No other sreel structured building has ever collaped due to fire. Please do your own research.
Suddenly, THREE buildings collapse one the same day. Sorry, but I’m a realist.
Couldn’t have anything to do with planes full of jet fuel smashing into them at high speed.
If you were a realist, you might research what it takes to wire a building for demolition. It can’t be done with people coming and going 24/7, and there would be so much cutting prep work and running fuse, etc. that it would be an obvious mess.
Name another structure was struck by a plane loaded with jet fuel.
Name another set of high rise buildings struck by a 100 ton jet full of fuel.
By the way, I suggest you run down to your local auto body shop and ask one of the welders to show you how a quick temper can weaken steel (if you are too lazy to educate yourself, basically, a hard piece of steel can be made more mailable simply by running a torch quickly over it). It didn’t need to ‘melt’, just to lose its structural integrity.
That is not true. I told you I was an arson investigator, remember? I personally investigated one steel frame building collapse due to fire -- a refrigerated warehouse building in Alabama. It was a very hot fire that was fueled by the plastic foam insulation that lined the building, not to mention several hundred thousand pounds of peanuts and government surplus cheese inside. And there are lots of others - just Googling around I came up with this site.
No other sreel structured building has ever collaped due to fire. Please do your own research.
Suddenly, THREE buildings collapse one the same day. Sorry, but I’m a realist.
FReepapalooza
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is utter nonsense. First, it is false. Many other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire alone — with no aircraft impact damage. A famous bank building burned to the ground — though made of steel — in NYC 100 years ago. Architectural reviws of the famous bank fire and collapse wrote that “STEEL IS ONE OF THE WORST CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TO SURVIVE A FIRE”
The McCormack Place Exhibition Building collapsed in only 30 minutes from fire alone in Chicago around 1968.
Dozens of steel skyscrapers have partially collapsed. That is, sprinklers and fire fighters were able to put the fire out after it reached only a few floors. YET THOSE FLOORS COLLAPSED, despite the steel construction.
Second, it is irrelevant because the WTC towers collapsed NOT from fire alone but from massive physical damage from a 140 ton aircraft striking at 540 MPH.
So the comment is deceitful, dishonet, and deceptive.
Third, when three things happen at once it means that we doubt they are UNRELATED. We look for a common cause.
Because there was a common cause, there is nothing remarkable about 3 buildings in the same complex being destroyed by the same, common cause.
No, you're an idiot.
If this was a conspiracy, why has no one come forth with the people involved? Watergate broke down and that didn't involve treason. Abu Graib was found out quickly. This would involve a massive conspiracy at the highest levels of the government, yet no one has been shown to be involved.
Denying the reality of 9/11 is sheer idiocy and you, sir, are an idiot.
Hi Rosie, here's a list of multiple buildings made of steel that burned and collapsed as a result of the fire.
Oops. That sound you heard? Your last shred of credibility being ripped away...
Hmm. A Boeing 737, fully fueled carrying its max load weighs 300,000 lbs. We know that the two that hit the Towers had full fuel tanks, so let's reasonably assume that they each weighed around 280,000 lbs. Let's see now -- a 280,000 lb object, carrying tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel, traveling at around 550mph, crashes head-on into a largely glass and steel building.
Before 9/11, had any building, anywhere, ever been assaulted in such a manner? Nope.
What happened was what happened: A 280,000 lb object loaded with jet fuel and traveling at 550 mph plowed into the first Tower. Same thing with the second Tower. (Try imagining the enormous, explosive, near-instantaneous amount of kinetic energy the building absorbed at that moment.) Then apply just a bit of common sense and take it from there.
Here's another hint that your logic might be flawed: A Marxist radical has never been elected as President of the United States". . . Now, one is PRESIDENT!!! Sorry, [I don't think a Marxist radical is president because it's never happened before], but I'm a realist.
That's it for my engagement with troofers on this forum -- debating them is a horribly tiring, boring and pointless exercise in rhetorical shell games.And yeah, having stood right next to him and watched him in action, Alex Jones is a showboating, lying, profiteering scumbag of the lowest order.
No, you're Rosie O'Donuts.
Here's a study with 6 steel-framed buildings which collapsed due to fire. Four of them were from the WTC attack. Two were not.
That took about 30 seconds on Google.
Have YOU done any research?
Most other steel buildings are steel-reinforced concrete, with the concrete shielding the steel. Most concrete buildings don’t have 47 floors above the fire, like WTC 7 did. Most buildings do not store thousands of gallons of fuel, like WTC 7 did. But steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. Most concrete buildings do not use the WTC’s extremely rare “tube-in-a-tube” design. This is not a coincidence; These are oddities about the WTC which Al Qaeda learned thanks to the Clinton administration’s manner of prosecuting the WTC bombers of 1993.
Due to the unique structure of the tower, the shape of the collapse was exactly predictable.
But the basic assertion that steel buildings have never collapsed due to fire is simply wrong. Witness Dogwood Elementary School, McCormick Center in Chicago, the Sight and South Theater in Philadelphia, and, fueled by burning asphalt, several bridges.
You may be a realist, but you also are accepting lies from anti-American radicals at face value.