2
-1

[–] ForTheUltimate 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

There's an agrument that while they don't melt they become malleable enough.

3
0

[–] DoOver 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago  (edited ago)

It's not even an argument, it's just a simple fact. You've got an entire building's weight sitting on top of a bunch of metal beams while the extremely high temps are causing them to fatigue and fail. It shouldn't be a hard concept for people to understand, yet so many deny basic physics.

I'm not denying that the trade center destruction isn't a conspiracy, but this steel beam/jet fuel "argument" is one that only total retards still bring up.

2
0

[–] Laserchalk 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

The buildings are specifically designed to withstand fires, They can hold multiple times their own weight. They are over engineered for these exact situations. Even if it could cause a collapse, there is no way the top half of the building could completely crush the bottom half under gravity alone.

WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane. The official story is that it apparently feel down to office fires. Steel framed high rises are designed to be completely engulfed in flames and not fall. WTC 7 only had fires on a few floors. The official story involves a sequence of extremely unlikely events.The most impossible part is that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. You can only achieve this acceleration when there is no resistance.

Dr Hulsey who is a professor of engineering at alaska fairbanks released his report of the collapse of WTC 7 just a few weeks ago. They determined that it is impossible for fires to cause the collapse of WTC 7.