They got their lateral bracing at each floor (every 12' or so) from the spandrel plates and, ultimately, the corner connections to the perpendicular facade.
"lateral" still means 2 dimensions, only 1 if which the spandrel plates really provide for
the corners are strong because the corner angle provides the missing dimension, but it gets worse the further away from the corner you go (consider leverage)
it would have helped your quest for "load path diagrams" if you had played some bridge building games since I suggested it to you over a year ago
It would be great (and entirely on topic) if you could quantify this for us
search for "MW" (megawatts) in NIST NCSTAR 1-5 to get power, multiply with time
So do you think the collapse of a building can be considered "controlled" only if it lands 100% in its own footprint? 90% won't do?
you asked why demolitions are controlled collapses
controlling doesn't always achieve its purpose (cf. "controlled flight into terrain")
but that doesn't make it uncontrolled
the purpose of controlling a demolition is to fulfil a civil liability to comply with a contract while not causing damage or injury not contracted to be caused
I could grant you all that for the sake of the argument, but I still think you're describing an entirely different event than what we saw happen. To me, it sounds like you're describing the floors being sort of stripped off of the core. You've implied that after the core columns lost lateral support of the floors, they would fail also, but I don't think you cited anything to back that up.
remember these pictures of core remnants standing that
@Gamolon and I showed you? yes? why are you asking for backup, then?
The core columns were laterally braced between themselves. So chronologically, you seem to be saying the floors failed first, and then the core. But according to FEMA, this did not happen, and the collapse began in the core:
I explained this to you weeks ago:
1. The weight was held by columns.
2. Some columns were damaged/destroyed by the impact.
3. Some columns and trusses were weakened from heat.
4. NIST showed that this reduced the load capacity of the structure so much that it failed.
5. The structure became unable to support the top block, because of 4.
6. The top block fell on a floor below, increasing its load.
7. The floor became overloaded, detached from the columns, and fell.
8. The debris fell onto the floor below that.
9. The floor became overloaded, detached from the columns, and fell.
10. The debris fell onto the floor below that.
11. The floor became overloaded, detached from the columns, and fell.
12. The debris fell onto the floor below that.
13. The floor became overloaded, detached from the columns, and fell.
14. The debris fell onto the floor below that.
15. Repeat all the way to the bottom.
This left the facade and much of the core standing, but unbraced, and the pertubations of the debris avalanche caused those columns to fall as well in short order.
tl;dr the impact & the fires destabilised the top block, the weight of the top block then overloaded the floors in turn.
Note that "the core" is involved in steps 2 and 3, and then again after step 15.
Do not conflate the initiation and the late progression.
but NIST demonstrated very reasonably and in a very rigorous way that it would, which is very well documented and available for anyone, including you, to review.
as did Arup, and I think others?
But then when we see the collapse, it is strikingly immediate and symmetrical.
the top block tilted in a quite asymmetrical fashion (we have been over this)
Maps of dust and debris show asymmetric distribution of materials.
P.S. the uncertainty regarding your motives could be reduced if you did not avoid the questions aimed at them; I've asked several times about your aims, what you think a good discussion is, and how the discussions here meet or fail your goals; I don't remember seeing an answer.