Comment: I heard it a few times.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Red herring (see in situ)

I heard it a few times.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it. But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." - Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other." - -structural engineer Chris Wise.

sources for above at:
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

The plane hits were no more gnat bites to towers this size and mass. If you scale down the core and perimeter column steel to 100 lbs., the planes would weigh as much as an empty aluminum beer can with an ounce of kerosene in it. They were shredded as if they were flying into a cheese grater, which is why no large, intact pieces besides engines and landing gear (the heaviest parts) came out the other side. Steel is three times denser than aluminum, and jetliners are basically hollow aluminum tubes with wings. They have to be light; a steel jet would never get off the ground.

Mass of structural steel in one WTC tower relative to mass of the jetliner:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5161/5222861685_fa414ec5da_b.jpg

So the plane hits didn't bring them down either.

The official story depends on the idea of steel weakened by heat because people understand steel well enough to know that it doesn't collapse all by itself. When you dispose of this idea through simple science, the official story falls apart.

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali