9/11, structural steel.

[other one]

41 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

Well as this video just showed you, it was indeed hot enough to collapse... So if a structural engineer said it wouldn't he's either lying or he's not a structural engineer...at least not one I'd hire to build anything.

It is one thing to heat a small bar in an oven, but altogether something to say that the fires so heated the structure of that building at the same levels that I saw people running around in to cause the collapse.  Fantasy pure and simple...

[The_Patriot21]

It still softens...still becomes compromised... Add into that the force of the stories above it were far in excess, both weight wise and even ratio wise to that guys pinkie....ya, its safe to say with 100% certainty that those towers could indeed have fallen from the combination of the plane impact and the heat from the burning fuel. 

It's been established that it is indeed possible. Anyone who says its not knows nothing about metal or engineering. Now, is it possible that they still planted explosives? Sure. But, heres what we have-we have a plane, which science says without a doubt hit the tower, and without a doubt could have brought them down. The planes hit the towers, fact. Unarguable, fact. And the fact is that they could have brought them down. 

 

The other side of the coipn we have no motive explained why they would need to put explosives. No ones been able to explain how a professional demo crew was able to setup explosives over several floors. Not one of the thousands of people who would have had to have been involved have come forward. In fact, so far, the only evidence of explosives are dust and debris blowing out the sides-which could have been caused by the building collapsing in on itself just as easy as it could have been explosives-and a few "fireman" heard what they "thought" were explosives, from 90 stories below, while runing around in the closest thing to hell they've ever experienced trying to save lives, with adrenaline running through their system, while facing fear, terror, confusion, and the mad rush to get everyone to safety while being totally exhausted at the same time. Even by some chance they actually knew what a professional demolition sounded like over a building collapsing, there's no way they would be able to differentiate the difference in that madness. 

 

So you see, your case is weak, built on nothing but rumors and at best circumstantial evidence, by people with no clue what they are talking about. Which is why I don't take these people seriously, I won't spend 80 bucks on a book written by a fool. If you want to believe it fine, I can't sway you.

 

Now, I've seen you on the boards on a great many subjects other, your a very passionate person which is a good thing. And from what I've seen, you love the Lord and are very Biblically based. And we've had this debate before. So out of respect for you, I've said my piece. You know where I stand. And I know where you stand, and I don't see us agreeing, even agreeing to disagree on this subject. So, I think it's best to focus on what we do agree on-and move on to the next debate. :-)

[SINNERSAVED]

So why did we go to Iraq ? to do what ?

[The_Patriot21]

Just now, SINNERSAVED said:

So why did we go to Iraq ? to do what ?

That's another topic for another day.

[SINNERSAVED]

1 minute ago, the_patriot2015 said:

That's another topic for another day.

Patriot, is this source you are using to prove this credible ?

[The_Patriot21]

7 minutes ago, SINNERSAVED said:

Patriot, is this source you are using to prove this credible ?

Sinner, this is a topic about addressing 9/11, particularly whether the heat from the jet fuel could have compromised the steel of the twin towers. It's not about Iraq or whatever it is your talking about here, and I'm not going to digress off topic. If you want to discuss Iraq with me start a new topic and maybe I'll join in. Or maybe someone else will take the bait. This is all I am going to say on the matter in this thread.

[other one]

but the building wasn't in a furnace Patriot....    you can't show that within the building the temperature was anywhere near that hot.     Is it possible to cause the building to start to collapse by heating the metal that hot??????    of course it is.    but outside an oven designed to get metal that hot, it very very seldom happens....   and for it to happen to every building with WTC on the prefix of it's name is astronomically unlikely.

As I said, there were people walking in the floors of the building where the supposedly collapse started.  And I ask the same question that Dr. Wood asks......   where did the buildings go.

[The_Patriot21]

1500 alone would have been enough to compromise the steel, and being inside a building like that you can't tell me it wouldn't be hotter....I can garentee with 100% certainty that no one was walking around where the fires were regardless of how the buildings came down. Garentee it.

 

As far as where did the buildings go? I would think the answer to that is pretty self apparent. If Dr woods can't even figure that out, then Dr woods definitely did not earn the "Dr" and is not qualified to make any kind of opinion on the matter.

[SINNERSAVED]

45 minutes ago, the_patriot2015 said:

1500 alone would have been enough to compromise the steel, and being inside a building like that you can't tell me it wouldn't be hotter....I can garentee with 100% certainty that no one was walking around where the fires were regardless of how the buildings came down. Garentee it.

 

As far as where did the buildings go? I would think the answer to that is pretty self apparent. If Dr woods can't even figure that out, then Dr woods definitely did not earn the "Dr" and is not qualified to make any kind of opinion on the matter.

if you  Patriot believe that one plane in each building is enough to bring down the towers down to the ground, and evaporate like it did , I am sorry but your ,source and your belief is flawed, for do you know how many floors are in each tower, but yet when the plans hit they hit up at the top but yet the building came down with in its self as you would see in a demo charged operation, second there was a third building  #7 that was charged to be demo the same very day with in the same time of this event and it went down , way after the news lady live was saying the third building has collapsed and you could see the building was still standing, but no plane hit that one, and yet they still pulled the charge to bring down the Building,

at the same time the pentagon was doing contruction to the part that was hit , but there was no plane for the hole to the building was way smaller then a plane could make , so I don't know what happen but this does not sound to good, ,my heart goes out to the families and my prayers , but what the after math after the dust settles is very disturbing to here even from the fire fighters said they heard charges in the floors going off like a actual demo event, so they are the best credible, witnesses and specialist on the scene at the time,

and if you follow the money , why did the guy that owned the towers increase his insurance for the biggest pay off in history ?

I cannot tell you what happen only what I have read and scene on video, but I cannot believe that one plane in each building would bring down the complete building to dust, even if it was carry tanker fuel. sorry I have to disagree with you.....

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

You've only seen video by someone who likely is as cooky as others Dr wood sinner....but yes I believe one plane per tower took them down and a plane did hit a Pentagon because that's what the evidence says. No one has been able to present any strong evidence against such. Even your "construction" on the Pentagon. First off what evidence do you have that there was? I mean actual evidence that you can link to not some "vague" YouTube video you watched once upon a time? And even if there was, so what? Construction would not be unusual in a building of that size.

 

As for the size of the hole, anyone with a half licl of a brain can tell your wrong. The hole is more then large enough for a plane, especially considering how reinforced the structure was to withstand attacks. If anything what's surprising is how much damage the plane actually did. And let's not forget the hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom I've talked to myself.

 

If you want to continue believing there is a conspiracy that is your right. But don't expect me to take you seriously when you tell me something that obviously Happenned, that has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt happened, didn't happen. No matter how much you repeat a lie, I'm not going to believe it. Two planes hit the towers and one plane hit the Pentagon. Those are the facts. Unquestionable. Unarguable. Facts. The only thing in question is whether or not they took the the towers down. The evidence I provided doesn't prove that the planes took them down, but it does prove its possible. Which, eliminates the C/Ts strongest evidence that the buildings were taken down by explosives, and seeing as no one, including you, has presented any other real evidence, but are instead clinging to bad metallurgical knowledge and vague videos to support your case, then I call this debate over, as there really isn't one.