incontrovertible evidence:
ruclips.net/video/JEkVsj88Xsg/видео.html
That test was done with a “point load” which is far from real world load bearing beams.
But it does illustrate the point they were trying to make, not the point you wish they were trying to make.
You can simulate a distributed load across an entire beam at a single point. It’s very simple statics that is taught at every engineering school in the world
@@MFitz12
@@shillhunter2.076I don't know that person, but not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. And yes, we question things. We question all things. It's just some of us are adult enough to accept answers that we don't necessarily like if the evidence shows they make the most sense. All these conspiracy theorists saying how the buildings DIDN’T fall, but they can never tell you how they DID fall. Seems like most of you think they were controlled explosions. Meaning, the incompetent US government somehow lined two of the tallest and busiest buildings in the country with tons of explosives....and no one noticed. And no one squealed. And no documents or evidence of it happening was ever found. Your conspiracy theories also make me wonder if you’re also claiming that 2 planes never flew into the towers. Are you saying our eyes lied to us and 2 massive commercial planes didn't fly into the 2 towers? That the whole city of New York was part of a false flag operation, complete with fake planes and fires? If you agree that planes DID fly into the towers, who are you claiming flew them? Are you claiming US government officials took flying lessons and then their own lives and intentionally flew the planes into the towers so that later they could blow them up with the tons of explosives that no one ever saw or located? Seriously, if you’re going to cry conspiracy, tell us what happened. We all know our government loves war because it’s a massive money maker for the fossil fuel industry, and the military industrial complex. So, I can believe that our government wants war, politicizes attacks so that we can go to war, and even intentionally looks the other way in order to allow acts of war to happen against to us. But, if you are telling me that George W. Bush is only playing dumb and was just “acting” incompetent and scared in that classroom on 9/11, and that our government somehow secretly lined 2 massive towers with explosives without the thousands and thousands of people inside and outside seeing anything, and then flew 2 commercial planes into those towers, you have completely lost me and your mind.
@@MumblingNickAKAtheNooch I never said everything was.
I'm right about Fitz though. It's on dozens of videos every hour, every day for years.
melt and weaken are two different things.
Guess we found a better way for building demolition.. also pretty incredible the building in beruit could with stand a small nuclear bomb and be standing but building 7 collapses from a fire lolol
wasnt even a nuclear bomb. Wasn’t even a building even, literally a shipping bay.
@@yooooooooooooooo696 the explosion radius and force was compared to a small nuclear bomb... not a literal nuke...
I can tell you've done absolutely no research into the engineering behind Building 7's collapse. Do you even known what yield strength is, how it's affected by temperature, or what creep strain is?
@@YourLoyalDeserter lol so with your logic being used here.... the entire basement of this building must have been burning evenly. At a temperature of which could not be obtained unless fuel constantly for days at a time. Now to touch on your "strain theory" The the building would need to be burning evenly across the entire basement in order for it to collapse WITHIN itself at a FREE fall rate of speed. We didn't witness a disproportionate collapse. We witness a never before seen basement fire resulting in complete destruction. Better yet, go educate yourself on building 7 and TRY to find a report on the collapse... those documents being held have yet to be released in any formal documentation. Every 9/11 report leaves out the evidence of WT7. Thanks for showing up tho
It wasn't a nuke or anywhere even remotely close. Ammonium nitrate and fireworks doesn't have the destructive power tnt does
i only visited the comments section for the conspiritard comments. You guys never dissapoint, Thanks
i've worked in the construction industry for over 20 years. i made it through only a few minutes of this video before i started LOL'ing. Discovery UK either doesn't understand building code fire performance requirements, or they're lying. and did the jet fuel explode into a ball of fire, or did it "pour down the elevator shafts"? they shouldn't have produced this video.
They should’ve consulted you first?
It did both.
@@MFitz12 you're showing up in a lot of places, almost as if it's a job or something.👀
@@veritasinvicta8128 - So are you.
