Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[LeNeve]

I have worked with various metals, and I know for a fact that metal does not need to be at melting temp to make it pliable. You put a torch on a half inch peice of steel and, you can bend it by hand (not your actual hand, but with a couple crescent wrenchs) pretty easily. Add a hammer and anvil to that, and you can even make horseshoes.

Even at half the temp of melting point I think steel would lose alot of it's integrity.

[ap bikini team]

Also, the buildings didn't drop similar to how buildings implode (how many truthers claim it happened) because there were no successive explosions on various levels. It came down from the very top first, and fell on top of itself stressing out the beams and bringing the rest of the building down. Debris was scattered for miles. An implosion explosion similar to how the conspiracy states would have a more controlled explosion.

Hope that clears things up.

I found a paper written by a guy with a B.S. in physics that says that can't happen.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf">http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... OfWTC1.pdf</a><!-- m -->

The melting point of steel is only 2500 degrees (no steel is rated that high. Pure iron has a melting point of 2750, steel is an iron alloy and any mixture will have a lower melt point). However it becomes soft and malleable at just over 2000 degrees, NOT 3000. So if the fires were burning and warping steel, how could something softened to that degree hold up a building anymore? It doesn't. It falls.

The fundamental problem with the jet-fuel-melting-steel explanation is that its premise contradicts the laws of physics. No amount of ‘ “aviation fluid” ’ burning in the open flames of a building fire could even begin to melt steel. 1535ºCelsius/2750F is the melting point of structural steel, whereas 825ºCelsius/1517F is around the maximum temperature attainable with hydrocarbon-fueled fires without systematic pre-heating or pressurization of the air.

And I could find a physicist that says the opposite. The reason everyone rushes to the melting point is to augment the reality of the situation. Steel does NOT have to melt to lose it's integrity. A plane crashing into a building, and impacting the structure could trap pockets of burning fuel, pressurizing and allowing for the super heating needed. Steel doesn't need to melt to make what happened, happen. There didn't need to be a giant vat of molten steel pouring out of the windows to be the ONLY way it could have fallen.

Here's an experiment. Make a large spindle of solder into a column and balance a large board on top of it. Then take a butane lighter and place it close (not on) the spindle. What will happen is the solder pillar will fail before it actually melts. That's the same concept, with with stronger steel and a much hotter flame, and TONS more weight.

[Brian]

Like Chip said, the buildings were primarily constructed with trusses. Trusses as a system are strong, but if a few key members of a truss are damaged or removed, the system fails. When the planes impacted the building, a lot of damage initially occurred. Then throw on top of that, the heat from the burning jet fuel. There was no way the upper sections of the buildings were going to be supported for very long. Once the collapse began, there was a domino effect. As the floors "pancaked", those trusses below failed as well.

I know that the buildings were constructed with an inner core made with solid steel beams, so I have no idea why it appeared that they collapsed in free-fall. There are a lot of things we'll never know.


Yes LeNeve, I did say "members".

[negadave]

I understand the steel would be weakened by the heat.
Suposedly the clean up crew said there was molten metal at the base of the towers. So something would have had to melt it.

Like i said before, this could go back and forth forever. I don't have all the answers, and i don't feel like wasting all kinds of time looking through shit on the internet. It just seemed suspect to me the things that went down afterwards like the patriot act and the the iraq war.


I never really take things at face value. I just got a little offended before because people act like you said, "a spaceship landed in my backyard the other day and some aliens got out and had a beer with me", just for daring to question anything outside of the official report. Wich i heard they completed and released within two days after the planes hit.

I'm just gonna agree to disagree on this one

[Pete Nice]

Brian said "pancaked"

[Chip]

I understand the steel would be weakened by the heat.
Suposedly the clean up crew said there was molten metal at the base of the towers. So something would have had to melt it.

Like i said before, this could go back and forth forever. I don't have all the answers, and i don't feel like wasting all kinds of time looking through shit on the internet. It just seemed suspect to me the things that went down afterwards like the patriot act and the the iraq war.


I never really take things at face value. I just got a little offended before because people act like you said, "a spaceship landed in my backyard the other day and some aliens got out and had a beer with me", just for daring to question anything outside of the official report. Wich i heard they completed and released within two days after the planes hit.

I'm just gonna agree to disagree on this one

Yeah, I'd bet just about anything that the government screwed up and have covered it up. But to think that they were behind it, that's just nuts.
Can you imagine how many people would have to be in on that kind of "project"?
And no one, along the way, ever said "no, I've got to tell someone about this"?
That's the hardest part to believe.

[Brian]

Brian said "pancaked"

:roflmao: That word's getting tossed around more than that girl in Vegas in the red bikini.

