>>10976496>you don't need to melt steel to make it ductileLiterally irrelevant to the story. The "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is one of two things - it's either a misunderstanding of the original claim or a reference to suspicious evidence like molten substances pouring out of the buildings or cut beams in the wreckage.
>it's a well-known fact the architectural choices of WTC made it fragile and prone to collapsing hence why buildings aren't designed the same way todayThis is completely false and you're just plain lying. The buildings were EXPLICITLY designed to WITHSTAND impact from airplanes. This has been stated MANY MANY times.
>no building on Earth was designed to get hit by Boeings flying at maximum speed without collapsingSee above. These were. If not that particular model, then some model.
>there's no point whatsoever in demolishing all of WTC7 to destroy some docs you can simply shred in all discretionHe did it for the insurance money. And the news said it had collapsed while it was visibly still standing, then the feed got cut. Then the tape was lost.
>especially if the fire squad evacuates the whole building and potential whistleblowers beforehandWhat potential whistleblowers? They wouldn't have fucking been in the building, like the jews who got warnings "some of you are alright, don't go to work today".
>WTC7 was on fire for longer that it was designed to resist hence the fire squad predicting it would collapseCompletely irrelevant. Other skyscrapers have burned hotter and longer.
>setting up a controlled demolition would require miles of cables and weeks of preparationWhich was available. And there are literally stories of this very thing happening. As well as descriptions of controlled explosives going of in sequence.
>in buildings where thousands of people walk around every day and would definitely notice if someone was putting weird cables everywhereSome did. That's why there are stories. They're brushed under the rug.