@@veritasinvicta8128 I was literally thinking the same thing just as I read your comment. Coincidence!? Yeh right! 🤣
5:55 Oh my goodness. So they take the very ideal case of one beam with all its fireproofing removed and heated to glowing red using an actual blowtorch to get it sag. Then they want to extrapolate that very ideal case to most or all of the beams on a whole floor, with most or all of the fireproofing scraped off, heated to glowing red not by a blowtorch but by burning office material, and that this amazingly ideal set of conditions happens not at impact, not after 5 minutes or 10 minutes, but at 102 minutes after the plane strikes the north tower. And the people who think this was a controlled demolition are supposed to be the crazy ones?
And not even bothering to address the question of how the massively strong core columns failed. But I’m the crazy conspiracy theorist.
You’re extremely confused.
Dude everyone knows when you loose a spoke on a bicycle wheel the whole wheel folds. LOL
I agree with you. The extrapolation of this laboratory case of a lateral loaded beam with local heat to all the columns, axial loaded and lateraly expulsed at high lateral velocity, it's an insult to our intelligence
Yes you are crazy. The entire event was literally filmed. 2 jumbo jets hit the towers but you want to say something else caused it.
That's like saying the person wasn't killed by the bullet in their head but by a brain aneurysm
He lost me at the part where he talks about the kerosene pouring down 12 miles of elevator shaft.... uhm, most of that fuel exploded and burnt up on Impact, hence the big explosion. A plane hitting a building with 0 fuel would not make a huge explosion. This is not a Hollywood movie guys.
@@ultra5403 they didnt disappear, you can see them turn into a huge fire ball,when the plane hit the building.
@@ultra5403 ruclips.net/video/HLW0_wCYyqY/видео.html
Heat (and an explosive mushroom cloud) rises. Jet fuel at ~50 lb./ft cubed falls faster than it can flash over. It's actually manufactured to need to be under great pressure to spontaneously combust, which is why the fuel released from the wing tanks and away from the main point of impact fell rather than igniting.
So your argument is based solely on personal incredulity then?
Despite the hundreds of eyewitness testimony and burn victims from the main lobby you choose to keep being stupid
South tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. after burning for 56 minutes - not 2 hours. - Was hit 2nd
North tower collapsed at 10:28 after burning for one hour and 42 minutes. - Was hit 1st
“Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies”
The NERVE to think they’d disguise! No they can’t disguise!
do you believe the moon landing was faked
@@marioirl1569 well,people just could fake it..i mean,why not??..but i believe that earth is round and sphere though..that one i would believe
Ok you're smart, handsome and your wife's not cheating on you.....happy now?
@@fredjones7705 this could go on murdered by words
I know what I saw and have a fair knowledge of physics.
We know what we saw and we have a fair knowledge of physics.
Try convincing us again.
The only other time I've seen buildings fall like that is during a controlled demolition.
You would definitely think it would have fallen differently. Such as a chunk coming off falling on people. Not collapsing like it was being imploded.
Jet fuel cant melt steel beams
It didn't need too, as you just saw if you watched the video
@@elliotlaw1590 Wow you must feel so smart for making that comment. It was KILLING you to try to show off some smart ass comeback. But you look like an idiot for not knowing a well-known meme. Congrats doofus.
So, the only question I have is if all of this legitimately happened the way they said on the news, how did building 7 fail? Did it not have fireproofing?
They blew that one up too just like the WTC.
your second question should be how did it collapse after the bbc said it did when they reported it it was still standing and a few minutes later it fell there was a video of that report but it cant be found now its been removed I had it saved but youtube took it off my save.
Building 7 burned for many hours after it had been hit by a huge amount of debris that came from the twin towers. There are several videos where you can clearly see that a part of the inside structure collapsed (you can even see the light shine through the building after the floor start to collapse) and in a chain reaction the whole building came down. Also, there weren't any explosive sounds, which in case of a controlled demolition would have been very loud and clear.
