Semptember the 11th

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Leslie Robertson, chief structural engineer said it was designed to survive plane impacts, if it wasn't, than it would have tipped over.

The building was constructed with carbon steel which sways on impact, also, it makes no sense that it wasn't designed to take impact, a B-25 hit the empire state prior to the construction of the wtc, so,it would make sense to assume they would make it capable of withstanding such force. the only person I know that Say's the tower was not designed to survive plane impacts is the architect.

Thats is true.I rented a tape at the library the other day-it was a NOVA series about 9-11 and Robertson did say that,however Robertson is the ONLY one I have seen as well that is saying that.Thats not what the other engineers are saying.They have been scrathing their heads over the collapse.None of that surprised me really.I expected them to defend the official version.Nova has always been a spokes piece for the government.they wont do an objective look into things like the kennedy assaination ect. You also got to remember that also as mentioned earlier,Silverstein told the fire chief of building 7 to pull it-thats all on video to be seen and in demolition terms that means to set off explosives.again it never made any sense that he said to pull it when buliding 7 was never hit by any debris or why it caught on fire if it was not hit be debris.the firefighters there also said they thought it could be contained so they could not understand why he wanted to pull it. bld 7 was obviously set off with explosives since silverstein is on tape saying-pull it and when you look at the tapes bld 7 comes downwards.that being said its all just a little bit too convient that the two towers came down in the exact same fashion. 🙄

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Let's not forget the FBI finding a the terrorist passports on ground zero, somehow, the passports: survived the flames and magically landed right in the FBI's hands.

yeah must be Houdini at work. 🙄

Leslie Robertson, chief structural engineer said it was designed to survive plane impacts, if it wasn't, than it would have tipped over.

The building was constructed with carbon steel which sways on impact, also, it makes no sense that it wasn't designed to take impact, a B-25 hit the empire state prior to the construction of the wtc, so,it would make sense to assume they would make it capable of withstanding such force. the only person I know that Say's the tower was not designed to survive plane impacts is the architect.

wow.......that's a lot for a moot point. The towers did survive the impacts. They stood for a great while after the impacts. They were brought down by the heat of the resulting fires which weakened the steel structure.

do you even know what happened on 9/11? weren't you watching on tv? The buildings didn't fall from a plane impact. The first impact wasn't televised as no one knew it was going to happen but the second was........and both buildings were still standing after the impacts. Jesus.......atleast watch a video or something of the event before posting about it.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
wow.......that's a lot for a moot point. The towers did survive the impacts. They stood for a great while after the impacts. They were brought down by the heat of the resulting fires which weakened the steel structure.

do you even know what happened on 9/11? weren't you watching on tv? The buildings didn't fall from a plane impact. The first impact wasn't televised as no one knew it was going to happen but the second was........and both buildings were still standing after the impacts. Jesus.......atleast watch a video or something of the event before posting about it.

thats where the governments explanation though is full of holes because there have been fires that have been far more severe than that one was which have burned for like 18 hours before.the engineers were scrathing their heads saying the buildings should never have collapsed from that because the metal was designed to withstand heat from fire much more intense than it was. 🙄

thats where the governments explanation though is full of holes because there have been fires that have been far more severe than that one was which have burned for like 18 hours before.the engineers were scrathing their heads saying the buildings should never have collapsed from that because the metal was designed to withstand heat from fire much more intense than it was.

you're reporting old debunked conspiracy propoganda. You're not the first.....which is why it was debunked in the first place. People were posting the melting temperature of steel as the temperature needed to weaken the structural integrity, which is a complete fallacy of logic......that the entire structure would have to melt to lose stability. It's been debunked.........do a quick google. The temperatures were well above the maximum temp for stability........

keep up to date and next..........

Originally posted by Evil Dead
you're reporting old debunked conspiracy propoganda. You're not the first.....which is why it was debunked in the first place. People were posting the melting temperature of steel as the temperature needed to weaken the structural integrity, which is a complete fallacy of logic......that the entire structure would have to melt to lose stability. It's been debunked.........do a quick google. The temperatures were well above the maximum temp for stability........

keep up to date and next..........

i dont get your post...first you say the towers fall by fire weakening the steel structure, mr parker says, the steel of the strucutre was designed for fires; some building fires have burned a very long time, (while the wtc collapsed in a matter of hours), AND THEN you say the entire structure would have to melt for stability??? what?

