It’s baffling how Chinese construction has defied post 911 physics.

Chinese condtruction without thousands of gallons of fuel burning in it. Plenty of other Chinese projects that have collapsed just due to gravity though.

Lets all laugh at the OP...

quote:

---

Chinese condtruction without thousands of gallons of fuel burning in it.

---

Building 7 was not hit by a plane. Just “office fires”.

Tis a little bit different than being hit by a 400,000 airplane going 250 mph loaded down with 100,000 pounds of fuel.....

quote:

---

Building 7 was not hit by a plane. Just “office fires”.

---

But but but but what about the fuel? GMFB. And thanks.

You didn't get enough traction in the original OT thread about this? You spouted this "theory" multiple times in that thread.

quote:

---

Concrete vs steel

---

Steel is like 8 times stronger than concrete. And when it weakens due to fire, it gives you a warning like sagging and such.

Concrete on the other hand gives no warning and just spalls and explodes if the temps get high.

It takes temperatures around 600+ to weaken steal(really above 1000). It only take temperatures between above 400 degrees for concrete to start spalling. However if concrete gets up in those 1000+ degrees, it will for sure explode. Basically steam builds up inside it and the pressure increases until it explodes.

Steel does a better job distributing the heat, and this helps dissipate the heat making it last longer in temperatures. Concrete is a poor conductor of heat and absorbs it in a single place.

TL:DR; Steel buildings do much better in fires than concrete buildings.

You underestimates the heat jet fuel from 2 fully fueled airliners makes.

quote:

---

Not when exposed to extreme heat.

---

When exposed to extreme heat steel will sag. Concrete explodes.

quote:

---

The "Structural failure" is the important part.

---

Why are you pretending the steel wasn't fire treated?