If the exterior of the building was supplying most of the structural strength for the building then cutting a wide narrow gash in the side would significantly weaken the structure. The kinetic energy of the plane may not have had much of affect on the total mass of the building but it could have had a large impact on the section it hit. The kinetic energy of an ax is nothing compared to a tree but it is concentrated to one area it will bring the tree down.
You take the whole top 20 floors of a 100 story build and smash them up into rubble the lower 80 are still holding the same amount of weight, of course if you dump all that rubble on one spot of floor on floor 79 it's likely to fall through to 78 and carry that weight plus the floor down to 77 and so on, smashing and damaging as it goes, but that's another story. Whacking at the top of a tree with an ax generally will not knock it over. That's not to say the strike and accompanying damage weren't a factor, or that supports which might otherwise be fairly insulated from melting might not get exposed more directly through cracks from the strike, but I couldn't see it making much difference. I think people over complicate this, grab an old roof antenna or something else metal with lots of bits or spokes or whatever, and hang weight off it, non flammable weight, it sags a bit and stabilizes, now pour rubbing alcohol of kerosene on it and light it up, it will sag more and at a certain point bits are likely to snap off, then smack other bits on the way down and snap them off. Wrapping it up stone or whatever helps keeps the burning fuel off the metal but a good smack might open cracks for it to get in, and even without that, insulation generally works both ways, so to speak.
It's entirely possible that without all the broken windows, since those would have been sturdy material themselves, a fire couldn't have gotten air fast enough to heat the building up, I mean you need a god awful lot of oxygen to run a fire big and hot enough to do that, honestly off the top of my head I'd guess that breaking all those windows - along with delivery the fuel - were the only two real significant 'impacts' of the planes impact... however I am not an engineer or architect, so grain of salt and all. You figure as maybe previous fires in skyscrapers, Towering Inferno and all, probably contained enough flammable material in terms of raw heat production to parallel several thousand pounds of jet fuel but just couldn't get enough air to burn it fast enough to melt supports, couldn't really say.
We really need to have Logic as a course in high schools.
- 20/09/2011 06:50:36 AM
1423 Views
Logic classes would be good in schools.
- 20/09/2011 10:23:56 AM
958 Views
Ugh.
- 20/09/2011 11:30:59 AM
1000 Views
Re: Ugh.
- 21/09/2011 12:03:31 AM
926 Views
Something tells me that no matter who answered your questions you wouldn't believe anyway.
- 21/09/2011 02:16:52 AM
914 Views
this is a controlled demolition
- 21/09/2011 12:20:09 AM
1042 Views
I've seen controlled demolitions in person. They happen in the opposite order of the WTC collapses.
- 21/09/2011 03:54:35 AM
1001 Views
Agreed
- 20/09/2011 01:09:40 PM
921 Views
I've long advocated this for the reasons Tom states as well as others.
- 21/09/2011 06:49:28 AM
859 Views
I don't know if the Internet is degrading skills, or just giving stupid people a voice
- 20/09/2011 02:33:24 PM
993 Views
There is compelling evidence that 9/11 was not what it seemed
- 20/09/2011 03:06:58 PM
980 Views
No, there is not.
- 20/09/2011 03:19:43 PM
1087 Views
Well, the circumstances were odd at least
- 20/09/2011 03:26:40 PM
954 Views
As far as conspiracies go ...
- 20/09/2011 03:36:35 PM
1052 Views
what would be the motive for the US doing something that stupid?
- 20/09/2011 04:40:31 PM
858 Views
I'm not sure you got my gist.
- 20/09/2011 04:46:28 PM
908 Views
I don't think there is any evidience that Bush wanted to attack Iraq before 9-11
- 20/09/2011 05:21:09 PM
926 Views
Um. Well, sure, that would be true. If you ignored all the evidence.
- 20/09/2011 05:45:23 PM
995 Views
Well if you had argued that some Bush advisers wanted to attack Iraq I would have agreed
- 20/09/2011 06:35:07 PM
963 Views
But that's what I DID argue.
- 20/09/2011 06:47:17 PM
946 Views
sorry but you need to be more precise in your terms
- 21/09/2011 02:37:36 PM
992 Views
I've always seen them as separate.
- 21/09/2011 03:33:14 PM
812 Views
And the explicit statement of a Bush Cabinet member.
- 21/09/2011 06:59:47 AM
1043 Views
I'm still annoyed.
- 21/09/2011 01:58:38 PM
847 Views
I stopped responfding when suddenly realized I didn't want to be in a Bush Iraq war debate
- 21/09/2011 02:53:29 PM
852 Views
and I pointed that it was was just continuin gthe Clinton policy
- 21/09/2011 02:30:13 PM
934 Views
Even if that were true, it would still be flip flopping on a central Bush platform plank.
- 21/09/2011 05:45:10 PM
976 Views
In addition:
- 20/09/2011 05:57:33 PM
1056 Views
Contemplate this....
- 20/09/2011 04:27:52 PM
949 Views
You just did not go Star Trek on me
- 20/09/2011 04:44:28 PM
968 Views
- 20/09/2011 04:44:28 PM
968 Views
You should watch the pilot episode of the X-Files spin-off series The Lone Gunmen.
- 20/09/2011 08:19:15 PM
986 Views
Make 'em all take debate.
- 20/09/2011 08:23:37 PM
920 Views
Re: We really need to have Logic as a course in high schools.
- 21/09/2011 12:10:08 AM
952 Views
Yeah, and the 100,000 pounds of sudden extra weight slammed into the towers at 400 mph...?
- 21/09/2011 01:05:18 AM
920 Views
Not actually the best example
- 21/09/2011 01:56:03 AM
911 Views
what about the hole it cut into the frame of the building?
- 21/09/2011 03:23:07 AM
930 Views
Wouldn't make much difference
- 21/09/2011 04:08:27 AM
941 Views
OK thanks *NM*
- 21/09/2011 02:55:52 PM
487 Views
The fireproofing was scraped off the steel by the crash, so the beams melted.
- 21/09/2011 07:35:08 PM
1131 Views
Re: Yeah, and the 100,000 pounds of sudden extra weight slammed into the towers at 400 mph...?
- 21/09/2011 03:02:19 AM
963 Views
You would force Euler on to the masses?
- 21/09/2011 03:21:40 PM
986 Views
You could still argue.
- 21/09/2011 04:06:51 PM
862 Views
I didn't mean to imply that it is no fun to argue with a like-minded person
- 21/09/2011 04:15:47 PM
881 Views
- 21/09/2011 04:15:47 PM
881 Views
Or they could just do more math. Cold, hard, beautiful math.
- 21/09/2011 04:01:05 PM
876 Views
Now we are talking... Everyone can benefit from some basic Euclid.
- 21/09/2011 08:32:17 PM
1138 Views
I really and truly appreciate your love of pure math for math's sake, but...
- 21/09/2011 11:10:03 PM
905 Views
Well, it requires a lot more science to really dispute things than HS can give someone
- 21/09/2011 11:28:29 PM
925 Views
