Released via "Freedom of Information Act",not widely seen, showing RAW footage of 9/11,in particular WTC building 7,partially consumed by fire,melting the beams which then resulted in it's collapse,also shown in this vid is a direct ground shot of a large portion of the building missing at the bottom,look closely and your 9/11 conspiracy theories should take a back seat,the building was severely damaged by collapse of the Twin Towers.
How did a building hardened against terrorist attack on top of normal safety back ups burst into flames hot enough to melt steel when the buildings hit with planes didn't get hot enough to melt steel? No explanations. No information or proofs.
MAGIC!
Only a dimwit would swallow that beefy toxic poz load.
>>1825 >hardened against terrorist attack on top of normal safety back ups
Yeah, they totally saw the attack vector of "debris from building next door" coming.
>>1823 Oh wow, I can't believe people are falling for this. I saw some buildings collapse in Transformers, I guess that actual buildings were destroyed then too, eh?
And besides that, look at the 'ash' ground. Clearly the same material that served as 'moon dust' in '69. Can't believe they're reusing stuff that old, but I guess the 'recession' is hitting everyone hard, even the CIA who engineered it.
>>1825 >How did a building hardened against terrorist attack on top of normal safety back ups burst into flames hot enough to melt steel when the buildings hit with planes didn't get hot enough to melt steel? No explanations. No information or proofs.
It didn't melt.
It just needs to get to a few hundred degrees, not even red hot. Just that much heat weakens the steel slightly but more importantly the slight drop in strength causes the structure to begin sagging which multiplies the weight acting on welds and bolts.
Large buildings are not over-engineered to any extent. They are designed so that they barely survive a worse-case scenario, simply because any amount of over-engineering means adding more steel which increases the weight, and when you add more weight you have to increase the strength even further to account for it.
And the worst case scenarios devised by engineers in the 60s and 70s are considered incredibly optimistic by modern day engineers, as we now know lots of ways that buildings can fail that were not known of back then.
>How did a building hardened against terrorist attack
Nah m8. It was hardened against small aircraft hitting it by accident and against bombs driven to it on the ground. Nobody thought that someone would hijack two jumbo jets and fly them into it.
Wrong. Read the details on it. It was designed to take very large aircraft hitting it. You've just revealed yourself as an idiot as you're telling people what is and isn't without even fucking researching first. What a cunt you are.
>>1855 Not the charming fellow you're chatting to, but they were designed to be able to withstand a large aircraft hitting them, and they did so, very well in fact. They could have probably withstood a "jumbo" jet impact, which didn't happen - both of the aircraft involved were "mid-sized", weighing approximately 170 tonnes, as opposed to the well over 400 tonnes of a 747. Unfortunately the structures weren't designed to withstand prolonged temperatures of the magnitude caused by burning jet fuel, although it is doubtful whether designing a building structure which could is actually possible. People seem to forget that the towers didn't immediately collapse, one burned for an hour before starting to, and the other for over 100 minutes.
