Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Metal Girders perhaps? Which wern't properlly fireproofed, also, you can't disregard that bag's might have been left here or there, well hidden, it's not too difficult, especially in pre-9/11 America.
Actually they were properly fire proof, Steel melts at 2400 Degree's Fahrenheit. Jet fuel burns at Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºFahrenheit. combine that with the fact their has never been a steel building that collapsed due to fire. take the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, it burned for 18 hours yet did not collapse.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh, what, some crazy on the spot comments from journalists and the confused account from someone who was inside a collapsing building? oh WOW, everything I know must be wrong!Not wanting to disappoint you, Deano, but the collapse of those buildings will be one of the most visual things of this century. Just aboht evceryone can see it. Experts are nearly united on what happened, which is not what you are suggesting happened, and someone fleeing for her life saying that it felt like there were explosions going off- hardly surprising when a large part of the building was on fire- is not going to change that.
Yes but just imagine every expert was united in the events apart from Icke, all he says is, you work for the Illuminati!
He doesn't try to back up his points when they come under critism, he just says, "Your Wrong, You are contolled by the Illuminati"
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Actually they were properly fire proof, Steel melts at 2400 Degree's Fahrenheit. Jet fuel burns at Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºFahrenheit. combine that with the fact their has never been a steel building that collapsed due to fire. take the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, it burned for 18 hours yet did not collapse.
The structure wasn't properlly fireproofed, a few weeks after 9/11 a documentary was showing this, Ush and Deano might have seen it. I think it was a John Snow...not sure
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Jones' work is not peer reviewed and has been rubbished by his colleagues and just about every expert in the field. He is, after all, a theoretical physicist and NOT a structural engineer.The building should have collapsed exactly as it did.
Not so.Not ALL his colleagues.some have widely praised him.Some structural engineers have said thats not how it should have happened.you just got to read his website and the guests he has on his shows to see thats not true.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The structure wasn't properlly fireproofed, a few weeks after 9/11 a documentary was showing this, Ush and Deano might have seen it. I think it was a John Snow...not sure
You do know that the towers were built to survive impacts by plane, plus like I said jet fuel cannot melt steel.
The towers were made of low-carbon steel, which bends and sways when force is applied.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But MOST of his colleagues have and MOST structural engineers concur with the consensus. By any standard of consensus, the consensus is that you are wrong. There is no credible case, anywhere, that backs the use of explosives.
but if you believe there is mr Parker, please show us.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Rense, in no way shape or form, even begins to resemble the concept of 'open minded'.
what about skolnic.com and drudge are you going to say they are as well? richard skolnic is a lawyer who cleans up the court system,a very good lawyer I might add and he has a great website.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You do know that the towers were built to survive impacts by plane, plus like I said jet fuel cannot melt steel.The towers were made of low-carbon steel, which bends and sways when force is applied.
Oh good Lord, not the old 'jet fuel cannot melt steel so this cannot have happened' nonsense.
The steel didn't melt, it WEAKENED. The fire in that building was strong enough to reduce the steel to some 10% of its normal strength, The building was not exactly designed for that.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh good Lord, not the old 'jet fuel cannot melt steel so this cannot have happened' nonsense.The steel didn't melt, it WEAKENED. The fire in that building was strong enough to reduce the steel to some 10% of its normal strength, The building was not exactly designed for that.
And how many steel buildings do you know have fallen due to fires?
Originally posted by Mr Parker
what about skolnic.com and drudge are you going to say they are as well? richard skolnic is a lawyer who cleans up the court system,a very good lawyer I might add and he has a great website.
Cannot pretend to have read them, and simple 'Boy who cried wolf' syndrome makes me disinclined to look
Vis a vis, as the last 100 times I have taken a look the sources of the like that you and Deano provide have ended in a pile of bullshit, I cannot imagine a situation where that is not so the next 100 times either.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, those two towers, for a start.How many towers do you know that have had jet planes fly into them?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How does that change the fact that the towers used low carbon steel?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Oh good Lord, not the old 'jet fuel cannot melt steel so this cannot have happened' nonsense.The steel didn't melt, it WEAKENED. The fire in that building was strong enough to reduce the steel to some 10% of its normal strength, The building was not exactly designed for that.
And ush agrees...
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, those two towers, for a start.How many towers do you know that have had jet planes fly into them?
The ofiicial story has said many times, it was due to fire that it fell not because of the planes. if they were correct than buildings like the merdian plaza would have fallen.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_GavThats not what I meant. I meant that they where not able to withstand a jet crashing into them,
And that allegation makes no sense, they were designed to sway upon impact so how could they not with stand the force?