Jet fuel. Steel looses a ton of strength when heated. That's why blacksmithery is possible.
If you don't agree with me, publicly display your ignorance you stupid fag.
>>601066431Dear anon.Jet fuel can't melt steam beams. It can however weaken them, and yes, that's how blacksmithery is possible.But where this comes from is that there is evidence that there was molten steel dripping from the twin towers during the 9/11 attacks. It also melted cars below, and multiple witnesses saw it. This indicates the use of thermite to weaken the structures of the buildings.
blacksmithfag here, yes steel becomes malleable at high temperature, but high strenght iron like the one used in WTC will reguire atleast 950 - 1000 degrees celcius to give in, steel is still pretty strong when its at orange glow you know
yes well steel will reguire ATLEAST 1300 degrees celcius, to become liquid state, and that kind of heat would be PRETTY FUCKING VISIBLE up there, it would flare up pretty nicely if it would reach temps like that, even in bright daylight, I've done ALOT of forge welding so I know this shit
indeed + I once watched some show about demolishion (this was way before 9/11) and for a building to collapse perfectly down on its own foundations at freefall speed is just impossible unless you have perfectly timed cutter charges at every colum of the building
>PRETTY FUCKING VISIBLE up there
Obviously you've never burned plastic before since all there was was black smoke. Even a nuclear explosion would be invisible behind that smoke.
>ATLEAST 2372 degrees fahrenheit
And yes, it can get that hot when there's airflow. I bet you've never heard of rocket motors before since, if you did, you'd know how hot kerosene (i.e. jet fuel) can get when it has enough oxygen
Just kill yourself faggot.
Im gonna try to explain something to you dense motherfuckers.Steel beams lose their strenght up to 70% when heated by the burning jet fuel.You do not need to completly melt the core of the building to make is less stable,compare it to stacked cards.Do you need to completly burn down 1 card to take down all the cards?Slightly bending one side is more then enough.
I agree. However people don't say the steel beams melted because the building collapsed. People say that because steel was found in puddles on the ground. In the aftermath. So stop us in that arguement
several hundred steel beams would have to lose strength evenly from top to street level in order for the building to collapse straight downwards. even loss of strength would be impossible even at the point of impact. only planned demolition would make that possible. btw, there were three demolished buildings onsite, cause by two planes. now you display your ignorance.
regardless as of if jet fuel did or did not melt any fucking steal beams.
reguardless if a god damn airline would cause damage at its speed and size.
it does not mean that 9/11 was not an inside rob, it does not prove if/who/what flew those planes & for what reasons.
there could have been explosives and or thermite, theres a million coincidences pointing to the fact that this was probably a false flag terroist event created by bush/cheney aka the fed bankers running the show.
maby the plane attacks was completely the plan of only some dumb sand niggers.
that would be a very convenient pawn, maby they where even assisted in the act and not just in the many other facets of this event.
woo steel fuckin beams man
Heat produces wind and, due to the area of the fire (near the top of a tower), there is tons of airflow.
Remember why the Empire State Building's airship docking system wouldn't work? It was because the updrafts were too strong. Those ubdrafts, made even angrier due to the heat, would oxidize the fuck out of them flamable materials.
You know steel burns, right?
No where near the amount of oxygen needed to melt steel. And by your logic the upstarts are carrying the fire up towards higher floors. How did the building collapse from the bottom
Building 7 was demolished and fell straight downwards, however placing explosives take over 2 weeks of preparation.
There was must too much dust. Explosions create dust like that.
The color of the smoke.
the other night I was at a friends house and he had 3 girls come over. they were all disgusting. one of them tells this super long story no one is into at all and I stop her mid way though and I'm like wait a minute... the one thing i don't understand is..
>they're all looking at me, for the first time since this girl began talking everyone is interested
.. jetfuel can't melt steel beams
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
>"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
>But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
What now conspiracy fags?
