snouty warthog said:
...people can post a link to <someplace>, but not a website promoting an alternative view?
There is such a thing as reality.
That's not to say that different interpretations of events cannot be debated, but it does rule out some descriptions of reality altogether, no argument. If there is such a thing as reality, stuff can be plumb wrong, you see. And the fact is, theories that claim the WTC towers could not have been felled by a combination of impact, impact blast, and fire are in the plumb wrong category.
The plane weighed 120 tons and was travelling at 500mph. All of that energy was absorbed by the impacted structure. Here's a physical equation ...
What this shows us, if we do the sums, is that the energy in the motion of the plane alone was roughly equilvalent to a couple of 1000lb TNT bombs. Carefully placed, that would be quite sufficient to knock out the support structures and initiate collapse.
Granted, the explosive shock could not be placed precisely enough to guarantee collapse, and indeed the towers withstood the initial impact. They would have stayed standing too, if that initial blast had not ripped the insulation from supporting steel beams and trusses. But it did, and as the exposed beams expanded in the heat, they buckled (just like railway lines used to, in summer heatwaves). As the fire moved on, the buckled trusses contracted again. The immense force in turn pulled the supporting beams out of true. The fantastic weight above was no longer coming straight down the supporting columns but was instead now able to force them sideways till they shattered.
Once collapse had started, more energy was released. Staggeringly more -- there was the equivalent of 272 tons of TNT energy in the structure of one of the towers. Once collapse had started, gravity did the rest, tearing each tower apart and pulverising it to dust and rubble with the equivalent power of 272 tones of high explosives.
source
