The engines "punched" into the building and were laying there. I have seen them in photographs. I do not understand the theory that they do not exist.

Metal "fatigue" is a different form of failure which does not apply here. Bending and shear failure in structural steel members occurs when either elastic limit is reached, or the elastic limit is changed into the region of the "plastic" limit. Changing the elastic limit (stress range where the steel will return to it's original shape) to the plastic range (where deformity does not return) is the process where steel is made into the various shapes that we see. It doesn't matter how much oxygen could get to the jet fuel. No matter what, it would still burn hot enough to heat the steel beyond it's elastic limit and cause it to fail. At 1000F steel is garbage as a structural member.

A jet crash into a building near the ground can cause "pooling". This event takes place if the ruptured fuel tanks can spill large amounts of fuel into a basement where the fuel can cause a large source of fuel for a fire but it burns slowly because most of it is not exposed to the atmosphere. Fuel vapor burns, liquid fuel does not.

Keep the questions coming. The fact that you ask is a sign of your freedom and evidence that your brain is working. Don't let the government take either of those away from you. My only suggestion is to keep your mind open to other sources of information also.

I knew this deep down inside, they had to be responsible

Isn't metal fatigue the scientific principle behind why Joan Rivers' face looks like that after botox?

ACORN did it

ROCK THE VOTE!

Ok, a couple more questions.

The fires were reported to not have reached anywhere close to 1000 degrees, maybe 6-700 degrees as I remember from the UL report for NIST (which differed greatly from the NIST report that was published and used in the 9/11 omission report), and though there were "pockets" of fire (simple office fires, and if those will bring down a building anyone working in a tower might want to think about a new job) reported by the fire chief at the main level of the impact damage and largest fire. He reported, and it was recorded and released, that there were 2 pockets of fire and they could be contained "with 2 lines". That doesn't sound hot enough to cause collapse as you suggest.

Also, I would like to see the engine photos from the Pentagon (I thought I had seen nearly every site on this....there are many) and I have never seen them. These engines would take a crane to move them and I'm sure there would have been many photos of that event, but not that I have seen.

"Isn't metal fatigue the scientific principle behind why Joan Rivers' face looks like that after botox?"

Joan Rivers with BoTox is way scarier than Mohamed Atta with a box cutter.

Isn't metal fatigue the scientific principle behind why Joan Rivers' face looks like that after botox?


She's had so many facelifts she had to start shaving!

I think you a very knowledgable person wing as I have said before, but there are still other factors or questions.

For one, the fires were starved for oxygen as the black smoke showed so never achieved and real temperature to fatigue the steel. Not over a big enough area, or for long enough. People were standing in the impact hole shortly after the impact so there is no way the fire was jet fuel fed. It ignited on impact.....a flash burn.

The tower in Madrid burned for 18 hours or more, a red hot flame, over the entire top, but didn't fall. The towers fell in under an hour with only damage to a few certain floors. But again, this is another topic.

While the plane may be constucted of aluminum, the massive engines are not, and there are no pictures of these engines being found at the Pentagon. There is a picture of a single turbine part, but it is too small for the 757 engines by a great deal, and there was only one shown.

This is a simple rebuttal, please understand, I don't profess to be any skilled or knowledgable person on such things, but my eyes saw something that doesn't add up, even if only by picture evidence which was very lacking for a real report of any kind to base a solid opinion on.


The engines "punched" into the building and were laying there. I have seen them in photographs. I do not understand the theory that they do not exist.

Metal "fatigue" is a different form of failure which does not apply here. Bending and shear failure in structural steel members occurs when either elastic limit is reached, or the elastic limit is changed into the region of the "plastic" limit. Changing the elastic limit (stress range where the steel will return to it's original shape) to the plastic range (where deformity does not return) is the process where steel is made into the various shapes that we see. It doesn't matter how much oxygen could get to the jet fuel. No matter what, it would still burn hot enough to heat the steel beyond it's elastic limit and cause it to fail. At 1000F steel is garbage as a structural member.

A jet crash into a building near the ground can cause "pooling". This event takes place if the ruptured fuel tanks can spill large amounts of fuel into a basement where the fuel can cause a large source of fuel for a fire but it burns slowly because most of it is not exposed to the atmosphere. Fuel vapor burns, liquid fuel does not.

Keep the questions coming. The fact that you ask is a sign of your freedom and evidence that your brain is working. Don't let the government take either of those away from you. My only suggestion is to keep your mind open to other sources of information also.


Ok, a couple more questions.

