but not the plane, which, I think makes the difference.
In addition the angle at which it impacted would have had an effect of the structure and the speed with which it hit.
The physics is the key to this, and the chemistry too.
I'll be up front, I'm not a physics or chemistry expert, but I do know enough to pick holes in the conspiracy. Understanding the science is important. They can come up with all sorts of ideas, which sound ultra convincing, until you look at the science.
For example, steel doesn't melt untill you get to around 3000 degrees. However by the time you heat it to 1100 degrees it has lost 50% of its strenth. By the time you get to the temperatute that av fuel burns, you have lost 90%, and it will deform and fall down.
Initialy the 'fact' sounds convincing, but the reality is something different. And you have to understand the science to really understand what is happeneing.
When the av fuel hit the building the heat would have been enourmous. Hot gases expand, rapidly, they don't stay in one place (actually all gases move whatever the temp) and again you have to understand the scince to understand that the aviation fuel would have moved round the building, not stayed in one place.
I thought that the flying would have taken some doing, I've never piloted anything. Dh tells me the contrary. Since he knows about this stuff, adnI don't, I'll go with him.
I'm not saying you have to accept everything that you are ever told, but it is helpful to understand the science, if you are to make sense of what everyone, experts and conspiracy theorists alike, tells you.
I'm not at architect, but when one tells me that thse buildings are designed to colaps in on themselves, I'll belive them, because to me that sounds utterly semsible, give how tall they are, and where they have been built.