They’ve proven time and again that the fuel burning temperatures were no where near what it takes to melt steel. Even if it was a viable thing, the buildings disintegrating in demolition fashion is absurd. The beams would have melted in an assymetrical fashion, causing a tilted partial collapse of one side of the building. The fact that two buildings fell in the exact same demolition fashion makes it doubly absurd. And don’t even get me started on building seven. That just fell in sympathy to it’s two big brothers.
The most compelling case for controlled demolition can be found among the architects who can show that a structural steel building-even heavily damaged by fire- will not collapse. If a fire can collapse a structural steel building, everything know about architecture and engineering skyscrapers completely goes out the window. If I can find the video on Rumble I’ll post here.
They’ve proven time and again that the fuel burning temperatures were no where near what it takes to melt steel. Even if it was a viable thing, the buildings disintegrating in demolition fashion is absurd. The beams would have melted in an assymetrical fashion, causing a tilted partial collapse of one side of the building. The fact that two buildings fell in the exact same demolition fashion makes it doubly absurd. And don’t even get me started on building seven. That just fell in sympathy to it’s two big brothers.
The most compelling case for controlled demolition can be found among the architects who can show that a structural steel building-even heavily damaged by fire- will not collapse. If a fire can collapse a structural steel building, everything know about architecture and engineering skyscrapers completely goes out the window. If I can find the video on Rumble I’ll post here.
The most compelling case is military grade thermite dust covering 10 square blocks. That’s the biggest smoking gun there is.
That too. https://rumble.com/v3c3s6e-experienced-architect-explains-911-wtc-collapses.html