How the Twin Towers Fell | The World Trade Center and How It Collapsed
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- Minoru Yamasaki's work in architecture, designing the World Trade Center, also know as the Twin Towers, tragically fell on September 11th 2001. Today, given its upcoming anniversary and continuous memorial, I wanted to analyze the why World Trade Center fell.
----------------------------
💖 Consider supporting my Patreon to further support this Channel!: / natalieperri 💖
JOIN our DISCORD👾: / discord
----------------------------
⏲ Timestamps ⏲
📸 Let's Connect on IG:
@perri.arch
/ perri.arch
Section 107 of the Copyright Act defines fair use as follows:
“[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
Just a Quick Disclaimer:
The architectural information is provided for general information and educational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional advice. Accordingly, before taking any action based upon such information, I encourage you to consult with the appropriate legal professionals. THE USE OR RELIANCE OF ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS RUclips CHANNEL IS SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK.
Lastly, some of my videos contain affiliate marketing links. If you purchase something with one of the links, you will not pay a cent more! 💖 However, your purchase helps support this channel because I get a tiny commission.
Sources:
“FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation.” National Institute of Standards and Technology, www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html.
Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001).
D. Drysdale, An Introduction to Fire Dynamics (New York: Wiley Interscience, 1985), pp. 134-140.
A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 10-67.
A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
Eager, Thomas W., and Christopher Musso. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation.” The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html.
Steven Ashley, “When the Twin Towers Fell,” Scientific American Online (October 9, 2001); www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc/
Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis,” J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, (September 28, 2001), also www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/
SINTEF. "New theory explains collapse of World Trade Center's Twin Towers." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 September 2011.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110921074747.htm
Kamin, Blair. “What Made New York's Twin Towers Collapse?” Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune, 6 Dec. 2001, www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/sns-worldtrade-collapse-ct-story.html.
Craven, Jackie. "Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on 9/11." ThoughtCo, Jul. 29, 2021, thoughtco.com/why-world-trade-center-towers-fell-177706.
Timothy Wilkinson, “World Trade Centre-New York-Some Engineering Aspects”, Univ. Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering; www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm.
G. Charles Clifton, “Collapse of the World Trade Centers,” CAD Headlines, tenlinks.com (October 8, 2001); www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/special/wtc/clifton/p1.htm.
Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Video Sources:
“18 Views of 'Plane Impact' in South Tower: 9/11 World Trade Center (2001 Terrorist Attacks).” RUclips, 29 Oct. 2014, • 18 Views of Plane Impa... .
“9/11 Impact Anatomy: National Geographic.” RUclips, 26 Aug. 2009, • 9/11 Impact Anatomy | ... .
“Building the World Trade Center 1970s Stock Footage.” RUclips, 24 Feb. 2021, • Building The World Tra... .
“Chilling Footage inside the World Trade Center Right after 9/11 Attacks.” RUclips, 22 Jan. 2019, • Chilling Footage Insid... .
“How Did Jet Fuel Melt the Steel Beams in the Twin Towers?: Blowing-up History.” RUclips, 23 Sept. 2020, • How Did Jet Fuel Melt ... .
“N.J. Burkett Reporting as Twin TOWERS Begin to Collapse on September 11, 2001.” RUclips, 7 Sept. 2018, • N.J. Burkett reporting... .
“Pouring Molten Aluminum into Water - Slow Motion.” RUclips, 19 Jan. 2018, • Pouring Molten Alumini... .
Soba, Okinawa. “Minoru Yamasaki -- Standing with His Models of the World Trade Center.” Flickr, Yahoo!, 6 Sept. 2011, www.flickr.com/photos/okinawa-soba/6119523472.
“WTC New York Twin TOWERS Construction.” RUclips, 15 Sept. 2011, • WTC New York Twin Towe... .
“World Trade Center Tower 1 Litigation Animations.” RUclips, 9 Sept. 2011, • World Trade Center Tow... .
If you look at some of the recordings of the south tower collapse, you will notice that it first bent over towards the cut that UA175 left on the building. It wasn't perfectly vertical as some people say.
The north tower collapse was more vertical than the south tower collapse because the cut left by AA11 wasn't diagonal like UA175; and that's just one more factor why the north tower stood up longer than the south tower despite being the first one hit.
The cut in the south tower was in the middle of the building and diagonal.
