TLC and DSC Going for Hype Ratings?

[Unit 5302]

I've noticed an increasing amount of wild speculation on The Learning Channel and The Discovery Channel in the last year. They seem to be entertaining pure speculation from one school of thought.

I first really took notice in one man trying to make a name for himself by declaring T-Rex a scavenger. Saying that since T-Rex had small arms and poor eyesight it would have been a poor hunter. Instead, it's olfactory system was extremely good, like a vulture, making it a great scavenger. A polar bear doesn't have super great eyesight either. It does have an extremely good sense of smell. It's a hunting machine. Hmmm... perhaps they could have interjected some thought on how large scavengers are? Scavengers are normally small because they arrive after a kill is mostly consumed in many cases. How is one of the largest carnivores to walk Earth supposed to survive on little leftover scraps?

Yesterday I saw something that really ticked me off. It was a show basically targeting the WTC towers because of their "flawed" design. Since the designers didn't build the structure to withstand a full speed head on collision with a jumbo jet larger than any commercial aircraft when it was constructed, the building was flawed. LOL. They went so far as to suggest that a normal skyscraper would have stood the impact. It made me sick. They told one side of the story only. Since the WTC had all the elevators in the center of the building people on the upper floors died unnecessarily because they couldn't get down. They also suggested that the lack of a full frame allowed the building to collapse. They did NOT say what would have happened to a normal skyscraper though.

For good reason too. In my opinion, a normal skyscraper would have toppled over and destroyed blocks of city, killing thousands more. The mesh steel exoskeleton of the WTC towers allowed the aircraft to penetrate without folding the building and while maintaining a large percentage of the main skeleton intact. While they suggest the building was doomed from the initial impact, I highly doubt it. A chain reaction from the interior walls failing and floors crashing down upon one another was the result of a raging inferno of jet fuel compromising the structural rigidity of the steel. This would have occurred in ANY steel building. They pointed out the blast from the aircraft blew the heat treatment right off the steel allowing the flames to weaken the steel faster. How would that be different from a normal skyscraper? Then they determined people were trapped in upper levels due to all the elevators and stairs being located in the center. I would like to know how they figure the aircraft wouldn't have blasted through the vast majority of a normal skyscraper, thus destroying the escape routes?

It certainly seems logical to me that an aircraft flying into a normal building would have a tendency to fold the building over at the point of impact, thus altering the load to one side resulting in the near immediate toppling of the building. As it topples over, it would crush and destroy surrounding buildings without a chance of escape. The ensuing fire would rage over the entire area spread by the disbursement of jet fuel over a large area.

I'm not a structural engineer, so don't take what I'm saying as fact, just seems like they based their entire program on a one sided story. Just seems like a bunch of unsupported hype.