The difference in strength of A36 steel at 1500 vs 1800 degrees F is minimal. The real drop in strength occurs at around 1100 degrees F.

At 1500 degrees (jetfuel burning temp) the structural steel is 10% as strong as it is at room temp.

When the steel at the crash site heated to 1500 degrees it became very weak and the massive weight of the 100+ feet of building above the crash site caused the beams to basically all buckle at the same time which is why you got the nice controlled downward demolition.

And once the heated beams buckled the kinetic energy of the top of the building was directed straight down and caused each successive floor of beams to buckle until the whole building was crushed.

The thing is jetfuel burns at like 700°C in open conditions and hihher temperature are only achieved under artificial condition with a compresseds oygen.
Now the thing is that the smoke coming from the WTC indicates that this **** was a smoldering fire, in other words the fire did not even get enough oxygen to burn down under normal conditions.
If the fire was as hot as some claim it was, especially the so called blacksmith that made that video (who somehow does not even comprehend that his furnace has absolutely different conditions) would grasp that the important crystal structure of the metal would be highly altereated.
Sure from the outside it might look the same, but if the crystal structure changes the abilities of the material are highly alterated.
The question is, if this was the case, why could it still be sold like this was not the case despite the apparrently highly alterating temperatures.

Even if all that was the case the estimated fall down time of the building would have been closer 90s instead of the roughly 10s it took.
As even if they had collapsed and each one faster one after another the floors that still were ankered would have slowed down the fall.

Just as a comparission point, in Germany large buidlings like bridges and skyscrappers or other big buildings need to have a security rating of >=10.
This means that if a bridge is labled for 8t vehicles it would actually be able to handle at least 80t.
This is done for security reasons and longlivety.
To compare the different parts of planes usualy only have ratings of 1.25 to 2.50 as they need to be light weight.

So if the WTC was even build have way decently it should have lasted much longer.

Everyone denying that planes crashed into the WTC and that it suffered damage and that people died are idiots, aswell as those that deny the taliban did it.
But so are those that deny the government and other parties did not know before hand that it would happen.

There are tons of reason for the government at the time to let it happen and tons of reasons or rather billions for the owner to let it happen and maybe even help in the fast fall of it.

We know from Shrekli that corporate guys give a **** about human life.
Hell it was a US study that found out that the big manager and CEO guys see les value in a human live than convicted psychopaths and mass murderers.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Building 7 was on fire for 9 hours. The above link was the 3rd hit when you google world trade center building 7. Watch the live leak video at the bottom of the page and you will see building 7 blazing shortly before collapse.

"The Joelma Building is a reinforced fire-resistant concrete hull construction. So, the structure itself did not suffer enough damage from the fire to cause a collapse. However, the interior was furnished with flammable items. Partitions, desks and chairs were made of wood. The ceilings were cellulose fiber tiles set in wood strappings. The curtains and carpets were also flammable."

Straight from wikipedia. The towers and building 7 were A36 structural steel framed and the steel weakens with higher temps. The building in Brazil was built with concrete and concrete does not drastically weaken at 1500 degrees F like steel does.

Took a look at the backstory on a couple of these buildings mentioned. (no time to go through them all). But the reason they didn't collapse is due to the fireproofing material that is applied to structural support beams. This fireproofing shields the steel and prevents it from getting too hot so that it doesn't weaken and collapse.

Now the twin towers and building 7 also had this fireproofing. But on the towers a lot of the foam like material was knocked off the beams by the massive jet crashing into them at 300+ MPH. As for building 7, when the 110 story towers collapsed bits and parts smashed into building 7 thus also damaging the fireproofing on one entire side of the building.

By "bits and pieces" I meant more like several ton blocks of giant building...Also if you watch the GIF you posted closely you can see the corner of the building nearest the towers is the first part to fail and begin collapsing. The entire roof leans towards that corner and then the rest of the building quickly follows suit.

You also have to look at different construction methods used in various buildings. Building 7 didn't have a standard lattice design like a lot of other steel skyscrapers that have caught on fire. You can look it up if you are interested, but essentially the outer wall of the building was a very large part of the support force. Once this was damaged by the massive junks of Tower 2, the building didn't just lose a little bit of its lattice, it lost half of its supporting structure.

Also the Mandarin Oriental Hotel was slated to open in May 2009 and caught fire in February 2009. The steel beams were coated in fire retardant and the building was really really close to being completed.

No other building in history has had this much stuff dropped on it first either. The towers didn't go down nice and perfectly, a lot of chunks dozens of feet wide went crashing down everywhere. The chunks caused a lot of structural damage and the fire just helped finish it off.

There aren't any pics of the southside because there was too much fire, smoke, and debris, hence that is where all the damage and fire were and where the collapse initiated.

Because that poor BBC reporter was brand new and had no idea what the names of the various buildings were. She was looking at the building saying it had collapsed...come on. Every time something interesting happens every news source wants to be the first to report so they just started saying anything they hear.

Look at the San Bernardino shooting that happened a couple weeks ago. For several hours all of the news reports where saying "3 white males in body armor" then by the end of the day we find out it is actually 1 man and 1 woman who are also not white. If you dropped me in NYC that day and I heard someone saying such and such building just collapsed and all I see is mass amounts of smoke I would be like "oh yeah they must be right" cause I have no freeking clue what used to be there.

The building you posted a picture of didn't buckle. That is the architectural design of the structure...The is just a picture taken at a terrible angle. Google the Manarin Oriental Hotel and look at pictures of it.

But I am done arguing because I have an structural engineering final exam in the morning to worry about because, oh yeah, I am working on my masters in engineering.

It didn't collapse because it had the fire proofing on all of its steel beams because the building was just 2 months away from opening. There is a reason the fire proofing is there....it is super effective.

If it was a joke, it fell flat on me.