WTC 2 was also struck lower, so its weakened structure had to hold up even more weight
@Catrina
Yes, right in the middle, in a way similar to when you cut a dead tree with a chainsaw, diagonally towards where you want it to fall.
I have always automatically understood that, but I couldn’t explain it. I am always dumbfounded at people’s lack of understanding when it comes to things like physics-things that seem like common sense to me. Now, if I had to take a written test on the subject, I would most likely fail.
@@coolgirlfrozenfeet All you have to do is watch the footages of how the WTC-2 beams bent inwards towards the cut of UA175. The video shows exactly what happened.
The Empire State is the equivalent of a vertebrate animal, its supporting structures are inside the body of the building.
The Twin towers were like crustaceans, like invertebrate crabs or lobsters, so their supporting structure was their exterior composed of beams that acted like some sort of shell for the towers, which once pierced by UA175 and AA11, left them weak and vulnerable since there was nothing supporting them in their interior.
@SC-lj8le
If you think the only damage to those towers was from plane hits, think twice then.
According to the story of a direct survivor, who worked in the north tower, on one of the floors below the crash point.
His floor, where he worked, had a large crack that went through the entire floor.
We can assume then that the damage to these buildings also spread to the floors below the impact areas.
I have never understood how people use fire not melting steel as any kind of a real argument. It's as if they have never seen a blacksmith work before.
Der 11. September:
Der Tag an dem die Physik Urlaub hatte!
My question is why was there such uniformity in the collapse, so each floor collapses in sequence no pause or halt, but in perfect symmetry inward, so all the steel beams weakened at the same or similar points, at the same rate, meaning the implosions caused by the crash were all symetric.
the collapsed floors accumulated so the next floor to be hit has the combined weights of the floors already collapsed landingnon top of it
@@HikerBikerMoter the falling floors meet resistance and would never fall at a near free fall rate having connections give way perfectly at the same time for this long is highly unlikely
@@robertparkinson5254 No, it would. Once the initial columns failed the kinetic energy of 30 stories of a building falling 10 feet was too much for the load of the next floor. Then 30 stories of a building falling 20 feet + 1 story of that building falling 10 feet caused the next failure. Then 30 stories falling 30 feet + 1 story falling 20 feet + 1 story falling 10 feet caused the next failure...and so on and so forth. The idea that the collapse should slow down is exactly wrong - as the collapse happens more and more potential energy is converted to actual kinetic energy, bringing down MORE force on each subsequent floor. It's a textbook cascade failure. In fact, there was so much left over energy that the kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor concrete in both towers to particles 100um in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution (i.e., dust).
@@HikerBikerMoterIt has the combined weight (mass) of the floors above it… just like it did BEFORE the collapse. This gets repeated often as if the floors above increased their mass… which they didn’t … they actually DECREASED their mass due to combustion and outward ejection of initiation collapse materials. The math doesn’t math here in this explanation.
@@robertparkinson5254 From your post it's obvious that you're a truther.
So why would the evil NWO/Girlscout alliance give a rats ass about freefall?
I can tell you put a lot of work into the video just from all the statistics and facts in it. Good job and thank you!
Thank you! Glad you got some useful insights from the video!!
What about building 7???
🙊🙉🙈
Tower 7 was allowed to burn uncontrolled for 8 hours...
@@daxeckenberg LOL 8 hours of fuel equally heating all 81 columns for over 8 floors LOL
@@davidmudry56221. Not funny
2. Are you high or something
Any building can collapse from being left in am uncontrolled fire
I cant say more because this comment makes you sound insane
What about the 3rd building?
Yeah a third building that fall 90 degrees over himself without any attack... If this girl can recreate with wood all his arguments I could believe her... I am always recommending to people that believe this crazy idea... That if they can recreate it with wood not steel because steel IS IMPOSSIBLE I will believe them... Not one can replicate TWICE the perfect 90 degrees fall
@@skaford What? It’s already been recreated, whether or not you open your eyes… well that’s totally on you. Lol Debris and airplane parts impacted the building causing fires and then when the North tower collapsed, some of it fell onto it damaging and weakening WTC 7. The fires inside burned for many hours.. remember that it takes less than five minutes for a single family home to burn down, those fires lasted around eight hours. The steel inside all these buildings have been heat tested and was found to sag under intense heat, thus causing the weight of the upper floors to begin pancaking (southwards since the North Tower collapse exposed/opened up the front of the building). Search any structural engineering RUclips video on this subject and you will learn this. If you think about this as a conspiracy, you have to think about WHY would this be done intentionally.. there’s been no good reason as WTC 7 was less visible and also didn’t collapse until hours later.