@@anthonymorrison2167 i seen that video, it hard to find now
COLD FUSION DEW’S. look up Christopher Hutchison effect. Look up “9/11 Judy Wood: Where did the towers go?”
The used theory should be: The taller the building is - the more BS you need to throw at people.
I don't think height has anything to do with it.
True. But no one would go that in depth for no reason
Thank you, never seen before bullshit like this
lol
And it also 'disintegrated' jet engines made of the toughest steel of the plane that hit Pentagon. Not a shred of the engine was found. Not to mention missing black boxes which are virtually made to be indestructible.
Actually they found one engine in the area---but IT WAS THE WRONG KIND FOR THOSE AIRPLANES. 'Nuff said.
37Dionysos LOL I remember that wrong engine they ‘found’ plopped in the middle of the sidewalk blocks away like a fresh tird
Yea,when it comes to the black box for the Pentagon all we have heard for 20 years are the sounds of crickets!
parking lot camera shows the missle
@@kenfix2740 Rumsfeld actually used the word "missile" multiple times in interviews afterwards. Also the explosion on the film was a large diesel tank - apparently for generators and such in case of loss of power. And only one side of the 5 sides of the pentagon was reinforced just prior, guess which side it was (rhetorical).
Love how they said the core was just extra support
edit:
-Oh wow, this comment was supposed to be a joke. "just extra support" meant to indicate there's way more to it than that.
-This account is a side hustle to bring together playlists of the most controversial events on American soil that I don't have much time to look after.
-Also there is further proof that a plane actually hit the pentagon. Also realize the planes themselves can be guided remote missiles. Remote aircrafts were a thing decades before 9/11. And in more recent decades the remote controls were a safety feature some companies implemented in case of a hijacking.....
Actually from the doc I saw about building the world trade center towers, this video has it backwards, the center columns provided most of the support, it was built like a tank.
@@Steve-O_FPV Thank you mr. Captain obvious
@@Steve-O_FPV It was no standard passenger plane that cut through steel and concrete with ability of going 4-500mph near sea level, but even then I'd bet the twins could easily take 2 or 3 planes
@@rustyhaarp1850 yup the planes are made of basically aluminum a normal passenger plane would not penetrate the building like a hot knife going through butter
@@awashburn6944 why didnt those " Wing ribs " make any holes when they hit the pentagon then ? there was only one round hole at the pentagon, please explain ?
Does "pancaking" also happen at the same speed as gravity? Has ANY other building in history fallen this way? MANY buildings have been hit by jets over the years, but NONE of them have had a total structural failure. NO building has ever fallen into its own footprint. Only controlled demolitions do that.
Pancaking was abandoned as a theory for collapse initiation about 18 years ago. Please do catch up.
Yep, and it doesn't seem to matter how many times that's pointed out. People are too trusting of those who are supposed to be looking after their best interests.
@@MFitz12 references?
@@williammacneill956 References to what?
@@MFitz12 To what you'd mentioned, the alleged debunking of the pancaking theory.
actually, l can testify that my grand mother, who lived in a 200 floor steel building, unfortunately left a pan on a gas-burner for 20 minutes, forgot about it, and the heat that was generated was enough for the whole building to collapse, and two buildings beside
What does that fantasy have to do with anything?
@@Tim22222 : it is no fantasy, steel burns, we have known that since 9/11 !
we are close to Christmas, be EXTREMELY careful with christmas trees in steel buildings, with the candles and everything
There is no such thing as a 200 floor building. Also that wouldn't collapse the whole building.
@@Acnasheen Also steel doesn't burn.
@@joshuabell001 Hey just ask NIST. They will tell you.
I understand from this video that flammable furniture caused both towers to collapse symmetrically. What a bad luck. Building 7 had to have the same furniture.
You understand nothing.