>puddle of molten sheit
Link please, this is the first I heard of a 'puddle of molten' anything that persisted for two weeks.
Oh also in regards to >>601073157
>The jet fuel was the ignition source. It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.
That's because normal buildings have an INFRASTRUCTURE of beams. The WTC did not. It had it's outer walls and the FLOORS. That was it. They floors held the outer walls together. This is a very unique design.
Once a floor's beams softened, the floor it supported dropped. This caused the temperatures to rise further, and put too much weight on the floor that was hit by its neighboring ceiling. At that point, catastrophic failure begins, as that floor will give way, and by the time that both those floors combined weight strike the floor below, there is too much weight for any floor to hold up. The mass speeds up to the speed of gravity, and without the floors to hold the walls together, the low pressure pulls the outer walls into the falling tower's former floor space. Total destruction.
There's been plenty of engineering sims showing this.
A NORMAL sky scraper CANNOT fail in the same way because if has a steel frame infrastructure. But the WTC did not. It just had air and floors between the outer walls.
>Link please, this is the first I heard of a 'puddle of molten' anything that persisted for two weeks.
please nigger, you come with this shit that there is not conspiracy, yet you didnt research, shut the fuck up already
you are a traitor, american people died for their country ( im not from the US btw)
Under the right circumstances, yes. Heat rises, and heat transfer from a fire on a lower level can boost temperatures on an upper level higher than they would otherwise reach.
Do a search for how hot house fires can get - there's documented cases of house fires reaching 2000+ degrees.
Also, chemicals from cleaning supplies can do crazy shit in fires. Has anyone looked into how many janitorial closets WTC had?
I work in a medical clinic and there's 1 janitorial closet per floor, I would not be surprised if there were just as many in the WTC.
That just brings up fifty cases where claims that there were molten steel were debunked.
why do people think they fell perfectly on their own imprints? they didn't. this is why WTC 7 fell in the first place; it was structurally weakened after a huge chunk or chunks of debris left a massive gash in it. the twin towers were literally left across blocks of New York.
Damn i never knew a chunk of debree could cause a building to collapse in the same way as a controlled demolition could...
Building 7 was on fire. Between the damage and the fire it became structurally unsound and eventually the weight from the upper floors caused the whole thing to collapse.
>But why didn't other buildings nearby also collapse?
Those that were on fire as well weren't nearly as tall. Other, taller buildings did survive but there was no unchecked fire in those buildings to further degrade the structural integrity.
The fire in building 7 was actually not that bad at first and probably could have been contained, but the decision was made to keep people clear of the building to prevent further loss of life.
>"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
Sure, there's plenty of point in arguing about it. After all this is the internet. Take away random arguments about shit on the internet and you've killed off a third of 4chan, and most of /b/.
The fact is that the conspiracy theories have been debunked ages ago but people are sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when we bring up facts that there was no lie or conspiracy.
I belive this is the first building to collapse from a structural fire...in history
Jet fuel, even as 2001 gelatinous special don't catch fire, was going to catch fire in case of a crash into a skyscraper. Too many sparks not too.
Only in a very few test cases has the "catch fire less often" addition they add to jet fuel been effective. It just can't be effective and still be jet fuel.
Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.
There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
Video shows it being struck by significant portions of one of the airplanes.
It was damaged, it was on fire. It couldn't survive exposure to all that fire.
There are real conspiracies out there, but why WTC towers and building 7 fell are not one of them.
the first 3 modern steel high rises
To each and every nay sayer, who believe that in the midst of this mythical building-leveling inferno, a hijacker's ACTUAL FUCKING PASSPORT was found fluttering to the ground, unharmed. That's a part of the official fucking story.
There are absoLUTELY people still on payroll to FULL TIME go around forums and reinforce the official line of shit. Then there are others who simply haven't been exposed, stick their head in the sand, prefer devil's advocacy, or lack the capacity for critical thinking.
