>nearly all of their supporting strength from a core of steel columns surrounding the elevator complex
The perimeter steel supported most of the structure.
With its very tight column spacing, it was super rigid.
The core structure is less critical in this type of building
It's IMPOSSIBLE for the steel of 1&2 to fail to the point of collapse from KEROSENE.
And #7 was a classic controlled demolition.
>This is just full of shillery and should be totally ignored.
THIS
I'm not an engineer (i'm an architect) but with my basic understanding I know that the twin towers were structural masterpieces. Ugly buildings but beautifully engineered.
As far as I know, no steel building that has failed due to fire has EVER collapsed (other than the 3 on 9/11). That's the great benefit of steel design. They're supposed to bend, not break.
If this one is even close, it will signify a republican TSUNAMI!
Great video, anon.
It was a WONDERFUL structural design.
So many people don't grasp just how massive the footprint was.
A full city block.
Because there is so much evidence, people get caught up in the weeds arguing the details (was it thermite or directed energy) that are ultimately not that important.
The point is the official story is FALSE.
And then we're going to get into an argument about what type of bombs were used…..
How many steel buildings have ever collapsed due to fire?
Many of the 'alternate' stories are more believable than the official conspiracy theory.
Even the guys claiming the planes were holograms are more believable.