The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't address the physical aspects of the destruction of the buildings, like I was, so I don't know why you brought that up. It was released before the NIST "investigations" were even finished. And your "argument" is just retardation - you're purporting to answer a scientific question [what caused the destruction of the buildings] based on the plausibility of a scenario you pretty much made up.

Imagine not knowing that the NIST report you quoted, as well as the 9/11 commission report, both discuss how the planes crashed into the insulation-coated steel supports of the towers, destroying the first supports they crashed into and blowing apart much of the fire-suppressant material, and how the subsequent hour of fire weakened the remaining steel enough for it to bend and buckle.

Engineers aren't as retarded as you are. They know heat weakens steel.

9/11 truthers don't seem to know this. "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams!" That was never the claim.

That's why skyscrapers (including the North Tower, for three hours, without sprinklers in 1975) have survived thousands of major fires over the last century and a half. Steel conducts heat, you dummy. It dissipates the heat into the rest of the steel structure - 100,000 tons of heat sink for each of the Twin Towers. They were built with a redundancy factor of 3 to 5 times stronger than they needed to be to support the required loads. I guess if you assumed that the people who built them were as retarded as you are, it would make more sense for them to collapse. But they weren't that retarded.

Wow. If a plane had crashed into the North Tower, destroying the support and blowing apart the insulation material designed to give fire crews time enough to respond before the steel was sufficiently weakened, I'd be impressed by the comparison.

Why didn't you volunteer the information that both reports discuss regarding the effects of 737s crashing into the buildings? Do you think it's not relevant to a discussion on the steel supports?

looked for evidence of temperatures high enough to weaken steel and didn't find it.

You mean beyond saying that the temperature of jet fuel and normal office crap is enough to sufficiently weaken steel.

But unfortunately you are retarded, and like other retards you are defending the official story without knowing what it is.

Between the two of us I'm the only one who's even been capable of repeating the official story. You can't even reproduce the story that you're claiming is so stupid that it should be dismissed by armchair faggots like yourself.

"Go look at footage of the damaged face of WTC-7" So fucking what?

Are you unfamiliar with the effect of the superstructure of that building and how it's integral to its design? Perhaps that part of the report was concealed by the balls hanging over your eyes as you took a few more inches of cock into your mouth.

Other buildings got seriously damaged too, and didn't collapse like controlled demolition.

That proves it!

None of the samples of steel they looked at had any evidence of steel reaching temperatures higher than 250° C.

They said the jetfuel fire in the buildings was fuel-rich and had diffuse flame, reaching 650 degrees C or higher. I don't expect you read that part either.

The official story explicitly denies that damage caused the collapse of WTC-7.

lol, you don't even know the official story and yet you're fully willing to regurgitate a cum-cocktail mixed with a bunch of bullshit you heard from a millenial faggot recording "Loose Change"

You should limit your projection to the vomiting you do after that Dorito-dust encrusted conspiracy theorist cock goes a little too far into your throat.