Truly, the official story is a FLAMING horse shit and I invite anybody to watch FIVE FUCKING MINUTES of any presentation questioning the government's account of what happened.
I'm not saying 'believe me', I'm saying 'look for yourself, believe yourself'. Take a quick peek, you'll be like 'wut'
Thats actually false.
There have been structual fires that have lasted 13 hours. And did not collapse
And to think those entire building would collapse on only 6 is ridiculous.
Face it your just a governmental apologist. These facts dont add up.
>>601076638In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse
>>601076638February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point.The structure did not collapse
This faggot gettin' paid.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html has specific examples of worse fires. You could go on with 'firsts' but you're a faggot and I'd break your shitlord nose if I could
Pic related, Empire State building struck by a B-52
I was with the conspiracytards on this until I saw the footage of WTC 7 falling that started a bit earlier.
The roof starts caving in before the collapse happens, you can see the roof apartment thing falling into the building and when you see the simulation model of the collapse it makes perfect sense.
>>601076638In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, afire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.
I doubt i need further examples. I see even other anons posted others as well.
>There have been structural fires that have lasted 13 hours
>The 38-story One Meridian Plaza building fire
Yes, but once again this is a half truth.
Firefighters were on the scene and battling the blaze within the hour. They were unable to prevent the spread of the fire but they were constantly doing what they could to put out as much of the fire as possible, which helped reduce the amount of heat transfer from lower floors where the fire had been extinguished.
>The Windsor Building Fire
This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor.
The upper floors DID collapse where the steel framing failed to support the weight, but the concrete core remained upright.
Yeah on the 2nd day the outmost did, it was practically bending off rather than collapsing. And this was 2 days worth of a fire. Its an extreme example but im sure it drives the point as well as the other examples
The building didn't have a tube in a tube design like any of the WTC buildings either.
The single most important difference are in the columns.
The reinforced concrete structure consists of perimeter columns connected by post-tensioned concrete “macroslabs” that are each 10 feet (3 meters) deep and above the second–floor mezzanine, the 14th, 26th, 38th, and 49th floors. There’s no central core.
Individual floors between the macroslabs have a steel-deck floor supported by steel beams, all protected underneath with spray-on Cafco Blaze Shield DC/F mineral glass fiber wool with cement fireproofing. According to Cafco’s Manny Herrera, the floor was designed to meet U.S. standards for a two-hour fire resistance rating. However, the overall fire compartmentalization of each floor slab was decreased by the addition of several unrated floor panels to provide access to mechanical and plumbing systems.
Five structural bays rest on four lines of columns in each direction supporting the steel deck. In effect, the concrete structure includes five stacked steel buildings, each supported by a macroslab. During the fire, two steel decks partially collapsed; other than that, there was no collapse inside the building. However, deflection in some steel beams was severe.
Steel looses it carbon content when heated at super levels, thus loosing its structural integrity and ability to wist and stress. Much like these steel beams being twisted
So anon at first you say "this is the first time for this its completely new"
And you barely acknowledge that was indeed false, but no matter.
In short according to your logic a structural fire will cause a building to free fall even though its literally never happend before.
Even architects dont think the 3 buildings collapsed for the reason that the official story is telling us.
But please go on in believing that building 7 collapsed from a chunk of debree that caught fire to its structual integrity causing it to collapse the same way a building would when a plane hits it
this. fire fighter here, iirc for every 50 feet of steel it will expand 4 inches when heated.
so its pretty plausible that it would damage the integrity of the building.
but the jews were still behind 9/11
>mfw /b/ is actually sounding smart.
good replys guys. i am proud. jet fuel CAN melt steel beams
>according to your logic a structural fire will cause a building to free fall
No, anon, you're wrong.
According to my logic a steel structure without a reinforced concrete core is going to collapse if the fire is left entirely unfought.
People like to pick and choose examples with RADICALLY different circumstances - fires where there was actually a fire department on-site to help battle the blaze, which WTC7 did not have. Fires where the building was constructed in a completely different manner which, in turn, caused differences in the way they collapsed.
