http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc1.htmYep, I just found random pictures of skyscrapers on fire, its soooooo common. I haven't a clue what any of them are.
How long did the 9/11 fires burn? Do you even know?
45 minutes? 2 hours?
What percentage of towers 1& 2 were on fire? 10%?
What percentage of the Mandarin hotel was on fire? 100%?
hollow tube design?, none of the buildings involved in 9/11 were tube designs. Of course the 9/11 commission could have told you they were made of brick and you would have believed them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire04/PDF/f04058.pdf
All three of the buildings at issue in the World Trade Center were tube structures. This is very well known fact, so your denial is quite perplexing (the first one I've ever seen in years of these claims, actually). The outside walls literally are holding the building up. As for percentages and times--none of your other building fires involve huge planes slicing through critical structural elements or the ignition of huge amounts of jet fuel. It makes no sense to compare ordinary fires without direct structural damage to extraordinary ones!
As for the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire, we've already discussed that in the past. You know what's most laughable about your using it as an example? The Beijing Television Cultural Center was designed and built after the World Trade Center attack; the engineering firm made this brochure expressly touting the fact that they had analyzed the collapse of those buildings and incorporated the lessons into their work: http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download582.pdf. Of course, even if that weren't true, the fires aren't comparable anyway. First, the building wasn't finished or occupied when the fire occurred, meaning that a substantial volume of flammable material wasn't even present compared to that in any of the World Trade Center buildings. Second, the fire burned for just 5 hours with a legion of firefighters who had good access to water on the scene fighting it. World Trade Center 7 stood for nearly 7 hours after the other buildings had collapsed with zero firefighting effort on going.
Right, because that could never possibly happen unless explosives were used. Logical fallacy in the first instance.No one found any evidence of explosives? I suppose you ascribe to the "The wind did it" hypothesis when trying to explain the puffs of smoke accompanying the flash of light as it sequences down the side of Bldg 7 followed shortly thereafter by a collapse. It's quite the leap.
You must not pay much attention to things going on around you. People have found evidence. The fact that you dismiss it means less than nothing.
As for the supposed evidence of explosives, what is it?