This video is a year old, but let me comment... When I was in architecture school I researched blast design and the main book on this gave the Twin Towers as an example of great blast design. Floor plans were in the book. The towers were designed to withstand a truck bomb at its base. The steel tubes at the perimeter were totally redundant and 1/4 of the tubes could have been destroyed and the building still would stand. The concrete core could have supported the building in the event that many of the exterior tubes were destroyed. So the official theory that perimeter 'pins' caused the failure is not plausible. Certainly, as an architect I don't understand the blast characteristics of jet planes, but the Twin Towers were designed for bombs and blasts.
What was never properly explained is building 7. Building 7 was not hit by planes, but did catch on fire. It completely failed in a mater of seconds. Never in the history of steel buildings has a steel structure caught fire and completely collapsed. The fact that this has never been properly investigated is enough for theorists to believe there is a conspiracy here.
You would be wrong on ALL counts. First the ONLY thing holding the floors up were bolts securing it to the core and the exterior perimeter box columns. The floors offered zero vertical load support. There are plenty of videos that show the core remained relatively intact and upright after the collapse for several seconds. That proves that when the upper section collapsed the building collapsed AROUND the core not through it.
As far as WTC-7 goes sure it was not hit by a plane but neither were WTC 3, 5, and six, all destroyed from falling debris. WTC-7 had TONS of debris hit it and scoop out a 23 story gouge out of the south east corner. Almost immediately WTC 7 developed a prominent bulge proving that the support structure was compromised. I also HIGHLY doubt that you are an architect because if you were you would know that between 1972-2001 there were 23 partial or total collapses of multistory buildings from fire alone. In fact The 17-story Plasco building, a steel frame building once the tallest in Iran, fell while firefighters were actively battling the blaze. Another reason I doubt your claim to be an architect is that you would know that Steel is the WORST performing material in a fire, it performs far worse than brick or concrete. I would also say in the industry trade magazine Structure Mag there was an article written by civil engineers that talked about its unique construction method, Hint it was built around an existing building and everything above the 6th floor was supported by only three vertical columns and that how a loss of a single column would lead to a progressive internal collapse.
Valid comment, any engineer with real world experience should realise that the asymmetric damage caused by planestrikes to 2 buildings cannot level 3 towers almost symmetrically.
Any catastrophic failure would be localised.
The official narrative is inconsistent with available evidence
it wasn't the blast but the softening of the steel which eventually gave way from the weight..
Remember after the plane crash the building floors where it crashed did not collapse and the building still stood looooong after the plane hit it
@@davepowell7168 What is funny though is that your statement it TOTALLY false and it is clear you are just parroting something you saw on the internet. So let me deconstruct your statement to show you where you are wrong.
The towers collapsing into their own footprint although kudo's to you in rephrasing it to make it sound more intelligent. You see EVERY conspiratard parroting this as if they knew what they were talking about. The towers collapsed more like a peeling bananna than vertically. The wreckage from WTC 1 and 2 covered NINTEEN ACRES. Their falling debris destroyed WTC 3, 5, 6, 7 and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. They damaged several buildings so badly like the Bankers Trust and the Verizon building that they had to both be torn down at a later date.
When it comes to WTC 7 you only see video from the opposite side where no damage was visable. The TRUTH is that falling debris from WTC 1&2 gouged out a 27 story scoop out of one of the corners compromising the integrity of the building. Almost IMMEDIATLY after WTC-7 was hit a prominant bulge appeared in the SW corner of the building signaling that WTC-7 was in danger of immediate collapse. I will also point out that . When debris from the towers fell through WTC 7, it severed a fuel line in a closed loop system. When the power went out and the generators kicked on fuel was pumped out and into the building at a constant rate, providing fuel for fired that continued to burn for 8 hours.
I believe WTC-7 had 6 fuel tanks to power the backup generators and all of them were intact but EMPTY when they were pulled from the debris. So lets put two and two together, WTC-7 nearly collapsed from the damage it sustained from the falling debris from WTC 1&2 and it endured eight hours of fires burning out of control on MULTIPLE levels let to its collapse. Lastly I will point out that it did not collapse into its own footprint either. Most of the building wound up piled against the Verizon building across the street. WTC-7's collapse caused so much damage to the Verizon building that it could not be saved and had to be torn down.