If you want to bring up facts to support your case, could you please stop trying to compare apples to oranges and use that as a compelling argument?
Quit falling for Ivan's propaganda.
Pic unrelated (notice the pussy lipstick on her sock)
This is what the jews want you to think. The more time you spend falling for their bait the less time you spend thinking about this the less time you're spending on the real conspiracies.
9/11 was real but the Jews want people to waste their time looking into false conspiracy theories in order to make their own conspiracy seem that much less plausible. If you can create 5 fake conspiracies then when someone comes forth with evidence of a real one (The jewish conspiracy) then everyone will just dismiss it.
It's like the story of the boy who cried wolf, but the jews are using it to fool us all.
I think that conspiracy theories are a conspiracy created by MENSA and other intellectual think tanks to help spread stupidity among the population so that they can continue to claim to be the smartest among us all
I bet those fucking egghead assholes have contests. "Let's see what the most retarded thing we can convince people is a real conspiracy is"
Can someone please answer me this?
If the government wanted to used the deaths of thousands of citizens as a false flag to spark a war, why a "controlled" demolition?
Why not let more people die?
ITT people who think that small fires with little fuel in small buildings should, enevitably, produce the same results as massive fires in buildings where kinetic damage has rendered their insulation useless and added updrafts and fire-induced whether (see forest fires for a common example).
Also, after the Citigroup Center debackel (it nearly falling over due to idiocy) it would be wrong for our government not to place detonation charges in all skyscrapers in order to prevent cascading collapses. The WTC7 probably already had bombs placed in it so that, if an earthquake or terrorist managed to make it start to fall over, it could be brought down minimizing the loss of life.
Only a fucking retarded anti-human faggot wouldn't want skyscrapers rigged for demolition at a moment's notice. Prove me wrong.
They are structure fires that were much worse so i guess that is radically differnt.
Also a news reporting station reported that this building collapsed...before ot even collapsed.
I can see a building collapsing eventually
When its unfought for several hours. But this was a free fall collapse in 6 seconds after only 6 hours...from a fire that couldent even do damage to the exterior of this building.
Also again, so your saying a building that
Catches fire should free fall the same way another building free falls after catching fire AND getting hit with a plane???
Dude your totally a yes-man governmental apologist its not even funny.
Heres your menecing fire that caused the whole collapse btw
Why would they waste time trying to trick a small minority of the population. Most conspiracies are stupid. However there have been multiple false flag events in our nations history and people want to know if 9/11 is one of them.
They didn't choose three random buildings. They most likely chose the trade center because an attack on that seems like an attack on capitalism and the american way of life. Thus intensifying the effect of the false flag event.
>Citigroup Center: How to destroy half of Manhattan
To ensure that the buildings did fall
In case people couldent put two and two together building 7 was planned to probably have more damage dealt to it...but didnt
They put explosives in the buildings to ensure the buildings collapsed no matter what
Maybe there was something they simultaneously wanted to cover up. A few days before the event a few trillions dollars went missing from the government. And all the evidence was in the pentagon and building 7. Then the evidence was destroyed and it never appeared on the news again.
b25 about 20-35 thousand pounds into a brick and stone fronted building
747 about 360-400 thousand pounds into a glass and trussed steel building built for stacking strength not impact strength
Also a controlled detonation is required to bring down a building that quickly and effectively while they were actually collapsing. And its much more dramatc to see two huge buildings that were once on the skyline in complete rubble on the ground
If there was a controlled demolition, it wasn't planned just for that event. After the Citigroup Center tower turned out to be a fucking deathtrap, the reality that a skyscraper structural failure could cause massive loss of life in cascading structural failure (i.e. buildings falling like dominoes), it became clear that something should be done.
I'm not saying that all skyscrapers are rigged with explosives just in case the dickhead earthquake or terrorist comes along but I am saying that it would be wrong of our government to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands by not putting high explosive demolition charges in all skyscrapers.
