Originally Posted by Gansta_Ninja
1.) The Color of Flames
If you look closely, when the airplane hit the tower it created a fire ball of Red-Orange flames. The same type of flame can been seen burning till the towers collapsed. Under open and uncontrolled environment it would be impossible for any flames to reach the melting point of steel. It requires at least a propane blowtorch to cut the WTC steel frames.
The controlled flames from the blowtourch are normally light blue in color. A clear indication of its immense heat of 1,200-1,700 degrees celsius. Strong enough to cut and melt steel. However, that we saw at WTC are just Red-Orange flames, it was not substantial to cause the structural failure.
You argument is flawed. You argument is that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, therefore it would be impossible for that to cause structural failure. Melting steel and structural failure are two different things.
2.) Use of Demolition charges
Once again, it makes me wonder. Why the whole building including the 14 inch thick steel core reduced into rubble. The Plane struck the higher floor of the building. Even if there was a structural failure above, the remaining layers would withstands the load. What force brought the tower down in a merely free fall of 10 seconds.
By the looks of it, all the supports beams and frames have given way at the same time. Any structural engineering will tell you that the lower floors would at least give some resistance, but in this case we don't see any resistance from the undamaged floors. Expert says if your are at top of the WTC and you throw a ball below. It will reach the grown at free fall time of 9-10 seconds. Strange isn't it?
The videos itself hold the evidence we need. You will see the outer layers of the building blown to bits, also metal beams flew several meters from WTC. What force made all these? By the way, I suggest everyone to watch some videos of controlled demolition and compare it to WTC.
Wouldn't there be evidence of this found in the debris? Pretty sure there would be. Actual evidence would be helpful in making your argument more than just semi-uneducated speculation.