@@HikerBikerMoter You make an excellent point, one I would further strengthen. WTC-2 was the second tower hit but due to the fact that it was hit approximatly 40 stories below tower one, tower two failed in HALF the time as tower one because the damaged sections had to support a much greater weight than tower one.
That was very cool. The approximate temperature was bothering me for a while and seeing what the temperature was it answered some questions.
Also just before Tower 2 fell, molten metal was pouring out, has to be the aluminum. There are many videos showing what happens when liquid aluminum and water meets is awe inspiring. Another video by this man who takes molten aluminum and pours it into invasive ant nests to make a casting of the tunnels. A few showed what happens if water is there.
I understand the floor collapsing but the whole building imploding don't make sense at all.
It all makes perfect sense if you understand the design specifications of the building. Which not too many people bother taking the time to do. The facts don't lie. 25 floors failed in WTC 2. 14 stories failed in WTC 1. That's a fact. You can count them in the videos. The failure allowable in design was 6 floors. Both buildings are vastly over the amount of floors they could deal with in failure. They're over the design allowable by more than double.
@9:50 'each floor is designed to support 13 tons more than its own weight ' , what is the source of this statistic ?
LOL take weight of the bottom floors...add 13 tons...now add the weight of the 100 floors above.
The jet fuel wouldn't reach the temperature you say also most of it looked to be burnt up on impact even the aluminium faceures covering the metalwork near the zone of impact didnt melt or even warp !!!?
I enjoyed the images from the building of the World Trade Towers. I recall when I was roughly 10 or 11, back in 1976, reading an article all about the designer and the building of the Towers. I also recall exactly where I was on 9/11/2001. I was in training class at Knox County Sheriff's Office, Knoxville TN. We watched the 2nd plane hit on TV. We were all sent home & training was canceled. I sat at home & watched the news for 7 days until I went back to work.
The aluminum is the zaniest explanation yet. It dismisses eyewitness accounts of cascading consecutive explosions, which this zany aluminum could not explain.
In the off chance aluminum mix was responsible, the explosions would have been random and intermittent.
Except eyewitnesses never said there were cascading consecutive explosions. What they heard was the sound of the floors pancaking one by one which made noises like an explosion. I have been talking about molten aluminum for 20 years now. Why do you think the fires at ground zero burned for WEEKS? Because when molten aluminum meets water it releases hydrogen and oxygen gas, both with very low ignition points. The NYFD was literally fueling a chemical furnace every day. NO AMOUNT of water will put out an aluminum fire. They taught us that in US Navy Firefighting school as lessons learned from the attack on the USS Stark where it was hit by two exocet missiles, igniting fires so hot the aluminum superstructure caught fire and started to burn. They pumped over 40 tons of water into those spaces and the fire kept burning hotter and hotter. It wasn't until they switched to a chemical retardant that they were able to put out the fires. Molten and burning aluminum had a lot to do with why those buildings collapsed.
Did the floors collapse inside the building without us knowing it? In other words did the collapse of the outside of the tower happen after the interior had already fallen down minutes or secinds earlier? Or, did it all happen at the same time?
One thing: what was leaking red hot from the corner of the south tower especially just before its collapse? The Noth-East corner of the South WTC Tower was heavily burning and at some point something starting leaking intermittently to the right of it. I don't think it was kerosene because it wasn't in flames, it was a red hot liquid very similar to the steel used by some people from India when they manufacture various stuff from iron in some sort of primitive factories. Also if you see the videos filming the interior in flames you can see also something red hot inside the building a bit more to the middle of the facade also leaking from one floor to the other bellow in the interior of the building in the same way. It could be Aluminium, since Aluminium (660 degrees Celsius) starts to become red hot if heated up beyond 750 Celsius degrees (1382 degrees Fahrenheit). The melting point of steel is 1510 Celsius Degrees, a bit high for the time given between the start of actually burning time till the collapse.
Unrelated, there are some people considering also the hot Aluminium as the reason for some explosions before the collapse, as it seems that melted Aluminium explodes in contact with water (as there could be some water at the lower floors from sprinklers, and the tons of Aluminium from the wrecked aircraft).
I enjoy the video.