The fires were reported to not have reached anywhere close to 1000 degrees, maybe 6-700 degrees as I remember from the UL report for NIST (which differed greatly from the NIST report that was published and used in the 9/11 omission report), and though there were "pockets" of fire (simple office fires, and if those will bring down a building anyone working in a tower might want to think about a new job) reported by the fire chief at the main level of the impact damage and largest fire. He reported, and it was recorded and released, that there were 2 pockets of fire and they could be contained "with 2 lines". That doesn't sound hot enough to cause collapse as you suggest.

Also, I would like to see the engine photos from the Pentagon (I thought I had seen nearly every site on this....there are many) and I have never seen them. These engines would take a crane to move them and I'm sure there would have been many photos of that event, but not that I have seen.


The fires were more than hot enough to cause the damage. A simple furniture or carpet fire is hot enough, but usually doesn't burn long enough to hurt the structure much. 600F is enough temp to cause creep in the concrete and another problem called "expansion blow out" can cause localized failure in the concrete walls. A single fire in a single location can cause structural failure in a building with steel supports due to the 'cascade effect' of load redistribution. Concrete isn't as sensitive, usually.

I'll give you a bit of information that you can verify for yourself. The fire inspectors are not structural engineers. They also have very limited experience in looking at fires caused by airline strikes.

You would probably never see the removal of a jet engine because it probably went into a basket lined with cloth to prevent sharp pieces from falling off and hitting the workers. The turbine blades are sharp and brittle and would hurt.

I think you a very knowledgable person wing as I have said before, but there are still other factors or questions.

For one, the fires were starved for oxygen as the black smoke showed so never achieved and real temperature to fatigue the steel. Not over a big enough area, or for long enough. People were standing in the impact hole shortly after the impact so there is no way the fire was jet fuel fed. It ignited on impact.....a flash burn.

The tower in Madrid burned for 18 hours or more, a red hot flame, over the entire top, but didn't fall. The towers fell in under an hour with only damage to a few certain floors. But again, this is another topic.

While the plane may be constucted of aluminum, the massive engines are not, and there are no pictures of these engines being found at the Pentagon. There is a picture of a single turbine part, but it is too small for the 757 engines by a great deal, and there was only one shown.

This is a simple rebuttal, please understand, I don't profess to be any skilled or knowledgable person on such things, but my eyes saw something that doesn't add up, even if only by picture evidence which was very lacking for a real report of any kind to base a solid opinion on.


The engines "punched" into the building and were laying there. I have seen them in photographs. I do not understand the theory that they do not exist.

Metal "fatigue" is a different form of failure which does not apply here. Bending and shear failure in structural steel members occurs when either elastic limit is reached, or the elastic limit is changed into the region of the "plastic" limit. Changing the elastic limit (stress range where the steel will return to it's original shape) to the plastic range (where deformity does not return) is the process where steel is made into the various shapes that we see. It doesn't matter how much oxygen could get to the jet fuel. No matter what, it would still burn hot enough to heat the steel beyond it's elastic limit and cause it to fail. At 1000F steel is garbage as a structural member.

A jet crash into a building near the ground can cause "pooling". This event takes place if the ruptured fuel tanks can spill large amounts of fuel into a basement where the fuel can cause a large source of fuel for a fire but it burns slowly because most of it is not exposed to the atmosphere. Fuel vapor burns, liquid fuel does not.

Keep the questions coming. The fact that you ask is a sign of your freedom and evidence that your brain is working. Don't let the government take either of those away from you. My only suggestion is to keep your mind open to other sources of information also.


Ok, a couple more questions.

The fires were reported to not have reached anywhere close to 1000 degrees, maybe 6-700 degrees as I remember from the UL report for NIST (which differed greatly from the NIST report that was published and used in the 9/11 omission report), and though there were "pockets" of fire (simple office fires, and if those will bring down a building anyone working in a tower might want to think about a new job) reported by the fire chief at the main level of the impact damage and largest fire. He reported, and it was recorded and released, that there were 2 pockets of fire and they could be contained "with 2 lines". That doesn't sound hot enough to cause collapse as you suggest.

Also, I would like to see the engine photos from the Pentagon (I thought I had seen nearly every site on this....there are many) and I have never seen them. These engines would take a crane to move them and I'm sure there would have been many photos of that event, but not that I have seen.


The fires were more than hot enough to cause the damage. A simple furniture or carpet fire is hot enough, but usually doesn't burn long enough to hurt the structure much. 600F is enough temp to cause creep in the concrete and another problem called "expansion blow out" can cause localized failure in the concrete walls. A single fire in a single location can cause structural failure in a building with steel supports due to the 'cascade effect' of load redistribution. Concrete isn't as sensitive, usually.

