First, more than just jet fuel burned, POOP. Further, that noted Rothschild-funded false-flag propagating source, Popular Mechanics, analyzed your claims and responded:
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel.
What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "
And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted.
He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
FACT:
Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
As to WTC 7, the world-banking and finance propaganda arm of the false-flag devotees (Popular Mechanics) noted:
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated.
"The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down.
Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure:
In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Finally, the pictures of the plane crash ... were the other crashes used for comparison those involving a pilot intentionally flying the plane at a steep angle at high speed into the ground?? Because that is what happened on flight 93.
Oh yeah ... AND PASSENGERS ON THE PLANE REPORTED THAT THE MUZZIES HAD HIJACKED THE GODDAM PLANE, POOP. Were they "in on it" as well???
Some other material you should read:
http://www.news.com.au/world/six-re...bout-six-seconds/story-fndir2ev-1226717737311
http://townhall.com/columnists/mary...ther_myths_you_should_be_prepared_to_ debunk
The Internet allows ignorance to blossom as it has for the 9/11 Truth movement. To the naive their arguments can seem compelling but when you actually analyze their claims with hard science and facts, they completely fall apart. I was not only trained in computer information systems but also architecture. This is why absolutely nothing about any of the building collapses looked suspicious to me. I have nothing but contempt for the "truthers" who push propaganda on the naive. Their claims are just ignorant: "the WTC fires were not hot enough to melt steel" (they didn't have to be, just hot enough to weaken it's load bearing ability); "WTC 7 fell at free fall speed" (it didn't - it fell 40% slower); "WTC 7 was a controlled demolition" (zero evidence to support this); "Aircraft hitting buildings should leave a cartoon cutout" (hollow aluminum aircraft hitting high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns will leave no such shape) and on and on. I literally laughed out loud the first time I saw "Loose Change" and that idiot Dylan Avery claimed pressure releases from the weight of the WTC towers collapsing on themselves were a controlled demolition. Only someone absolutely ignorant of structural design and engineering would believe these ridiculous claims. Unfortunately this appears to be a significant number of people which compelled me to write this.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html
