You are making all the arguements already made, but t=you have several glaring flaws in your post.
First of all you completely missed the point that the poster understood the different constructions of the buildings in question, he did, which is how he explains the difference in the damage to the different buildings and the different ways they burned despite being impacted by similar planes.
Actually the poster was complaining that people had different interpretations of what kind of damage would have occurred between the two different kinds of buildings. I was pointing out, that the two buildings were in fact different in their construction, and therefore the damage pattern would be different, and therefore what the damage should have been would also be different.
Keep in mind that the WTC building were more or less normal offic buildings, and that the Pentagon was designed (roughly) to withstand a nuclear attack, this pretty much completely explains the differnce in the impacts.
Stop right there; the Pentagon was not designed to withstand a nuclear blast. If it was, then the plane would never have been able to penatrate the building at all.
The WTC buildings would be like throwing a soda can against a cardboard box, it'll likely penetrate, and the pentagon is like smashing the same can against a rock it'll be crushed and it's contents will spew in the general vicinity.
While this may be fairly accurate, the wings were not found directly right outside of the hole that the plane made in the Pentagon. If the walls did infact sheer the wings off, then they would have been right there.
So, in the WTC buildings the airplanes almost went through the buildings, but the exterior steel columns basically carved the plane into chunks s it did so, like a potato in a french fry slicer, the fuel largely continued into the building and down the building mechanical shafts which became huge chimneys approximatly 1000' tall. This effect provided all the air the fires could ever want. Also, steel may melt at 3200, but it loses about 90% of its strength at 1000-1200F, structural engineers build in a lot of safety factors, but to make something 10X stronger than it needs to be in case a plane hit the building would never happen. No engineer would design that, and no architect would let him build it.
The Plane is made of aluminum, the steal girders were sufficient in size to have sheered the wings off of a non-reinforced plane. If the plane was a commercial airliner, then it didn't have sufficient reinforcement to cut through the steal girders, and the steal girders would have left the wings of the plane falling to the ground; this didn't happen. Also, steal becomes malleable at over 2000 degrees F -to the extent that it was capable of doing what non-truthers claim. However, there are even several problems with this still: (1) The time required for 2000 degrees F to have caused the damage -that non-truthers claim- would have been several hours. (2) The fire retardant would have increased the needed burn time by 2 to 3 hours at least. (3) The combination of jet fuel and office furniture would have been around 2200 degrees at most; thereby making the temperature in the ballpark, but the time it actually burned was nowhere even close to being long enough for the fire to have caused the collapse of WTC 1 or 2. Building 7 has even more problems because it was never hit by a plane at all. Therefore, there was zero jet fuel, and the damage was isolated external damage; this makes it impossible for the building to have collapsed. While building 7 did burn for a much greater amount of time then either Tower 1 or 2, the problem is that building seven didn't have jet fuel burning, so the intensity of the fire was completely the result of office supplies burning; this will not bring down a building. Also, the structural damage was isolated to the one corner of the building, but in the video of the collapse, the center core of the building falls first -this is how building fall to fall into their footprint. The center core needs to go first, thereby pulling the external walls inward and then they collapse, and the result is an implosion as opposed to an explosion.
Now, the pentagon is completely different. Only the heaviest parts of the plane were able to penetrate the extremely thick and strong outer walls of the building thus a small hole relative to the size of the plane. Also the windows on the pentagon were security glass, and very thick, even so if you look at the photos, you can see the shape of the airplane wings in the pattern of the windows that were blown out in the impact. As you suspect, the wings did not penetrate, but largely collapse/ turn to dust on or near the exterior. The fuel in the wings burned mostly on the outside of the building, and inside the first ring where it was able to enter through blown out windows but was mostly contained to a small area. For this reason the fire was somewhat localized and much easier to fight, but the difference is mostly in the construction of the building. Whereas the WTC towers were built with cost and market considerations in mind, the pentagon was built by the US government with basically limitless military funds, and so was designed to withstand a nuke which it might actually have reasonably needed to do when it was under construction.
Again if the wings were sheered off by the outer wall of the Pentagon, then why weren't the wings found right there? If a commercial airliner could do that much damage, then it(the Pentagon) certainly wasn't designed for any great impact of anything.
Also, the construction of your model as described is in no way an accurate model of the buildings in question, your experiment would show nothing of value. In order to have something of value from the experiment you'd need to do a very faithful scale model recreation of the building in question, and the damage suffered.
Actually, the experiment does what it is suppose to do, and that is to demonstrate that when a small section of a building collapses onto a much larger section of the very same building -with identical construction, the larger section will not collapse due to the mass of the smaller section; especially when the distance traversed by the smaller section is an even smaller length of the building. The small section of the building fell at most 4 floors, this would have never been a great enough distance to generate the kind of momentum needed to make the preceding 80+ floors simultaneously collapse.
The freefall numbers you give are actually what you would expect in a collapse situation.
When and individual drops any item of significant mass and distance unobstructed, the item falls at or near 9.81 meters per second -Free Fall. If something were to be placed between the item falling and the ground where the item will naturally come to rest, then the average rate of declination -ie velocity- over the entire distance the item fell will be significantly lower than 9.81 meters per second; to think or expect otherwise is unprofessional. 8.0 meters per second and over indicates very little, to zero, in the form of resistance; this is not a real wold scenario concerning real objects with significant mass, traversing a significant distance.
As previously pointed out you will of course believe what you are predisposed to believe, but in my professional (yes I said professional I am one of those dang engineers)opinion the damage and manner of collapse of the buildings is more or less exactly what I would expect to occur given the situation.
I'm sorry but if you _in your professional opinion- think that a small subsection of a building will fall through 80= floors of the same building and fall at or near Free-Fall velocity, then I certainly wouldn't want you engineering any building that I may be inside or any bridge that I may be on.
That being said, I am open to the belief that some insiders may have known some sort of ttack was being planned, if they didn't they were worthless. However there is no indication they were aware of the potential scale of the attack, or privy to any information relating to timelines or specific targets. If you want a governement conspiracy, look to the response by our dear legislators and president in rushing through legislation on the back of the tragedy. I also find it odd that none of the clear constitutional violations inherent in the PATRIOT act have ever been heard by the supreme court...that to me sugests that someone(s) in high places is making sure such a case (probably because they think these powers are really necessary to protect us, not because they are sinister) is not heard.
The PATRIOT Act is not there to protect you; it was first introduced into the Senate by Joe Biden in 1995 it was called the Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act. It was originally written by as early as 1991 and it failed in 1993 when the RAND Corporation -which wrote the Bill- tried to get a law maker to introduce it into congress. If you think that the PATRIOT Act might actually exist as a positive as opposed to a negative, then you seriously are still asleep. Also, you will believe what you are predisposed to believe; which just so happens to be that the government is -for the most part- good.
Explain, how is it possible for people with degrees, from some of the most prestigious Universities and Colleges from around the world, are inept; and how all of these anomalies of ineptitude all manage to get into government work. If that is in fact true, then that is just as much reason as conspiracy to get rid of government.