Just think: if the Citigroup Center building fell, it could have killed over 100,000 people and caused multiple buildings to fall over. If it had been rigged with explosives and started to fall, the demolition could mitigate the damage and only kill a few thousand bankers (who would have been screwed anyways). That's why only an immoral fucker would want skyscapers not to have demolition charges preset that can be used to bring them down before they fall over sideways.
forgot pic, and witness said there were NO fires around these cars also not sure on legitimacy but apparently upwards of 1400 cars were mysteriously "toasted" in place of a better word.
You can research the money that went missing. And plenty of other people noticed it too. The files were kept in the area of the pentagon that was hit. And partially in building 7.
more pics, anyone know what can cause warping like this?
Um it should. Lol. You dont ignite jet fuel inside the engine id thats what your asking...
But if that type of thing intrest you look up pics of the pentagon crash. There ZERO wreckage of a plane and the engine is the strongest part of the plane. A plane couldent and shouldent be vaporized from a crash but thats exactly what our government implied
>They didn't choose three random buildings. They most likely chose the trade center because an attack on that seems like an attack on capitalism and the american way of life. Thus intensifying the effect of the false flag event.
The attack wasn't meant to kill 3000 people. It was meant to only kill up to 500-600 so that our government wouldn't have the justification to invade another country but would still be pissed off enough to demand retribution. Without being able to bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, our government would instead only be able to put pressure on the Saudis and they wouldn't have a choice since the people would be pissed.
If our government put pressure on the Saudis, Osama could use that as "justification" for a revolution in Saudi Arabia which he and his group (Al Qaeda) would spearhead. Osama would afterwards become the new king of Saudi Arabia.
Instead, it turned out that steel beams can fail when their insulation is blown off due to the impact of passenger jets flying at a few hundred miles per hour. That, coupled with the extreme speculation as to the nefarious nature of Flight 92, ended up doing the exact opposit of what Osama wanted; it got his group decimated and eventually got him killed.
Osama wasn't some outspoken ideolog; he was just a rich kid who wanted more power and thought he could play America and the Saudi Royals off eachother. In the end, he went too far and now is dead like a little bitch.
Now you know
>Why we've been so nice to the Saudis
>Why Al Qaeda turned out to be so weak
>Why we quit giving a fuck about Osama and just let him be (until we killed him)
>Why a man who said so little would do such an attack and not take advantage of it
>Why a man would kill 3000 Americans in plane sight and then deny doing it for years until we pretty much had to tell the fucker that he did it!
Looks just like a hole a plane would make...right?
If they would lie about this then why not the other things?
>If that were the case then why hide it?
Would you want to tell people that you've got a button that you can press that will ensure that there will by a 100% chance that they will die instead of only a 98% chance?
Detonating a building guarantees the death of those inside. Since you have to do it before the collapse is already underway, you're pretty much guessing that you need to do it when you press the button.
People don't like the idea that they might be killed just to reduce the likelyhood that even more people will die (which isn't 100%).
Would you want to ride on a freight train that's designed to automatically derail and kill you if a school bus gets stuck on the tracks? No, you wouldn't and you'd throw a big-ass fit at B&O or BNSF if they did that.
>Furthermore, what is the sauce of that?
Common sense and logic.
There wouldn't be any sources on that that wouldn't be classified anyway. Even if there were sources and I could present them, there'd be no proof that they are credible.
Its a theory. Look at what i'm saying, why I'm saying its probable, and take it at face value. Even if its true and there really are several tons of ANNO in the Empire State Building in the event of a tactical nuke going off or an earthquake occurring, there's not going to be any sources on that for very obvious reasons.
You have to remember: during the Cold War, the Russians had plenty of tactical nukes that they could use to bring down buildings and destroy factories. Countermeasures to such weapons would likely exist and would likely also be as secret as the weapons themselves.