There couldn’t be hot aluminum and water based on NIST & The Government’s official story that ALL UPPER FLOOR WATER SUPPLY CONNECTIONS were destroyed upon impact. Which is why the fire system didn’t put out any fires.
Also look at the color smoke after the first few seconds - the jet fuel was evaporated almost immediately. Gray and white smoke were dead fire smoke.
I read somewhere that around that floor in that corner of the south tower, there were many servers and banks of battery backups and what we saw could have been those batteries melting.
exactly how many thousands of batteries did they keep on hand to have a MOLTEN STREAM of ooze?? LOL The naysayers always try using the "spaghetti method" they throw things into the media even if it makes no sense hoping someone will believe their lies and cover up. It is this SPAGHETTI METHOD why no shows the A&E/History Channel show about Popular Mechanics trying to disprove the truth about the demolition-- lie, after lie, after lie, ad infinity--
It could very well have been the remnants of the fuselage of the plane, which is commonly aluminum with zinc, copper and magnesium. Zinc melts at 800F, magnesium at 1200 and aluminum at 1,200. Property fires can commonly hit 1500F at the ceiling and there's really good evidence that the fires were 800-1000C (1500+F). Not to mention there's plenty of aluminum and other metals found in any office environment.
Amazing video!! You worked so hard on the research and really cleared some confusion and I know it’s much appreciated. We love your work~
Great job. Thanks for your calm voice of reason, facts, and knowledge.
I was waiting for this video thanks for ending my boredom
InSiDeJoB
You mean good but missing scientific analysis of what the actual evidence that was left behind shows. Just to name one fact out of hundreds, one of the two Tower's top portion leaned outward, as it was detaching itself from the rest of the building at the impact area. That alone makes unthinkable to support the pancake theory, since there was not perpendicular force (after that point) pushing down into the rest of the building and lower floors. Also, for a building to drop near free fall speed, it would be necessary for all floors to be destroyed at the same instant. Pancake failure it would provide each floor to slow down as impacting the one below. (you learn that in middle school). I respect you all, but please stop making theories first and then find some way to justify them. Start from the evidence. You put so much effort into this, but what about building 7? No planes, no fuel, yet as by work of God, it dropped at near free fall speed as well. The NIST said it fell in consequence of office fire but failed to prove that. When asked how that could happen, (stuff never witnessed before in history of buildings) they said.. we don't know. U believe in magic?
About 1400 people were pulverized. (God bless all victims and families!!) That means not a piece of them as big as a fingernail was ever recovered. A collapse does a lot of damage, but it does not pulverize completely bodies, pipes, toilets, elevators, engine parts, airplanes engines... do you know what pulverizing it means? Dust!
How come nobody talks about those bunch of cars, sitting in a parking lot almost a mile away from WTC, pupping on fire and exploding one after another, while the towers were collapsing? The debris did not get that far, neither the fire. What caused those cars to catch on fire? Don't just study the collapse itself to understand what happened for real, please LOOK at the entire picture of anomalies and laws- of physics-breaking events that happened that day. Please do. God bless you!
What are you suggesting? Inside job? Lol. And dont tell people to just make claims with no proof then do it yourself
Despite what people believe, these buildings worked exactly as they were designed on 9/11, the original designers envisioned the possibility of a 707 (the largest plane at the time) flying into them and designed them to remain standing in this scenario, the buildings achieved this when they absorbed the impact of the 757 aircraft and did not immediately collapse, they remained upright and allowed almost all of the people below the impact zones to safely escape the building, the ensuing fires and their effects, were not and could not be foreseen by the designers unfortunately
Do you actually believe a word of what you just posted?
@@nosferatut9084 the great thing about what I just posted is that it doesn’t require belief, simply facts backed up by available evidence, if I were to add my own personal beliefs and bias to it I could come up with all kinds of wild stories involving thermite, controlled demolitions, remote control planes, the list is endless
@@turtledove41 You're making everything up . Keep away from those boosters 😆.
In 1945 a Mitchell Bomber got lost in fog and crashed in to the Empire State Building since then I’m not sure if a law was passed but certainly it was recommended that all high rise buildings be stressed to take the impact of a large aircraft
@@nosferatut9084 You clearly need a psych eval ASAP, so please submit yourself to your local hospital immediately and get yourself better.
The tragedy happened before I was born. Sad I couldn't visit it
I was lucky enough to visit the Towers twice. You would have enjoyed.
