I agree, 9/11 should have entirely changed the demolition industry. Literally every single demolition job from now on should be done with kerosene.

Even the most extreme demolitions imaginable. Want to destroy a United States Ohio class submarine? Stand it upright and sprinkle a little bit of kerosene towards the top and light it on fire. Within the hour all 20,000 tons of it will fall through itself, turning all but the propellor into fine dust. This demolition mechanism has been proven to us twice now in structures far heavier and far taller. It should be an easy feat to scrap nuclear class subs using kerosene.

​

Or in the case of Building 7 - just light the place on fire and leave it be for a few hours and hey presto, cheapest demo of all time

Also, drop half a skyscraper on it.

Yeah that’s totally what happened? but I’m not gonna argue about it..

I think to capture the sentiment of the comments, I am saying: if Larry Silverstein has any demolition jobs on the go- I’d put my hat in the ring. Sure I have 0 demolition experience but hey I can get a fire going. And sticking to the NIST findings from the official story - 100% of the buildings he owns (owned) go down just fine, nice and neatly into their own footprint from failure due to fire.

Yeah that’s totally what happened?

Yes

WTF? Half a skyscraper?

If jelleman88 can exaggerate, so can I

Fair enough - but sticking with the “official narrative” - building 7 fell (at free fall speed into its own footprint) due to structural failure resulting from FIRE.

The exaggeration is meant to highlight how outrageous the official narrative on this event really is. I’m not trying to be patronising about it but think about it in the context of this post and the very valid question being asked by OP

The steel industry should have been revolutionized on 9/11, too. Instead of heating steel billets and slabs for 8 hours in a furnace to 2200° F to get them hot enough to deform, they could simply spray them with jet fuel and ignite them.

Your forgetting the part where a 500 ton vehicle going 600 mph hits towards the top of the highest building at the time. That collapsed the center structure providing much of the support for the building

I recommend watching the documentary on the structure of the towers: https://youtu.be/3S5ohCX9JI8 it honestly explains a lot about the flaws and conveniences of the way they build each foor, and why a plane would be so decremental to the entire structure and lead to it collapsing

Building 7, no plane hit it. Three buildings fell in total.

LOL. The digital plane never hit anything, but if it did, or 500 planes did, it's irrelevant and would never in any circumstance cause 5 billion pounds of steel to disintegrate at the molecular level.

I think we’re reaching peak cynicism.

What is going on here? Are you joking?

They're suggesting that if fires in the three WTC towers could result in what appear to be controlled demolitions in all three cases, then that would mean that professionals who perform controlled demolitions are wasting money and effort on carefully placing explosives in controlled places throughout the building in order to ensure the demolition goes as planned.

Basically, they're pointing out that it's strange that the three WTC towers going down looked suspiciously like controlled demolitions despite being blamed on fires.

Demo expert here. They cut the steel beams then imploded the buildings.

I mean (in the case of towers 1 & 2) they're omitting 500mph explosive jets in their equation.

Actually the designers of the buildings were mentioning this specific example when bragging about what the towers could withstand.

Here is an engineer long before 9/11 explaining the design of the buildings.

https://youtu.be/E15GbdVaV-Q?t=1m41s

I've skipped to the key statement but you can of course watch the clip in whole.

And even before this interview there were old engineering magazines and documentaries about the "modern" marvels of structural engineering featuring the freshly built WTC towers with their engineers talking about that they DID took plane collisions into consideration counting with the largest commercial airlines available at the time which was the 747.

For your information planes are built out of lightweight materials like aluminium.

Now considering just the impact itself, lightweight materials VS construction steel grid, that "battle" is heavily in favor of concrete reinforced structural steel.

One could argue the speed of the planes could add destructive force to the mass of the plane so I give points for that but the majority of the plane would've been completely and utterly destroyed upon impact instead of going into the structure.

Here is a bit of experiment involving an F4 Phantom VS concrete wall at supersonic speeds which is well beyond what an airliner is capable of.

https://youtu.be/U4wDqSnBJ-k?t=47s

Note that the plane is practically vaporized leaving the concrete wall mostly intact and thats without steel reinforcements.

Just for the sake of the argument let's say the plane indeed went into the building as the supposed video evidence showing it. (which got several problems on its own to begin with like explosion showing right 1-2 frames prior to the impact of the plane's nose would touch the structure and in other video footages the nosecone of the plane emerging on the other side of the building after the impact... I mean an lightweight material nosecone after supposedly passing through the jungle of construction steel emerging in a recognizable shape on the other side.. Seriously...)

So back on track let's say the impact is done and jet fuel burning on the inside.

According to the band of engineers trying to force the government to reopen investigation on how the towers fell, the steel in the towers were rated well above the highest temperatures commercial jet fuel can burn at under ideal fuel/air mixture.

But let's ignore that and say that the structural steel failed under the immense heat. Both the external shell of the building and the interior core steel structure which is... let's just say odd considering that even the official reports say the fuel burned away relatively quickly and then the office furnitures and such were the source of following flames which doesn't nearly burn with high enough temperatures to make the steel fail, but let's ignore that too for the moment.

So the collapse began and the tower fell.

Almost perfectly onto its own footprint in roughly 10 seconds as in around freefall speeds.

All of this despite that no jet fuel and no office fires ever touched the lower levels and the official story wants to feed me the idea that all of those floors not even slowed the collapse by a couple second.

The whole official story stinks and every aspect of it is questionable at best and don't even get me started on WTC7 that was never touched by a plane and still fell the same way as WTC 1 and 2.

So no impact damage, no jet fuel and still fell in the same free fall-like speeds onto its own footprint because of "office fires from falling debris and the shaking from the collapse of the other towers".

It's what Critical Thinking Skeptics ™ do. Downvote, a priori, appeal to authority, or appeal to incredulity. Or a mixture of all of them.

Which, in real life, would have splattered in a fireball external to the towers, spilling their contents down the side of the building, not melting all the way inside the towers as though they were made of melted chocolate.

It works on bridges too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_85_bridge_collapse

Passports don't burn though. That's the lesson from 9/11.

The moral is: If you want to have a skyscraper that can withstand fire, explosions and plane impacts -- build it out of passport material.

Jet fuel might melt steel beams, but sure as hell ain’t touching passport paper

So 911 must have revolutionized building codes? All the skyscrapers in the world must be in danger of collapsing perfectly into it's footprint because of fire. I would imagine this should be cause for concern?

Thank you!!! This is exactly what I’ve been saying for years

...and I'm not sure why I'm downvoted for stating this. Obviously, buiding codes were not revised post 911. Fire proofing was not made stickier so it wouldn't fall off (Jesus!) Steel frame building construction is pretty much the same as it was before. Yet, we are to believe that fire caused three skyscrapers to turn to dust in a matter of seconds. I read recently that one floor of Building 7 was about the size of a football field. That's 48 football field size floors of steel reinforced concrete. When you consider the twins that's a total 220 floors of steel reinforced concrete literally turned to dust because of fires. Now consider the implications if the official story was what really happened?

What do the demolition companies do about all the passports that refuse to burn along with the steel girders?

It's actually quite instructive to examine what failed building demolitions look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHcCbY2wY38

If airplanes actually knocked down the buildings, I'd expect it to look something like these -- not the clinical, perfect, into-its-own-footprint we saw happen THREE TIMES IN ONE DAY.

Now we know what all those nuclear tests were for. Practice makes perfect!

Except passports are not flammable. That paper can survive the biggest explosion on US soil in history

Or hire the Ace elevator company.

TerroristPassports aren’t flammable.