I'll give you a bit of information that you can verify for yourself. The fire inspectors are not structural engineers. They also have very limited experience in looking at fires caused by airline strikes.

You would probably never see the removal of a jet engine because it probably went into a basket lined with cloth to prevent sharp pieces from falling off and hitting the workers. The turbine blades are sharp and brittle and would hurt.


Ok, so by that, if an office fire breaks out in a highrise building and burns for an hour, the building should be condemned for fear of collaspe? Then why do they build them? Why was the tower repaired after the bomb and fire in 93(?) which happened in the lower supporting part of the building? By your theory it would have caused the tower to collapse for sure because in burned longer on a lower floor with the weight of the whole tower above it.

There should have been pics of the engines being lifted from the debris whether they were put in a big box or not. That would have been a great debunk to see them. But alas.... more questions and no answers.

Thanks for offering a real debate on this rather than calling me names or insinuating as to my character. It is a breath of fresh air and you are a true gentleman my friend. I value your opinions and input.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Madrid_skyscraper.htm

Yep, burned hot for 2 days and stood. WTC Towers burn....rather smoke.... for 1 hour and fall..... go figure.

Is there another example of where a jumbo jet slammed into a building at 500 mph? You don't think there is any possibility that an impact like that might do something to the structural integrity of a building standing over 1000 feet tall?

The builders and designers all stated the towers were designed to withstand "multiple" impacts from airliners. These towers were huge and a plane impacting them has been compared to poking a pencil into a screen due to their design.

Some say "jet fuel" caused it, but it has been proven that the jet fuel ignited on impact and burnt of quickly. The lady standing in the impact hole, and holding on to the a wall that was supposedly super heated by jet fuel fire, guess she was fireproof? We've all seen that pic many times. There was a lot of smoke and very little fire as is evident by ALL the video shown.

Now look at the Madrid fire that burned like a torch for 2 days and remained standing (the link is posted above). It was completely gutted, totally engulf in a raging fire that blazed for nearly 2 days, and it remained standing. The towers "smoldered" in a few small areas for around an hour, then collasped, totally and straight down at freefall speed..... impossible! 8 to 9 seconds for total colapse..... it's against the laws of physics with the resistance of 80+ floors beneath to slow the collapse.

I'm no structural engineer but even I know it's not possible without removing the resistance from below.... as with demolition charges.

If it was a "pancake" collapse as we are told, there would still be the massive center support columns sticking a 1000 feet in the air.

so all of the science disproving that you'll just keep ignoring?

Don't confuse the issue with facts, Q!

The science, no, physics is a science and it says it is impossible.

People have stated it possible, physics says it couldn't.

It is the science that makes me question it.

ssshhhhhhh, government might put a stop to this thread because your blowing their cover-up

To be honest.... I don't think Bush had a clue, ever.

Did you see his face when he was left sitting in an exposed classroom, on an announced visit, virtually unprotected while we were under attack? Cheney on the otherhand says he was "rushed" to safety.

Poor georgey, that look was worth a million by itself.... "Why wasn't I told it was today..... OK guys, rush me to safety.....I'm waiting..... sheesh, don't they know I'm the President..... sure is a cute goat tho...."

Yeah, I keep saying that too... Even so..


Kat

OK, I'll try one more time. The science (physics) behind what holds the building up and what brings it down is called "Mechanics of Solids" taught in second year engineering and "Structures" in the third year, and "Steel Structures" in the fourth. The science of what makes the materials work the way that they do is called "Material Science" but is usually taught in engineering schools as "Strength of Materials". I gave you the exact short course version of how and why the buildings failed as they did earlier in this thread. There is no "theory" involved because the properties of all the materials are well known and are used to design the building in the first place. The science of determining how a failure progresses is called "Failure Mode Analysis" and is usually the realm of senior level experienced structural engineers.

One thousand foot high columns could not stand alone under any conditions. That is not a theory. The twin towers were not built using "standard" welded or bolted steel beam and column construction. They were built using "light construction" methods similar to the way your local WalMart is constructed, just a lot higher. The heat resistance of this type of steel joist construction is minimal. A side characteristic of using this type of construction is that "cascade" failure occurs under these failure conditions and guarantees a "pancake" straight down failure of the building shearing the column attachments on the way and failing EXACTLY the way you see the building go down.

This is the actual science involved. And, BTW, they don't make one thousand foot columns anyway. The real columns are pieced together typically using standard bolted connections every few floors or they are too long to ship. If the floor system fails like it did here, the columns are just pulled down along with everything else.