Great video how ever my main question was the pan caking that happened and I felt you kind glossed over it
i discuss the “pancaking”/domino effect around 10:00. what other question did you have regarding this? I’ll try my best to answer or share a source with you!
Demolition!!!
@@UnravelingArchitectureit wouldn't pancake if half the floors were missing in the impact zone even if you believe the pancake theory.
If one floor cannot hold the weight of 23 stories landing on it (Which it can't) Why would we expect the next floor to fair any better with 24 landing on it. Or 25 landing on the next one. Or 26 landing on the next one ?
@@UnravelingArchitecture , pancaking theory is bull💩
There are a lot of gatekeepers here that have no interest in truth whatsoever.Stay strong true believers!!!
The Islamic terrorist conspiracy theory may be real but had no possibility of levelling 3 towers almost symmetrically by causing asymmetric damage. Physically impossible, any engineer will real world experience knows this.
However minds recoil from deliberate sacrifice on such a scale, it defies belief..
There is debris from the south tower collapse that is clearly falling faster than the tower. The tower was not in free fall. The debris was in free fall (just air under it) and the tower itself was falling slower than that, so no free fall as conspiracy theorists claim. 1:24 and 1:36
The sprinkler systems were not working that day
Probably something to do with the planes flying into the buildings
You forgot the concrete walls.
The terrorist attack of 9/11 is one of the most compelling things in my life for some reason I can’t get enough info on this even the more I see the more I watch to know/see!!!
When people have an answer for everything I tend to turn a deaf ear. How do you explain explosions on every floor as the tower collapsed if it was caused by aluminum and water mixing? Only the higher floors were on fire. Furthermore the jet fuel would've burned off by the time it collapsed. So what was fueling the fire? Not to mention concrete doesn't burn.
The lower floors did not 'explode', what you are seeing is the shedding of the perimeter columns as well as the dust from concrete and the thousands of CRT's, lights, sheets of paper, and ~40 years of dirt being crushed.
The old World Trade Center had concrete floors that were held up by floor joists, these had fireproofing on them, but the fire ate through it, causing other floors to sag down, and pull the perimeter columns one the affected floors inward. You are right that the jet fuel would have burnt off, in fact it would have within minutes. However, by the explosion of planes, the fire was on 5-10 stories. It was also being fed by fireproofing because it was made of PURE ASBESTOS.
Not saying the government didn't have something to do with the attack, I'm just saying the towers definitely fell on their own.
@@birdofwisdom5916 you have no proof
Please do your own honest research by seeing what professionals are talking about. The only reason I wanted to comment was because I'm studying engineering, I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't believe that I'm smarter than you. I don't even believe that some of the things she's saying are true. I did research while writing my previous comment and found conflicting arguments.
Both of us could be wrong. That is always important to remember.
@@birdofwisdom5916 I wasn't attempting to be right. I'm just simply stating I don't believe her.
architect/engineers like to gingerly place structures one on top of each other then anchor or clip the ends with the equivalent of a clip or clothes pin as it satisfies their intellectual calculation of what is juuuust the right amount of what's needed - then a plane's fuel pancakes the floors on top of each other like domino's 🤮
You just can't teach stupid. What the hell are you even implying? That people who design buildings, wouldn't have decent knowledge of building design? Ridiculous 😂
So it the buildings were a p.o.s. design, the U.S. was warned in advance and afterwards they attacked a country that had f- all to do with it and they kept doing business with a hostile country where the high jackers actually came from. Check.
As Someone Who Lived In New York When The Towers Collapsed, I Really Appreciate Your Research
Sorry. I'm a skeptic, not a conspiracist. There are flaws here. There is less oxygen in air the higher you go = lower temperature. Terminal velocity of free fall is 190 kph. With friction of resistance from each floor collapsing, it would take longer to fall than the falling debris around it.. The planes hit high on the building. The heat didn't extend much below the impact. The impacts being on one side of the buildings, should have at least caused the upper portions of the buildings too topple sideways. Even the most controlled detonations have challenges to get buildings to collapse that straight. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from it, it was clearly controlled detonations that brought them down.
I’m going to clear this up real quick.
Do you believe COVID vaccines are bad for you?
Do we have reptilian overlords?
Are chemicals turning the frogs gay?
Did we actually land on the moon?
And… go..
