I guess, according to this theory, the buildings could not have supported their floors to begin with! I mean, how absurd can you get? They were actually constructed to have the capacity to carry 10 times their expected maximum load (with people crammed shoulder-to-shoulder). They were extremely robust in their construction. Even if we leave aside that the fires were too low and too brief to have caused the steel to even weaken much less melt and that there was too little kinetic energy for the collapse of one flooor to bring about the collapse of another, consider that those fires were turning mass into energy and actually REDUCING the load-bearing stress on the buildings! In 1975, moreover, an enormous fire consumed 65% of the eleventh floor of the North Tower. It burned at around 2,000*F for three hours and enveloped the core. Still, none of the steel had to be replaced and, of course, the building itself did not come down. It never ceases to amaze me how persons who are experts and know better can make arguments like these with a straight face! I can only conclude that they are have to be very well-paid for taking these stands. The situation reeks with intellectual dishonesty.

Originally posted by James Fetzer
Even if we leave aside that the fires were too low and too brief to have caused the steel to even weaken . . . .


In 1975, moreover, an enormous fire consumed 65% of the eleventh floor of the North Tower. It burned at around 2,000*F for three hours and enveloped the core.

So, in 1975, a fire that burned only 65% of a single floor reached 2,000*F, yet in 2001, fires that involved 100% of multiple floors simultaneously, with higher fuel loads did not reach these same temperatures?

Please explain the reasoning behind that claim.