Since when has the government held corporations such as BP, Exxon, PANY or LERA responsible for their failures and incompetence? They usually do nothing and there is no accountability and those injured might get some compensation from the government to essentially buy their silence.
The twins were not cone inside of a cone design. You clearly have no conception of the structural strategy to deal with gravity and wind shear.... extreme height and a large footprint meaning lots of occupants per floor. The core itself was almost like a typical office frame.. but it would need diagonals to counter the wind shear. The facade were 4 large vieredeel trusses to counter wind shear and support one side of the floor. But the floors braced the facade and the stiff core also was part of the wind shear strategy. Clearly the floor structure was the Achilles heel. When they went south, the entire building was a goner.
Seven was different but it also had long span column free floors but used wide flange girders and beams to support the floors. The Achilles heel were to load transfer structures on flrs 5,6&7 which were more like a Rube Goldberg..." is best known for a series of popular cartoons depicting complex gadgets that perform simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways." Once the transfer structure started to fail... they took the core with them... and this included the braced frames which supported the facade up to floor 8... the facade structure and curtain wall came down with no resistance from floor 8 until it slammed into the ground collapsing in itself.
The extra thick columns in the twins had nothing to do with the collapse and most of the columns in both towers were hardly damaged at all... breaking apart at their connections.
Progressive collapse... a failure of connections!
Moot point. The physics don't matter anymore. The fact that the government hired a non-independent company to do a mock investigation tells us what we need to know. As I've said before, they did a spectacular job analyzing every aspect of it where they knew answers would not be found, but then avoided (to the point of scandal) going where the evidence was.
The evidence was:
1. The collapses were identical to a controlled demo. As Dan Rather put it - "Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down."
2. Hundreds of eyewitnesses (including FDNY, police, and emergency responders) reported bombs going off consistently up until the collapses.
3. It had been determined that the attacks were carried out by terrorists. Terrorists, as we all know, are notorious for their use of bombs
Given these circumstances, here is what NIST had to say:
1. NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.
2. NIST did not conduct tests for explosives residue as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.
Both of these statements are absurd. On top of that, how about just performing the tests for ****s and giggles, you know, if not just to appease the grieving families who were demanding they perform the tests? Nope.
Do you see what I'm saying now? THAT right there is the smoking gun that saves us from having to discuss the actual collapses and jet fuel and structural engineering. So, again, I say going from "not investigating" to "REFUSING to investigate" amidst controversy, you've now gone from incompetence to malice, and it essentially becomes an admission of guilt. To ignore these telling facts, you're only fooling yourself.