Yep!!!
both buildings did slightly tilt at the start of their collapses, South Tower view from the helicopter was easy to spot, there is a video on RUclips showing the North Towers collapse from a boat on the Hudson River and at the start it does tilt towards the south. As the collapse continued downward there was very little resistance to 100000+ ton of building coming down. Those floors were made of lightweight trusses, lightweight metal pans and 4" of concrete., force of collapse blew right through them, and since the towers were held together by the floors, once the floors were gone, the walls and core had nothing to hold them up and they fell too. One thing I know for sure is nobody will ever, EVER know exactly how much damage was done inside those towers, they can only speculate, for example there was a man who called 911 in the South Tower who told authorities that floors in the 90s had collapsed, how did that happen? Thats a good 10-15 floors above the impact.
Dominoes? The twin towers were not erected like a game of Jenga
Good Analysis
That video was how I found you 😂 happy anniversary 🎉🎊
My pledge father was a super senior architect. The school joke was "architects studied funny math and funny physics."
Doesn't the lower portion of a skyscraper have to support more weight than the upper portion. So where is the data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the structures.
So how did the North Tower collapse in 30 seconds when free fall took 9 seconds. Maybe the conservation of momentum is too difficult for architects. Explosions in the impact area would be irrelevant to collapse speed thru the intact portion below.
30 seconds!? Where did you start the clock
@@robertparkinson5254
From the first noticeable motion of the roofline. Some sources say 26 seconds to when The Spire hit the ground. The Spire was the remains of the core columns still erect.
Combustion is a more complicated thing than one might expect. If you burn jet fuel inside an engine that is designed to maximize efficiency what temperature will you get. If you just pour it on the ground and set it on fire how efficient is the burn going to be?
Plus any supposed weakening is going to depend on the thickness and quantity of the steel. When are we ever told that. There were 100,000 tons of steel in the North Tower. How much was on each level? Where is that data?
Agreed I have my own opinion on this... I think they was blown up from the bottom and fell straight down I mean look at WTC 7 nothing was wrong with it and it fell the same way... Why? See umm and if it was steel that was bent or melted why didn't it fall over instead of straight down? See what I'm getting at here? They can say what they want to ease ppls minds but even the fire men said that got stuck in the stair well said they heard explosions before the floors started coming down so again I agree with u.
You don't know what you're talking about. Why would an architect be concerned with conservation of momentum? That's mechanics. Architects deal with statics. You can say "OH well it's to control a collapse scenario" but no that's the job of engineers, not architects.
Thank you for this video. The combination of your research and thoughtful presentation is a perfect counterpoint to so much breathless speculation we see online. Thank you also for the calm and respectful manner in which you present. Great tragedy should be used to learn.
Thanks for making the video, I always wondered how the towers fell b/c I've heard so many conspiracies revolving around it and I never got a clear answer until now. Good job
Those conspiracies.. make myself feel regurgitating now, after I know who made them, seeing the entire picture as the war in Ukraine contines. Yes, it has everything to do with what is happening now in Ukraine and "Flat Earth" conspiracy. One conspiracy after another, one saying that "America created HIV in laboratory". We now know where this informational trash, these lies are coming from, as they say that your government is conspiring to kill you constantly - to the interior public, and America is evil (killing their own people intentionally) - for those watching from outside. At first those conspiracy "news" made me wonder, but now it is just obvious how the informational war is pointing towards democracies, as West Europe especially is a target too. The idea is the misinterpretation of any information they can against the government of any liberal state, actually inside the state, dividing and creating mistrust, zombifying some individuals from society with idiocracy, a well planned war of the ex-KGB's "specialist in communication" (guess who is that one).
And you think this nonsense is a clear answer?
this is a very sad day dont understand it into 2005 😢
I don't understand why so much evaporate.
Great video again. Suggestion: make a video about Oscar Niemeyer.
So the 47 box columns plastically deformed? Right, look at the slow motion video. Jet fuel does not explode. They fell because there was nothing holding them up, the rate of collapse means no plastic deformation..
Most people will disagree with me, but the twin tower collapse was a major example of engineering failure, sorry.
