Hi Jay Howard, welcome to the forum.
No doubt better minds than mine will have already made this observation, but I'll continue anyway because I think it is something those on the 'truther' side of things fail to comprehend........
....this does not mean that the structural damage caused by the impact is to be discounted.
Yes, the tower performed well given that a large amount of damage was caused to the structure. It didn't collapse immediately.
But that damage didn't go away. The damage also wasn't just confined to removal of structural elements, but included removal of the system of protection to structural elements.
The subsequent fires, burning for a long period of time, TOGETHER with the redistribution of loads within the structure and the damage/removal of fire protection to the structural elements, is what doomed the towers.
No doubt better minds than mine will have already made this observation, but I'll continue anyway because I think it is something those on the 'truther' side of things fail to comprehend........
NIST's theory is basically a heat-induced collapse theory (HICT). Without heat weakening the steel, there is no collapse. In their words,
"...the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires."(171)
....this does not mean that the structural damage caused by the impact is to be discounted.
Yes, the tower performed well given that a large amount of damage was caused to the structure. It didn't collapse immediately.
But that damage didn't go away. The damage also wasn't just confined to removal of structural elements, but included removal of the system of protection to structural elements.
The subsequent fires, burning for a long period of time, TOGETHER with the redistribution of loads within the structure and the damage/removal of fire protection to the structural elements, is what doomed the towers.