Only if the damage was extensively enough. And they very well could have been for the towers. But building 7 had barely any damage. And very few fires and it collapsed in a way nearly identical to building being demolished.
>Idk its just since our government has recieved so much scrutiny youd think they would have tried taking credit for doing something right.
If they did, then everyone would be asking how they knew they were doing the right thing. Just saying "well, it looked like it could fall" wouldn't get lawsuits, family members, and the press to shut up.
Assuming they were brought down with charges, one could know if the buildings were going to fall or not. They would've had to've made the call based on incomplete information and while that would've been the right call, the evidence wouldn't be enough for the public to accept.
We'll know for sure around 50 years from now when everything is declassified and people in power now are retired. If there's more to this story than what we all've heard, you can rest assured that people will talk when there's not consequences. It'll be like when Germany blew up some trains or boats or something in the United States before we entered into WW1 and we just kept quiet about it until afterwards because we didn't want to go to war or piss off the people (Japanese incendiary balloons are another example).
Just stop with these threads.
The government won.
You cannot persuade people who refuse to see different perspectives.
The deck is stacked against anyone with a conspiracy theory.
People just refuse to believe that the government is incapable of killing people to achieve their goals.
At this point, it doesn't matter what you say, they'll just dismiss it.
>inb4 some lame typical response about how delusional I am
>Building 7 survives for 24 hours
>Foundation failure causes it to fall over
>knocks over another building
>that building causes a chain reaction where several other buildings fall
>hundreds of thousands dead, roads destroyed, and the subway system is wrecked
>"well, at least some Jew didn't pull the building"
>be the mighiest power in the world
>make mistakes that neckbeards in their moms basement can detect
i'm pretty sure that it was done by angry muslims
>inb4 sandniggers in caves
look, i hate muslims just as much as anyone else, but it is fully possible for them to do this kind of stuff. there are obviously resources and men willing to do these things as seen so many times before and after. years later and they are still keeping the fight going. it was "easy" to do 9/11 at the time because security had not been upped to the ridiculously high level it turned to after.
judging by how badly the inside seemed to be burning and/or buckled I doubt a rebuild would have been cheaper than to start again from scratch. That plus i think most of the firefighters were otherwise engaged that day, sadly up in the towers. why waste resources on trying to save an empty building when theres people to evac from towers?
>You're a fucking tard who thinks your government is too stupid to care about the people.
Too big picture.
Doesn't matter, they don't care who dies to achieve their goals.
You may recall how were supposed to worship firemen, paramedics, and for some reason even pigs. It's because of how many died responding to 9/11. That's also why they didn't fire-fight it like usual.
I don't know why people look at all the fucked up things governments and the people in charge have done over history and even into the 1900s. Then think "we live in the 21st century. We're all safe now and our government would not and could not do a thing to intentionally harm us"
1) The Cold war put tactical nukes into the picture which can knock down buildings
2) Terrorists and Europeans might have access to those tacties and would love to cause a domino effect in our cities (you know full well that London is pissed off at NYC for its financial power).
3) Putting bombs inside of buildings can prevent bombs on the outside from turning the buildings into weapons themselves.
How fucking hard is this for you to understand!? Do you really think that there wasn't a day some time between the 1950s and 1990s when someone in CIA asked "hey, what the fuck WOULD happen if the Russians detonated a suitcase nuke in Manhattan"?
>can someone please tell me how damaging the integrity of the steel beams at the top of the building caused the entire building to fall
When they fail, they cause all the weight that's above them to fall at the speed of gravity (due to bent beams not doing jack shit to hold anything that heavy up) which the rest of the building can't survive. The damage was done so that the top started to droop causing the beams to get sidewaysish which caused their ability to hold weight to go to nill. Its a very dangerous situation.
A building just can't handle the sudden addition of a massive amount of weight being added due to the force of gravity pulling trillions of tons of metal, people, and toilets a few stories down.