Spray on fireproofing does not make a good adhesion to the metal (non-combustible ,unstable); fire in the attic above the conference hall in Zagorsk monastery in 1986 deformed roof trusses causing ceiling collapse
The welding of outer wall elements promoted stress and initiated corrosion; also there were no anti-buckle belts on every 5th floor
The lousy Sheetrock walls around staircases immediately failed upon impact (must use steel mesh reinforced thin wall concrete)
Most important , there was no engineer available to plan evacuation and access the situation as it unfolding
Smart girl
What horse shit. NIST could not explain the mechanism of collapse for either tower for very good reasons. The Twin Towers both collapsed in the 10 to 12-second range. Gravitational acceleration, aka free fall, would have been 9.2 seconds. This means that the vast majority of each tower’s kinetic energy was completely used up just falling that fast. There would have been nowhere near enough energy left over to crush down 78 stories (South Tower) and 93 stories (North Tower) of cold, healthy steel structure, eject multi-ton sections of perimeter structure in a 600-foot radius from each tower’s footprint, and to pulverize 200,000 cubic yards of concrete (each tower) such that Manhattan was blanketed in a 2 to 3-inch layer of powder. All of this is utterly impossible without a great deal of energy added to the system. It is quite evident from numerous videos of both towers’ collapses that that added energy was explosives. Videos show symmetrical waves of explosive ejections of pulverized concrete and other debris racing down the face of each tower at, again, nearly the rate of free fall. Also notable on some of the videos are isolated ejective squibs emanating from the faces of the towers 10,20, and even 30 stories below the collapse zone. This is simply inexplicable if not for the use of controlled demolition. I hope that someday the religious belief in the official narrative of what happened that day will give way to science, empiricism, and common sense.
Why there is not new models and simulations to show how it can go down? You are publishing an old model made for the TV like one week later of the impact.... Could you recreate a real model that can collapse twice in perfect 90 degrees? As an architect you know how to build it with wood... So I bet you can't recreate the fall with wood and using over 1000 centigrades degree antorch
you should react to Jeracraft, he is a expert Minecraft builder.
You need to find the video of the explosion of bombs going off ..video done by a person on the street,
Is deleted from RUclips.
No, there were no bombs. The “bombs” that this mystery video recorded was either the molten aluminum falling between floors creating explosions as detailed in this video or the pancaking of floors as the weight of them collapsed on top of one another. It’s really sad that some people have to create an alternative reality to escape the tragedy of that day.
@@TitaniumTurbine Agree and also the planes had no engines and the molten steel running down the side of the buildings was photo shop.. It's really sad that some people have to make up stories to protect the perps.
I talk about this explosion that was reported around minute 11:30! hopefully that clear things up for you. if you have further questions let me know and I’m always happy to share more sources with you as well to read at your leisure
Hi Nat 😌😌
Should have rebuilt them. Bigger, Taller, Stronger. Prouder than before.
i don't think any building could resist the dynamic load of the floor above crashing down, each floor could hold the static load of the rest of the building above, but once the first story gave way, all that static load became unstoppable dynamic load. You don't need explosives when the weight of the building crashing down is equivalent to 250 tons of tnt, it's in the same order of magnitude as the beirut explosion.
People do not understand the difference between static vs dynamic loads. The structure only stands as a static load. When the top 23 stories of the building failed this is now a massive dynamic load. The dynamic load of the top 23 stories failing weighed more than the entire building. ....Landing on the floor below. Game over!!
Well done and so important that you took a stance against misinformation. Thank you.
So sad
Sorry but this video is just a repeat of what the official story is which the vast majority do not believe because the facts do not line up with official narrative. Jet fuel would have been predominantly burned off in the initial impact.
Plus how old are you, where you even born when this happened? I was, I was 21 and this had a dramatic impact on me and for a long time I believed the official narrative, then I looked seriously into this and things just do not add up.
Newtons law of equal and opposite forces disproves the notion that the towers could collapse within 10 seconds.
Domino effect if utter BS.
Explosions where heard because I heard them first hand.
Forget to mention Mobiles worked about 10k feet but just for that day,
Amazingly put together. Sadly logics don't work on the ignorant.
thank you! a lot of research went into this piece
Thank you so much for the video! Really appreciate your work!
Thank you for your video. As I learn more and more about the architecture of the towers and about scientific facts (like the aluminum and water causing explosions), I become more confident in my belief that things happened pretty much as reported. Of course, that doesn’t mean that all of the Americans are completely innocent, but I do not believe that people in our government would do something so idiotic in terms of financial loss. Other idiotic things, yes, but to destroy such important buildings that were still relatively young…I just don’t see it.