Why did the twin towers collapse when the MUCH OLDER Empire State Building withstood a direct hit from a B-25?

Question

The Empire state building was not as old as the towers when it was hit by a plane HOWEVER the technology to make it was surely less advanced than the WTC. How does an aluminum plane do what steel could not to a building? consider the military aircraft used a more volatile fuel than the commercial airliner as well.

The fires in the world trade center lasted weeks not minutes. Why were mounds of debris, obviously stifled of from fresh air, burning hot enough to melt high grade steel beams DAYS after being covered in plastic office equipment, non-flammable cieling and carpet as well as all the concrete dust. The fires do not make sense whatsoever concidering the available fuel.

The outer shell served to prevent swaying and lateral movement and shared a minimal amount of the vertical load. The majority of support against gravity was in the inner columns of the WTC towers. It was not too different from other skyscrapers other than the fact that it was designed with the vertical supports on the outside instead of surrounding the core. What caused the tower to become so weak as to collapse so long after damage was sustained? Jet fuel will not melt steel in such a manner not to mention the fact that most fuel burned up IN THE FIREBALLS CLEARLY VISIBLE WHEN THE SECOND TOWER WAS HIT. The fuel melting steel story is bullshit HOWEVER something obviously did melt the steel but why did it then burn for weeks under debris that were mostly fire proof or retarded. Also, why were debris cleared so quickly leaving no evidence to investigate. Nothing is ever GIVEN, why were so many assumptions made? Also FAR MORE MONEY has been spent on plane crashes than 9/11/2001. Absurd.

Squibs are obviously seen bursting from the building. Someone compared the squibs to the recent demolition of a building in Chicago which was engineered differently, It was amusing. Why do squibs appear so far down the tower when the floors were obviously intact for 20+ floors at a time? Air pressure? Hardly. Some floors have multiple jets of POWDERED CONCRETE and debris. If it was "air pressure" then the windows would have blown out well before seeing any of the debris cloud. Another myth solved. As I've already explain the pancaking theory is bull. Do research via unbiased channels and you will understand how the theory is impossible. The simulations ran didn't even account for the main load bearing steel beams located centrally within the two main towers. So what caused the squibs? What burned hot enough to bring down the towers? When the 1st tower toppled over, all the bottom members were freed of a near 30 year addition weight. What ADDITIONAL forces caused them to collapse?

Answer 1

Demolition..
http://killtown.911review.org/

Answer 2

The main reason would be the unique structural design of the WTC towers. The vast majority of the support structure in the WTC towers was the outside shell, not an inner series of steel beams like most structures. While it is very true that no other steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire, it is also true that the WTC twin towers were unique in their structural design, something that is commonly overlooked when talking about this subject. This major structural difference led to the collapse of the towers. I would do a little more research on how the WTC towers were designed versus the Empire State Building, Chyrsler Building, or Sears Tower, and it will become clear why these structures were prone to this type of disaster.

Answer 3

The fuel in the plane is the obvious answer as to why the WTC
fell. Also, the Empire State Building was over engineered! At the time, they didn't know for sure how much support the building would need, so they cautiously made it stronger than necessary.

Answer 4

I never heard that a plane hit the ES, but in any case if that happened, you need to have in mind that the planes that hit the WTC, were planes fully loaded with fuel, and was not an accident, so the intention was to cause the most damage possible.

You need to review the detailed conditions for each incident.

Answer 5

the WTC was made of steel and glass, when steel gets hot it gets a lot weaker.

The empire state building has interior collums of steel that are encased in concrete...the concrete protected the steel and kept the heat away from the steel so the internal structure didn't weaken.

Also the WTC fire system aided to it's demise, it had fire traps to prevent the steel from fire from an internal fire...however the impact toore these open allowing direct access to the steel guirders...

They just don't build them like they used to

Answer 6

it was the impact at high speed of the planes loaded with fuel for a cross country trip and the explosion of same it blew off the fire protection installed at the time it was built then the metal just melted from the conecetions and the damn thing collapsed like a pancake while burning

Answer 7

the fire, when steel is heated above 500 degrees Celsius the metal loses his strenght, the top of the building came down with a bang on the rest of the building, the kinetic energy was to much for the construction. and the outcome is known.

Answer 8

Read this and quit being conspiracy morons. It fell because of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

The fires in the empire state building were put out in 40 minutes. The fires in the world trade center spread rapidly and lasted for 100 minutes.

Edit: If your using pseudoscience and opinions on a science and mathematics forum to explain something you deserve to be called a moron. If its pseudoscience it is not equally valid, it has no relevence whatsoever in this forum.

Answer 9

The best answer is that it's an ugly, ugly world that we live in. And our Governments will do anything if it serves their purpose. They must have a secret saying- The end defines the means?

"GIve 'em the old razzle dazzle..."






Edit: There is nothing 'moronic' about researching both sides of the story, reading through evidence for both sides and afterwards, concluding one's own opinion. It doesn't look good as far as the official story goes.
And there is definitely nothing wrong with asking questions when someone needs to know the answer.

Don't attack people for having opinions; they're as welcome to them as you are yours.

Answer 10

In a documentary picture, it has been concluded that the WTC is destroyed not only by plane crash, but by powerful bombs, and the documentary shows smokes even before teh plane crash. It is a mystery?