The temperatures were well above the maximum temp for stability...?what? how do you know the temperatures of the fire inside the wtc towers?

Originally posted by Silverstein
i dont get your post...first you say the towers fall by fire weakening the steel structure, mr parker says, the steel of the strucutre was designed for fires; some building fires have burned a very long time, (while the wtc collapsed in a matter of hours), AND THEN you say the entire structure would have to melt for stability??? what?

The temperatures were well above the maximum temp for stability...?what? how do you know the temperatures of the fire inside the wtc towers?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
you're reporting old debunked conspiracy propoganda. You're not the first.....which is why it was debunked in the first place. People were posting the melting temperature of steel as the temperature needed to weaken the structural integrity, which is a complete fallacy of logic......that the entire structure would have to melt to lose stability. It's been debunked.........do a quick google. The temperatures were well above the maximum temp for stability........

keep up to date and next..........

only in the mind of the government was it debunked,there has been nothing proven by them though that they have successfully debunked it.the only conspiracy propaganda is the 9-11 commission and the governments. 🙄

Are we children???? I have read through many pages. What is itthat adults or supposed adults can not discuss without flaming..........

only in the mind of the government was it debunked,there has been nothing proven by them though that they have successfully debunked it.the only conspiracy propaganda is the 9-11 commission and the governments

again.....fallacy of logic. you have read nothing yourself on the subject? what's the last scientific journal you have read? Hell.....I bet you don't even have a subscription to popular science magazine. It has nothing to do with the government. A scientist from Turkey or China can tell you just as well as a scientist from the good ol' U.S. that the structural stability limits of the materials used to construct the towers were below the temperatures created by ongoing fires in confined places.

let me guess......all scientists of the world also work for the us government? Those in Turkey conspire with George W. to fool the people into thinking Al Queda exists. Oh yeah......I forgot where I was......according to you people, there are no nations. Every single person on this earth is conspiring to fool you as they all belong to a global government called the new world order. oh jesus.

quite simply, you made a claim (one that is incorrect by known knowledge)......here's your chance to handle it properly.

do a little research (something you should have done before ever posting on this or any topic in the first place)....come back to this thread and post the exact structural re-inforcement of the world trade center towers......aswell as the maximum temperature tolerance.....and the average temperature of a continuous burning closed fire.

It should take you about 20 minutes, if that. Something tells me, however, that you will not do this as the numbers you would be forced to post would contradict your entire stance thus far.....in essence, proving yourself wrong as scientists have the world over since conspiracy nuts came out of the woodwork.

remember, you made the claim. It is now your duty to back such a claim up with evidence. All evidence is at your disposal.....just google all information you need (3 things).......come back and post your findings.

here.....I decided to save you some trouble (since I know you wouldn't have actually researched it to prove yourself wrong).......took me a total of 8 minutes to find this information. Why didn't you take that time before making your posts?

- the most dense structural reinforcement of the WTC towers was steel.

- Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F
- At 1800°F the structural integrity is near 10%

- Jet fuel (the catalyst for the fires) burns at 1500°F

- confined fires with no space for flames to expand outward have been recorded and documented at 2000°F

there....do the math.........everything in this universe, even our government and it's buildings, must adhere to the laws of physics.

seriously man, 8 minutes. If that's the difference between being correct, proven by scientific fact and mathmatics and being completely, utterly wrong based on the lack of knowledge of the topic you are attempting to discuss.........I believe I'd take the 8 minutes to find out the facts before making up mumbo jumbo to post about.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
here.....I decided to save you some trouble (since I know you wouldn't have actually researched it to prove yourself wrong).......took me a total of 8 minutes to find this information. Why didn't you take that time before making your posts?

- the most dense structural reinforcement of the WTC towers was steel.

- Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F
- At 1800°F the structural integrity is near 10%

- Jet fuel (the catalyst for the fires) burns at 1500°F

- confined fires with no space for flames to expand outward have been recorded and documented at 2000°F

there....do the math.........everything in this universe, even our government and it's buildings, must adhere to the laws of physics.

seriously man, 8 minutes. If that's the difference between being correct, proven by scientific fact and mathmatics and being completely, utterly wrong based on the lack of knowledge of the topic you are attempting to discuss.........I believe I'd take the 8 minutes to find out the facts before making up mumbo jumbo to post about.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
here.....I decided to save you some trouble (since I know you wouldn't have actually researched it to prove yourself wrong).......took me a total of 8 minutes to find this information. Why didn't you take that time before making your posts?

- the most dense structural reinforcement of the WTC towers was steel.

- Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F
- At 1800°F the structural integrity is near 10%

- Jet fuel (the catalyst for the fires) burns at 1500°F

- confined fires with no space for flames to expand outward have been recorded and documented at 2000°F

there....do the math.........everything in this universe, even our government and it's buildings, must adhere to the laws of physics.

seriously man, 8 minutes. If that's the difference between being correct, proven by scientific fact and mathmatics and being completely, utterly wrong based on the lack of knowledge of the topic you are attempting to discuss.........I believe I'd take the 8 minutes to find out the facts before making up mumbo jumbo to post about.

What science evil dead, some magazine. show me an experiment that proved a petroleum fire can weaken a steel structure of a building that can support 3 times it's weight, just showing me some comments doesn't explain anything.

Here you go again making a post without elaborating.

1) what type of steel loses 50% of it's strength at said temperture, you failed to specify which type. the WTC used carbon steel, just saying "STEEL" is extremely vague. you might as well have said metal.

2) Can you explain what the NIST failed to do, the structual dynamics of the tower near it's collapse.

This is just some of the things I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What science evil dead, some magazine. show me an experiment that proved a petroleum fire can weaken a steel structure of a building that can support 3 times it's weight, just showing me some comments doesn't explain anything.

Here you go again making a post without elaborating.

1) what type of steel loses 50% of it's strength at said temperture, you failed to specify which type. the WTC used carbon steel, just saying "STEEL" is extremely vague. you might as well have said metal.

2) Can you explain what the NIST failed to do, the structual dynamics of the tower near it's collapse.

This is just some of the things I'm talking about.

Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
However, Carbon steel is one of the weakest and most malleable steels.

Which is why it was used on the towers, when strong winds hit the towers, they sways. that doesn't answer the several questions I've asked about fire weakening the structure.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Which is why it was used on the towers, when strong winds hit the towers, they sways. that doesn't answer the several questions I've asked about fire weakening the structure.

Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
Seeing as it's weak and malleable, that would mean, if ED's numbers are accurate, the metal would be weakened easier.

That doesn't answer my question, how much would carbon steel have to be weakened for the towers to collapse?

Evil Dead was correct when he said the average temperature steel generally weakens, but he did not explain.

1) how much strength does steel lose before it weakens enough for it to collapse.

2) How much of the structure was weakened?

Etc.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What science evil dead, some magazine. show me an experiment that proved a petroleum fire can weaken a steel structure of a building that can support 3 times it's weight, just showing me some comments doesn't explain anything.

Here you go again making a post without elaborating.

1) what type of steel loses 50% of it's strength at said temperture, you failed to specify which type. the WTC used carbon steel, just saying "STEEL" is extremely vague. you might as well have said metal.

2) Can you explain what the NIST failed to do, the structual dynamics of the tower near it's collapse.

This is just some of the things I'm talking about.

"applauds your post* 😛

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That doesn't answer my question, how much would carbon steel have to be weakened for the towers to collapse?

Evil Dead was correct when he said the average temperature steel generally weakens, but he did not explain.

1) how much strength does steel lose before it weakens enough for it to collapse.

2) How much of the structure was weakened?

Etc.

Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
It would only have to weaken enough for the above floor to fall onto it. Seeing as heat rises, it makes perfect sense that the top two floors pancaked, causing a chain reaction, causing the buildings to collaspe.

The towers were capable of holding 3 times there working load, most buildings are.

EDIT: I repeat, show me an experiment where petroleum fires weaken steel strucutre , supporting 3 times it's own weight. falls due to fire.