[ap bikini team]

But to think that they were behind it, that's just nuts.
Can you imagine how many people would have to be in on that kind of "project"?
And no one, along the way, ever said "no, I've got to tell someone about this"?
That's the hardest part to believe.

That's why I look at people that really go question these theories, like I do. To think a lone person was crazy enough to blow himself up, or someone were to do something is one thing. But to have hundreds upon hundreds of people set up that kind of event (putting bombs all over the building to bring it down, coordinating 4 planes to all drop out of the sky at the same time, sacrificing thousands of people for a cause, and not a single person decide "no this is wrong" or anything like that in 9 years, is more hard to believe than terrorists.

But I tend to lump conspiracy theorists like that into the same group as those that think there was a 2nd gunman, think the Moon Landing was faked, don't think the Holocaust happened, or tons of other outlandish things.

[Brampton]

Brian said "pancaked"

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

[Pete Nice]

But to think that they were behind it, that's just nuts.
Can you imagine how many people would have to be in on that kind of "project"?
And no one, along the way, ever said "no, I've got to tell someone about this"?
That's the hardest part to believe.

That's why I look at people that really go question these theories, like I do. To think a lone person was crazy enough to blow himself up, or someone were to do something is one thing. But to have hundreds upon hundreds of people set up that kind of event (putting bombs all over the building to bring it down, coordinating 4 planes to all drop out of the sky at the same time, sacrificing thousands of people for a cause, and not a single person decide "no this is wrong" or anything like that in 9 years, is more hard to believe than terrorists.

But I tend to lump conspiracy theorists like that into the same group as those that think there was a 2nd gunman, think the Moon Landing was faked, don't think the Holocaust happened, or tons of other outlandish things.

I agree with you on all those theories except one. As an Army vet who specialized in marksmanship, I can tell you there most certainly was second shooter in the JFK assassination. I am not sure if there was a conspiracy or what it would have involved or who was behind it if there was one, but I can tell you for sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT acting alone OR a lone gunman.

[negadave]

I agree with you on all those theories except one. As an Army vet who specialized in marksmanship, I can tell you there most certainly was second shooter in the JFK assassination. I am not sure if there was a conspiracy or what it would have involved or who was behind it if there was one, but I can tell you for sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT acting alone OR a lone gunman.

Ha. Good let someone else get their balls broke for awhile

[Chip]

And just to add another 2 cents to the "melting steel" topic.
"Melting steel" and "weakening it to the point of failure" are 2 totally different things.
One of the first things I learned was difference between wood and steel in fires. Wood will burn, but it will keep most of it's strength until it burns through. Steel, as soon as it gets hot, will start to warp and bend. You do NOT need to melt steel to weaken it and make it fail, just heat it up enough. And like I said before, trusses are already pretty weak and flimsy (cheap) to begin with. And add the heat with the fact that a few floors were blown out by a giant plane, it's pretty reasonable that it would fail.

[negadave]

Oh man, I hate to get back into this topic.
I'm just listening to the replay of fridays show. I just wanted to say i think it's really cool when they make mention in a big or small way to the topics on the forums. It's weird to just be typing some bs on the computer and it ends up on a national radio show.
On a side note, how can they put spots picture that they took on private property in penthouse without his permission?

[Joe]

I understand the steel would be weakened by the heat.
Suposedly the clean up crew said there was molten metal at the base of the towers. So something would have had to melt it.

Like i said before, this could go back and forth forever. I don't have all the answers, and i don't feel like wasting all kinds of time looking through shit on the internet. It just seemed suspect to me the things that went down afterwards like the patriot act and the the iraq war.


I never really take things at face value. I just got a little offended before because people act like you said, "a spaceship landed in my backyard the other day and some aliens got out and had a beer with me", just for daring to question anything outside of the official report. Wich i heard they completed and released within two days after the planes hit.

I'm just gonna agree to disagree on this one

I've actually had beer in my back yard with aliens when I lived in NJ.


Those aliens drove low riders and picked corn at a local farm. No shit.

[i bleed green]

I've actually had beer in my back yard with aliens when I lived in NJ.
Those aliens drove low riders and picked corn at a local farm. No shit.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
I'm not sure if the government was actually behind 9/11 but at the very least they let it happen.I don't have any specific evidence to support that claim but I refuse to believe that something that big could have been planned and pulled off without being leaked.What about the fall of building 7 being reported before it happened?Or the fact that the WTC towers came down at the speed of gravity as Ventura pointed out?Just cause he's probably a bit nuts doesn't mean it's not a valid point.It's probably hard for the average person to fathom that anyone who is in your government and supposed to be looking out for you would do shit like that.I often wonder:if they are behind it and you had a chance to know everything;would you really want to know or would it just be too much and it's best not to know.