>>585732>The impact alone did a huge amount of damage Which is fucking retarded and impossible, because a 747 is a fucking big-ass aluminum tube with plastic and other shit inside. A fucking bird-strike will shatter the nose-cone of a 747, but somehow the fucker plowed through reinforced concrete, massive I-beams and impact-resistant glass almost all the way through the tower without assistance? I call bullshit.
>Compressive strength matters more here No it doesn't, the structure was massive and had redundancy after redundancy built in by design when it was constructed, meant to withstand several plane impacts. Moreover, tensile strength is what would need to remain high to provide better support, and compressive strength dropping wouldn't allow the towers to just fall that quickly.
>Why would you assume that the strength of the beams holding up huge skyscrapers would need to be halved before it would failBecause the supports are designed to not only hold up the tower but much more than that. The Bottom section's support system was basically the same as the section at the very top, so the areas the plane had impacted and melted have an in-built carrying capacity far higher than what was there that day. Even with the weakening of the steel it wouldn't be enough to collapse like that.
>The entire quantity of jet fuel did not ignite immediately Have you seen the same video as me? Also you clearly don't understand how quickly a high-octane jet-fuel ignites and burns. The majority of the 'fires' that should have remained after the initial impact and burn-out would be regular building fires as the carpeting, furniture, fixtures etc. lit up. None of that burns hot enough to MELT steel, and there is no doubt that molten steel was there.
>certain portions of it were in a poor mixture in different parts of the building, inhibiting combustion, but as the fire continued and especially as the building collapsed, the fumes became more exposed to open air (with oxygen) and more able to combust. Absolute mental gymnastics, that's not how a fuel-air explosion works.
> when a huge skyscraper collapses there is a tremendous amount of kinetic energy applied to the (already heated) steel beams, which through friction heats them even further. Ah yes, kinetic energy that somehow has them melting and pouring down the sides before the collapse! And also that's some bull-shit because you don't get melted holes in steel from kinetic force, you get mangled steel. The Kinetic energy of a collapsing building is not enough to create the heat needed to even make them red-hot, let alone reach melting point.
>he propensity of friction to heat, deform, and melt metal is actually used in manufacturing, called friction welding. Friction welding operates in a controlled environment and relies on constant, very-high speed, heavy friction of metal on metal. When a building falls, supports aren't grinding in a fashion like that, they're going to either snap if they're brittle enough, or bend. They won't be grinding into one another unless they're already destabilized heavily and lacking supports. But the areas of explosions and melting steel were seen dozens of floors below the 'plane impacts', where the fuel and fires could not have feasibly reached and melted and where the support structure should have been completely fine.
Finally all structural elements of WTC had fireproof coating, so even if the direct impact area burned, areas that were not hit, should not have burned significantly enough to damage the steel.
>All of you people making this kind of argument are fucking embarrassingly stupid Says the guy literally just making excuses for blatant evidence pointing to controlled demolition.
>you should have the humility not to pull up numbers for things you don't understand at a basic level.Unironically no u; imagine fucking bringing up friction welding in relation to a building collapse, that is the most ass-pulled attempt at an excuse I've seen yet, and I've seen people argue that the earth is flat because the horizon looks straight.