Granted. However, I wasn't talking about whether the lower floors could withstand the upper floors; I was saying that if the debris could go elsewhere (as in, falling off the sides of the building), it would be following the path of least resistance.
You forget that some of the debris did fall off to the side. The reason they did fall off to the side is mostly due to the fact that the tower was not collapsing at free fall speed. So this could be legitimately called the path of least resistance. However, most of the debris was directly falling over the top of the footprint, and each floor could not deal with the excessive loads and damage that was pounding down from above.
The speed at which they fell also makes it clear that it was a controlled demolition
Even though it looked and sounded nothing like a regular controlled demolition?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKxl6H-iJxM
Remember also the 10 story apartment that collapsed due to fire? Remember how it collapsed at almost free fall speed? Was that an inside job too?
Yes, but we're not talking about comets here. We're talking about a floor or 2 that allegedly collapsed due to fire.
Well then stop invoking a planet when we are talking of skyscrapers.
Actually, the floor structure was designed for jets to hit the structure. It has been compared to mosquito mesh; puncture a hole through a section and the part above it doesn't come tumbling down, because of the massive amount of redundancy. Essentially, the WTC towers are some of the least likely buildings to have fallen down due to fire. And no steel framed building has ever completely collapsed due to fire. In the one case I know of where only a partial collapse occured, the fire was many hours long (the madrid tower I believe).
This is somewhat true, but mostly false. Firstly, it's true that the designers said it was like a mosquito mesh with regard to a plane crash, and this is exactly what happened on 9/11. The towers did not collapse as a result of the plane crashes. It was a contributing factor of course, but ultimately it was the fires that softened the steel. I guess the designers didn't imagine the consequence of fires on the building after a plane had hit it.
It was precicesly because of the way the WTC was designed that it fell. I don't believe there has ever been a serious fire in a skyscraper that resembled the WTC "tube in a tube" design. Comparing it to the Madrid tower is like comparing chalk and cheese. The Madrid tower had a concrete core and the WTC didn't. The steel around the madrid tower collapsed, the rest of the tower stood largely thanks to the concrete core.
I've seen that terminology used for buildings that have indeed fallen to the side.
I have never heard of a pancake collapse being used to describe buildings that fall to the side. The whole point of a pancake collapse is that one floor falls on top of the other all the way to the bottom.
Anyway, another point to make here is that 9/11 is the only day wherein buildings that allegedly collapsed due to fire alone fell into their own footprint. Previously, the only buildings that had done this had to be planted with explosives very carefully; even with explosives, it's much easier to get a building to fall to a side.
You are completely wrong on this point. I think you mean to say "skyscraper" instead of "building". I already showed you video of a 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire, and I'm also aware of other examples of buildings collapsing due to fire.
But it's true that no
skyscraper collapsed due to fire. But serious fires on skyscrapers are very rare. So rare that truthers can only point to a few examples of a serious fire in a skyscraper.
Steven Jones has this to say about the difficulty in creating a building fall into its own footprint:
************************************************************
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute [favored by the Law of Increasing Entropy]. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…
Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. [Again, consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.]
************************************************************
So you think the 'conspirators' wanted to have it collapse into its own footprint to preserve life and other buildings? Hang on a minute... you claim they are demolishing 267 floors of office space whilst thousands of people are still inside the building.
I was under the impression that most demolitions are of the footprint variety. So I don't get the "only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it" quote.
In reality, the real difficulty would be demolishing a 110 story building and making it look like it wasn't a controlled demolition. Since demolition companies around the world do not believe it was controlled, truthers are going to explain how it could only have been controlled.
Because the floors below gave way before it's momentum could tip it over the side. Thus the path of least resistance was straight down once the floors beneath buckled.
That may be what NIST would like you to believe, but it's patently false. A steel framed building has never completely collapsed before due to fire alone before or since, regardless of how strong or long the fire raged.
No, it's not what NIST would like me to believe, it's what the
entire civil engineering and also the demolition industry have consensus on. I hold their word infinitely higher than your idiotic ramblings.
Take a look at this:
******************************************************
*Quoting from the Los Alamos report (from a 2006 talk I gave): “The Super-Thermite electric matches… are safer to use because they resist friction, impact, heat… thereby minimizing accidental ignition.
• “Applications include triggering explosives for demolition”
******************************************************
You know, I've already proven that the fires were hot enough to buckle the steel, you have not proven to me that "super-thermite" even exists... let alone that it could be implemented in a practical way to destroy a 110 story building.
Most is not all. And I think it'd be nice if we could see for ourselves, don't you? Apparently some did at least one over and over, before it was confiscated from them. I'd love to hear what they saw, but first I'd have to find the link where I saw this (so many links).
One of the videos that did capture what hit the Pentagon revealed an object to the scale and colour of AA Flight 77. We could even make out the tail fin.
I will return later to shit all over this video.
. Anyway, I believe I've already addressed what you were addressing now.