“The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow,” Sozen says. “Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact.”
This is from the Purdue University website.
It says that evaluation showed that the fire weakened the structural steel enough that collapse was imminent even if NONE of the core columns were cut at the time of impact!
See! It says on their website that they did the study! They did study the collapse. Just like I assumed they did. Just like you said they didn’t!
*gasp* Conspiracy theorists lying about the issue? Colour me super shocked here! <——(Sarcasm)
As for the videos he’s linked, VYAZMA, the first one is just a animation of the jet liner impacting the building based upon physics models (which obviously uses a consistent application of math to physics, which I’m sure pisses psikey off ). At time index 3:30 is specifically states that the explosion and fire effects were not factored in, so it’s just a visualization model of impact physics.
The second video is just a collection of supposed claims of unanswered questions, variables and initial expertise uncertainty in the scenario, and implies the same argument as the ‘god of gaps’ argument creationists use against evolution. Essentially, any factor or variable which is not explained to 100% satisfaction automatically makes the entire conclusion invalid and the alternate ‘theory’ wins by default, and conveniently doesn’t need to establish itself with the same level of certainty or evidence.