9/11 Truther Building 7 Argument

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] he believes there was no way a big building with steel frames could've collapsed by a small fire [... ] what do you reckon I should've said in response as a layman without access to photos, videos, and publications at that time?

It wasn't a small fire; the building was fully involved for hours, and the weakening of the steel members of the building was to be expected.

Now, you specified "without access", but I wanted to put this pic up:



The fact that the smoke is black tells me that there are hydrocarbons involved in that fire -- probably plastics, in this case, rather than liquid fuel. Plastics are very nasty to fight, aside from the fumes which produce too many victims for your truck to rescue, because they burn at high temperatures, typically.

Clearly seen in this photo, too, is the fact that the worst of the fire is near the base of the building, meaning that the weakened areas of the building frame are supporting more weight.

Hot fire runs for hours in the worst possible spot for such to occur? Anyone who expected that building to survive would have to be called an optimist. Having been a firefighter myself at one time, I hold no such illusions.