Thank you very much. Couldn’t ask for much better than that.
You’re very welcome. I’m pretty sure this is one of the most thoroughly documented, researched and studied major structural collapses ever. Just looking at the author lists of those studies gives you an idea of the scope of the work.
Don’t underestimate the grinding power of 110 slabs of reinforced concrete falling an average of 670 feet.
Oh man, that brings back what’s possibly the most bizarre argument that I’ve heard from Truthers – the claim that the building collapses looked fake because “they looked like they were hollow, and buildings aren’t hollow.” Uh, of course they are – that’s the only reason they’re useful.
Cite?
And of course, if you point out that controlled demolitions look the same way (in terms of how they collapse into a much smaller volume), they say ha, so you admit that they were demolished! Le sigh.
9/11 thread? Check.
November, 2012 join date? Check.
Wordless post with just a YouTube link? Check.
So he’s one of those moronic Truthers, right? Nope, but he had me jumping to conclusions. Sorry. 
Cool video, Bad_Penmanship. And like on 9/11 it was a demonstration that stuff without enough internal bracing falls exactly where gravity pulls it: down.
Many things. Some are on display in the museum.
One photo gallery is here:
I was once three cars behind a flatbed trailer that was hauling someone’s houseful of goods when the ties gave way, and everything slid onto the highway at 70 MPH. Even that amount of force reduced 95% of the stuff to just random debris. And that was nothing compared to having a building collapse. Most stuff isn’t tough.
So, the core columns were unable to stay upright independent of the rest of the building?
It’s always puzzled me how ANYTHING remained upright for any amount of time, considering the insistence that once the collapse started NOTHING could resist that piledriver of rubble.