Lol!.. Its IKEA's fault!
The furniture was rigged with explosives
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Furnishings in these building were strictly regulated by code to be fire resistant material including carpeting. Next?
RIP Orio Palmer and all who we lost that day and continue to lose..
He was a hero.
If that beam you guys used was bolted that test would have been completely different. And oh yes at the beginning you said the exoskeleton was the strength?!?!? Hmmmm think about it!!!!
The fuel instantly exploded, it didnt drip down the whole building and burn infanately
I'm gutted someone can put this foolish video online and expect us to swallow it. I feel raped!
Exactly! The collapse was a result of demolition.
People on fire coming out lobby main doors like first video seen,
You can't even spell. Give your mother's phone back.
The reason why the building burn is because they put acetylene in those plane.
Didn't have to melt the steel beams just get them hot enough to weaken and bend
*^ THIS*
Yeap. Exactly right.
Well this guy wears a hard hat so he must know what he's talking about.
And what do you wear? A McDonald's hat? Lmao
911/Inside job
@@jayla7214 what do you wear? Weave?
@@asoingbob5322 And what would make you think that?
911 Inside job
Shame on you, nonsense! And building 7? This video is disgusting propaganda for too many reasons to even begin discussing here.
The example with soda cans definitely makes me believe the official version even more…
lol
Except the can did not crush symmetrically vertical and it didn’t pulverize into dust.
@@ewe2bav8r hahah exactly what I thought. Kind of crazy that a guy out there professing to be an engineering expert would use THAT as an example. As an engineering graduate myself (who doesn't even work in an engineering field now) when he set that I up knew what he was going to try and show and it was just cringeworthy.
His theory: The *horizontal* beams were bent
His example: Pushes the *vertical* axis
How can people believe that😂
If anything it proved that it should have gone off to one side 🤠😂
I remember hearing them say that the fireretardant stuff wasnt easily removed and it was a costly move, so much so that it would cost him billions just to remove it.
You heard wrong.
@@mooneyes2k478 dont think I did, they didnt say that in this video but in other videos there were talks about it not being easily removed and he had to pay billions just to remove it.
@@ScrewFearMe Don't care what you think, fact remains. You did.
@@mooneyes2k478 I didnt hear wrong. And my memory is quite good.
@@ScrewFearMe Doesn't really matter what you want to pretend. You're still wrong.
So you used kerosene to heat up the beams to 800° F. Ok
The entire building wasn't on fire. So howd the bottom free fall the same time as the top. In first diagram your telling us the kerosene went down the elevator shafts. So a majority of the fuel wasnt at the fire location any longer and it went into elevator shafts which were designed to cut ventilation from outside per the architect's and maintenance man whom toured telling heroine experience.
Exactly! The goverment lies.
You don't seem to understand that buildings aren't designed to hold infinite load. They are built assuming a certain load. If the load exceeds that, say by FALLING onto it, it breaks, then the next floor down has more load, etc etc
@@aldunlop4622 but the building came down from the bottom
@@kennethmabus381 Bloody hell, wake up. It did NOT. Stop spouting paranoid delusions. Planes crashed into the buildings, and they fell down because the structure was compromised. End of story. There's no "conspiracy" to be solved. I watched it live on tv.
What about tower 7?
@@GalaxyBoss7 Better stick to your video games.
@@GalaxyBoss7 how many Budweisers did you crush off you skull till this dumbass analogy came to you.
watch my video it will show
@@JO-fk1bg you sound like a sheep, building 7 was critically damaged and stood on fire for several hours. Not to mention it was a tubular structure with columns free open floor plans so it had no internal resistance against floor collapse. Steel columns even with fireproofing can only burn so long before they lose integrity. When a few critical members fail they bring the whole structure down with it.
@@desertvalleyfilms9136 fell just like demolitions. Berry jenning stated explosions going off in wtc7 before the towers even collapsed.