At least that one had more thought put into it than this one.
I strongly recommend everyone to take a few courses in dealing with Structural Analysis or more specifically, elements of steel design. Once you do, you'll immediately see that the first 3 videos are pure nonsense.
As unfortunate as it is, i haven't seen a single structural engineer make any discussion about this. You only see fire fighters, policemen, lawyers "specializing in physics," and lots of higher ups who lack even the simplest of engineering mechanics. I myself haven't been fully educated in all that is needed to know for structures but i know enough to know that this segment is completely bullshit. If you are going to do research on this, please don't do anything on this particular segment for your own sake.
First, lets discuss how a building is made.
An architect draws and visualizes the blueprints, and then gives the drawings to an engineering firm. What they do is they calculate the maximum shear, bending, torsional, axial forces each beam can withstand within a safety factor. And these safety factors have to be pretty damn high for large structures to cover the margin of errors. The beams, girders, floor platings, and columns all have undergone analysis and have been designed through the least costly but safest means.
There's a lot more too, they must understand the impact dead and live loads will have on the building. Dead loads are loads like office desks, chairs, furniture, sofas, etc, which are stationary and do not move around. As they sit overtime, they will have an impact on the design of the building's structure. Now the trickiest part is the live loads. You must account for wind loads, seismic loads, people moving loads inside the building, and even vacuum loads that result from winds traveling around and about the building. There's just so much to this, even ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) is still working daily to continue more research on such live loads.
However, when you design a building, you don't factor in giant boeing airplanes crashing into these buildings. You wouldn't factor in large debris falling from the sky and onto the building.
But when such things do happen, it messes everything up. The analysis, the design, and the strength and stress of the building's structure. And trust me, fire DOES play a huge role, ESPECIALLY if the loads and mechanics of the materials are gravely altered by such outrageous things.
Now here's the catch; people say that fire can't make a steel building crash and burn. That is true, but there's one huge assumption you are making, you are assuming that the building has had no planes crash into it, or more specifically, is still safe within it's safety factors when analyzing the stress and forces on the building. Again, people don't design any buildings so that it can withstand airplane crashes (Lol if we did, we'd literally have to have super thick buildings made out of like 100 feet thick concrete walls covering the whole surface area or something. Fucking expensive if you ask me LMAO) so once this unforeseen element comes into play, it throws everything in total disarray.
Now you see, when a plane crashes into a building, it's bound to destroy some girders, columns, and beams. The destruction of these in itself may seem negligible compared to the whole building, but these elements will cause a change in the remaining structure's stress, strain, and force components, possibly making them unsafe now. The safety factor for the building code has probably been breached, or is near it's dangerous limit, and now once you have a plane with hundreds of gallons of gasoline ignited by fire, this temperature
will affect a structure's no-longer-safe design. Like i said earlier, fire may not necessarily affect a perfectly free-standing, unaffected, and holeless steel building that has undergone meticulous engineering design, but in EVERY conspiracy video i've seen, people have failed to mentioned this point. Whether it be ignorance, or purposely leaving this out, i don't know.
Now why did the buildings falling sound like demolitions? Why were they so free-falling? Well, let's introduce a new term here: buckling. When the actual bending or axial/shear stress on a column/beam exceeds the material's actual yield or maximum stress, a beam will buckle and collapse or break apart. Now when engineers design a building, they make sure that the properties of the materials will not exceed it's maximum tensile, compressive, or shear stress from such loads like dead, live, or the building's own weight. When the first few beams start buckling, they may start collapsing slowly, but the more floors that start collapsing, the faster the buckling will becoming (due to cumulative weight). Eventually, the weight will become so great that it can instantly collapse the now seemingly puny columns and beams. Thus, from an uneducated one's point of view, it may seem as if the building is free falling. What's actually happening is that the strength of the columns and beams are too insignificant compared to the now enormous and shear amount of the falling structures. As for the mumble jumbo the guy in the second video mentions, the reason there is "no resistence" to the falling of the structure is because of the cumulative weight of the "failed" floors resulting from the buckling of the beams which makes it seem as if there's no resistence. He's talking as if this building is a thermodynamic or a mechanical system like a machine and if the WTC was either of those, he might have had
some credibility. A building isn't a machine, it is a static system. Again, all this is possible because of the fact that an airplane slamming into the building totally messes up the components of a building's mechanics.
And remember, just because firefighters, policemen, and other uneducated witnesses in the realm of structural engineering have said that they've heard explosions doesn't mean they really are explosions. It's called figurative language. Another important component engineers and architects must account for when planning a building is it's mechanical, electrical, piping systems. A building is loaded with all of these things, most of us don't know they exist because they're hidden behind the walls floors and ceilings. Such things can be dangerous and explosive, because alot of these things contain gas. Now when up to 100 floors worth of steel comes crashing down on such components, i'm sure there's going to be explosions and fireworks going on. And don't forget the heat generate by the fire. That's probably where theses "explosions" are coming from. They aren't demolitions or bombs, they're gas explosions or whatever coming from a building's interiors.
Oh and also, the columns on the very first filoor of any skyscraper have to be holding the greatest load as compared to the other columns on the different floors. When large debris start falling down onto a building, this will put much more stress and force on the first floor's columns, thus having them buckle and make the building seem as if it's free falling, like you would see in a controlled demolition.
So there you have it. The mumble jumbo in the first 3 videos are pure nonsense. Any well educaated civil, structural, architectural, or to some extent even a mechanical engineer will realize that how these buildings collapsed is mechanically possible and is not a controlled demolition.
As for the other components of this 9/11 conspiracy, like the pentagon, I've made my comment about that a while while ago, but if you ever were to do a research paper, you could possibly do it based on the other segments of the video, one's which seem to fall more under the theoretical aspects of the conspiracy.
None.
