Regardless of your angle on the 9/11 event being staged or not, the aluminum vs steel reinforced concrete argument is always easy to beat, as it is the weight and velocity and not the hardness that matters. A 5 inch diamond traveling 2 MPH wouldn't defeat steel reinforced concrete either.
There's apparently records of thermite found at the scene which is incredibly unlikely to have formed organically as it is a fairly specific formula in a relatively specific particle size that simply would not happen in those circumstances.
Along these lines, any reinforced concrete could become weaker (as it is supporting the load of hundreds of thousands of tons of weight, which just essentially became more dynamic weight when hit with heavy, fast moving objects).
It's always important to remember that an attack can happen from multiple different angles, and one does not negate the others.
Regardless of your angle on the 9/11 event being staged or not, the aluminum vs steel reinforced concrete argument is always easy to beat, as it is the weight and velocity and not the hardness that matters. A 5 inch diamond traveling 2 MPH wouldn't defeat steel reinforced concrete either.
There's apparently records of thermite found at the scene which is incredibly unlikely to have formed organically as it is a fairly specific formula in a relatively specific particle size that simply would not happen in those circumstances.
Along these lines, any reinforced concrete could become weaker (as it is supporting the load of hundreds of thousands of tons of weight, which just essentially became more dynamic weight when hit with heavy, fast moving objects).
It's always important to remember that an attack can happen from multiple different angles, and one does not negate the others.
Those towers were steel wrapped, weight and velocity didn't do it and could never have.