Make your own free website on

An argument has been made that a 10 story apartment building also fell very quickly due to damage without the aid of explosives. But a 10 story apartment building is not the same thing as a steel framed high rise; what's more, no steel framed high rise has ever fallen at all from fires, regardless of how long the building burned.

In post 32 in the WTC Collapses thread, KennyJC made some points. They are listed below, along with their counters.

1- It's more surprising that a 10 story apartment building would pancake so quickly as it is far lighter than the WTC buildings and therefore had less kinetic energy.

First of all, I am curious to know which building Kenny speaks of. Secondly, I have a strong feeling that his knowledge of how much kinetic energy is necessary to bring down the WTC center is somewhat lacking. Perhaps it was heavier, but he fails to understand just how strong the WTC buildings were.

2- No steel framed skyscraper has collapsed simply because violent fires are rare on such buildings.

Actually, one of the towers suffered a fairly massive fire in 1975, but there was no collapse there.

3- Alternate movement believers can only point to several examples, and even in one of their examples, a large amount of the building collapsed due to it being constructed of steel. The rest of the building survived most thanks to it’s concrete core.

I believe he is alluding to the Madrid tower. That argument has already been dealt with.

4- No serious fire has ever occurred in a building that shared fundamental design elements seen in the WTC.

Again, a fire actually occured in one of the twin towers in 1975 but the building certainly didn't collapse then.