Comment: Finally.

(See in situ)


fireant's picture

Finally.

Let's take them one at a time.

Some of those examples were in fact total.

Since Windsor clearly collapsed only on the portion which was raw steel, not yet encased in concrete, and the concrete encased portion did not collapse, we can reasonably assume the entire structure would have collapsed had it not been concrete encased. It can be said the entire raw steel portion collapsed. Undeniable. The question remains. Why would your sources omit this fact?

If the Twin Towers "collapsed due to fire", they would have only partially collapsed due to fire, that being initiation, the remainder being gravity.

I agree it is not possible to have asymmetrical damage and a symmetrical collapse. Not when dealing with two reasonably solid masses. It can't happen. The fact is, both tops of the towers did collapse asymmetrically. It wasn't until the lower portions collapsed that we saw symmetry. Why? The easy answer is explosives. I just can't figure how the tops halted their arcing tilt and collapsed straight down because of explosives. There would have to have been the equivalent of space shuttle engines for thrust to counter that falling mass. The mass was in motion and abruptly halted, before it seemed to explode. There is no explosive placed on the inside capable of that. On the other hand, the core columns still being attached would perfectly explain it.
And here is another fact. The vertical structure of the lower towers did not collapse, or relinquish their vertical supporting function. That is evident in all the video. Much of the core was still standing, and the side walls were ejected laterally. The only resistance was the floors, supported by lightweight joists mounted to the core and the walls with a small "L" bracket, and they spanned 60 feet in two directions. If you figure the square footage of what is known as the "core area" (a rectangle defined by the core column placement), it's only about 27% of the entire floor space. If you figure only the diameters of the columns, you're talking a very tiny potion of the interior square footage. But let's use the 27% to be fair. I'll even throw in 3 to round it out and say 30%. That means 70% of the square footage had no vertical support. The only support in those areas were small brackets you can hold in your hand attached to side plates; no overlapping beams. That's all the resistance there was to the mass of all the upper portion contents crashing and churning into it. There was no vertical support resistance in 70% of the square footage. The collapse of the lower portion was not a collapse of the vertical structures. It was an internal collapse, and completely different from the upper portion collapses. This would explain why the lower towers collapsed symmetrically while the upper towers collapsed asymmetrically.

Undo what Wilson did