As if anyone of intelligence actually had to still have this explained to them by now

Maybe the columns failed because a giant plane hit it? Just thinking out loud here.

Hahaha!

Building Seven was never hit by a plane. So maybe calling that "thinking" would be a long stretch.

You make it sound like it wasn't hit by anything at all.

A fatuous objection - particularly since you had forgotten it had been hit by *no plane at all.* So your ignorance on this subject is, let's call it generous.

WTC7 was hit by - as any competent architect can tell you - trivial amounts of debris that did not *remotely* compromise its modern steel structure. NIST knew this, so they went for the next least ridiculous argument.

The NIST report claimed for years that oh, the fires brought it down. Again, as any modern architect can tell you, that's a preposterous claim out there with flat earthism.

And now competent studies have proven it was never even - as NIST itself knew - tenable.

It was hit by giant wrecks of a big burning plane. The buildings were literally next door. That's not no plane at all!

Funny thing about steel - and here, you can talk to any materials engineer or metallurgist - even for the most carefully designed, alloy the elastic and structural properties change dramatically with temperature changes. There was a conspiracy theory about the Titanic sinking being a cover up for an early prototype of a torpedo - and they argued about it for years, just like you do - but the now common knowledge that extreme cold temperatures make that particular alloy brittle to the point where it just shatters like glass eventually won out. This is exactly the same thing: the fires didn't have to melt the steel - they just had to heat them to the point where they take on the structural properties of butter.

And of course, there was no reason at the time for the architects of the building to design their skyscraper against getting hit by burning chunks of plane. Which, you still don't seem to acknowledge is exactly what happened.

False. The government ADMITTED the debris was inconsequential. It admitted it.

No steel structure in HISTORY had ever collapsed due to fire before then. There was one in I think Spain that burned out the entire contents of the structure - an inferno that made the WTC structures look like a tiny matchstick - leaving nothing but a practically glowing skeleton. Yet bizarrely it never collapsed. Of course not, because steel structures were specifically designed NOT TO. So naturally the official reports never addressed, let alone mentioned this.

The same principle is true of the twin towers themselves. They were vastly OVERengineered to withstand a plane impact like this. You were told jet fuel weakened them. But that's complete bullshit. If you watch the impact clips, you can see for yourself that 99% of the jet fuel just carried straight through on sheer momentum and burst into a giant fireball out the other side. The rest of it, we were told, was paper fires. Fire crews went to those floors and said they could put them out with a few hoses.

What you don't know about steel, to which the rest is irrelevant, is how EXTREMELY RAPIDLY it dissipates heat.

The temperatures that significantly soften or melt steel CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED BY KEROSENE OR ANY OTHER HYDROCARBON EVEN IN A PURE OXYGEN ENVIRONMENT.

Peer-reviewed studies have confirmed the presence of nanothermites. These were installed in the months preceding as "internet" upgrades. For which minor task they COMPLETELY SHUT DOWN ENTIRE FLOORS AT A TIME AND SPECIFICALLY TURNED OFF SECURITY CAMERAS.

Wow, must have been super super super high technology to have to do that.

There are thousands of architects and engineers who understand this better than you - and they're speaking out. The lies are coming down. Do a little reading around:

https://www.ae911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

The debris ignited fires on ten f**king floors. In what world is that inconsequential? Everybody saw it.

I'm not reading any more of your garbage. I've given you enough of my time. Study engineering like I did and maybe you'll start to see the holes in the trash you've been believing all this time.

Obviously you keg partied your way through, or you'd have already known what I explained to you about steel structures never being brought down by fire in history.

You clearly learned nothing about paper fires temperature's point on the temperature/strength graph.

I'm pretty sure I grasped simple points like this better after my max AP phys scores than you do now.

Only then will you be ready for things like Larry Silverstein's admission and more.

Alexis Nihon Plaza Montreal, Canada

Steel frame with composite steel beam and deck floors; fire resistive without sprinklers
15 floors, Office
Oct. 26, 1986, after 5 hour fire, which then continued for 13 hours
Partial 11th floor collapse

One New York Plaza New York, NY, USA:

Steel framing with reinforced concrete core, fire resistive with no sprinklers.
50 floors, Office
August 5, 1970
Connection bolts sheared during fire, causing several steel filler beams on the 33-34th floors to fall and rest on the bottom flanges of their supporting girders.

So, shit happens. If you heat steel in a fire, it changes size, it changes strength, those little structural quirks become huge structural weaknesses. It does not have to melt. It just has to change strength.

Sounds like bad bolt design. Did you read any of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site? No? Didn't sound like it.

Nor did you refute the university's refutation of the bogus NIST claims.

Here, I'll make it easy for even the extremely lazy. Take 1-2 min to just scan down the home page.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

Will it convince you? Not per se.

But it should make you a lot more sleepless about the fallacy that only tinfoilers see the enormous gaping - and growing - cracks in the official story.

I think that would be fair to leave it there and not ask more.