BBC 10 years of 9/11 conspiracy theories

[JazzRoc]

(09-04-2011 09:34 AM)Swordfish Wrote:  Hey Jazroc, looks like you missed out on earning a few bucks here if you are so confident of your interpretation of events

I'm already on a desert island playing my disks. Not hunting bucks.

I'm confident of my understanding of what I see.
I'm only giving an account of the exact same understanding I held at the time I saw 9-11 (courtesy of the BBC), on the day itself, that I hold right now.
The only difference is in the degree of detail.
I know the video sequences to be unfakeable at the time in the real news media at that time, that the dynamics of impact, fire and collapse were always consistent with the physics I had worked with over forty years in a career starting in gas turbine research and ending in product design.
So yes, the aircraft were real, yes, they entered the tower with ease, yes they cut through 15% of the columns, yes, they started massive fires with their kerosine explosions, and yes, the towers were uniquely susceptible to fire wherever their spray-on insulation was blasted off.
WTC 7 is slightly more mysterious because it suffered an internal collapse which was more difficult to locate, and had an unknown weakness - deep fire soak causing long-span floors to expand past their fixing limits.
ALL buildings fell as a consequence of detaching floors destabilizing vertical columns, which then failed by buckling.
Buckling failure is the major fear for anyone designing aircraft structures. Much painful mathematics is needed to get even an approximate idea of the buckling resistance of a three-dimensional surface.
Civil engineers have it easy. They work from specialized calculations based on standard beam and column sections.
But the lay public has little idea, which is why buckling scenarios feature in slapstick vids.