Huh????
Did you look at the NIST report? THey clearly demonstrate the intensity of the fires and the spread from floor to floor.
It's not very complicated. Fires that are much above 600 degree Celsius begin to cause a widespread shattering of windows. If the fires were at the
alleged temperatures, they would've had no problem blowing out window after window after window. But that
never happened. That alone suggests
the fires couldn't have been much hotter than 600 degrees Celsius, unless those buildings used some magic glass.
Besides the windows, if the fires were at the alleged temperatures, they would've also spread to other floors.
Please if you don't read the NIST report, at least look at the photos, There are a number that clearly show the intensity of the fires on
various floors.
There are also clear photos of the progression of damage to the building from the fires, from collapsing floors to bowing exterior columns.
Various floors, yes. But those floors all had fires in them
since impact. The fires spread to
no other floors. Again, if they were
really at the alleged temperatures, they would've burned through all sorts of materials and made their way onto other floors of the building besides
the ones they started on. Again, fires going down the elevator shaft does not count here. The fires never spread to other floors by their own
account.
And the third thing suggesting the fires were never hot enough, is that there was never any steel glowing a dull red. If the steel actually reached
alleged temperatures, it would glow a dull red. There was absolutely no footage of a single steel beam that was any color than what it would be under
very weak temperatures.
You have to google the right terms. Try "fire load" or "Workstation fire test"
I asked for proof that jet fuel and burning office supplies could produce similar temperatures. I don't understand the mega-watt stuff, quite
frankly. You'll also notice that those tests weren't done on WTC offices, apparently. By your own logic, they should therefore be thrown out, since
you said that since the fireproofing was knocked off the steel, all evidence on that should be thrown out on that system. It's the testing on
all-around industrial steel that gives away the steel would've at least have to have been heated to around 1000 degrees or so.
Don't forget that the floor truss spans were particularly vulnerable to the heat, due to the relatively thin cross section of the
chords.
It's too bad that the fires were never that hot anyway, or that might matter a little more.
The dry weight of the 767 engines alone are pretty big numbers. The fuselage would have done a lot of the damage but the engines are so heavy
they would have done a lot of damage too. On top of that the explosion shockwave would have done some damage.
767 engine weights.
CF6-80A2 8,776 pounds
CF6-80C2B2 9,790
CF6-80A 8,776
Those are just the GE engines. They can choose from Rolls Royce, P&W, and GE, depending on customer choice. Not ALL pieces of wreckage are small
pieces of metal. There are cargo containers, engines, large chunks of fuselage that all weigh quite a bit when they come apart. The fuselage would
cause the biggest part of the damage, you're right, but not ALL the damage. A four ton engine is going to do quite a bit of damage as well as it
bounces around, before it come apart.
And yet nearly every bit of that missed the core columns of the South Tower.
The claim that the towers could withstand multiple 707s (not by some nut, but by the WTC's own on-site construction manager) throws water onto that
anyway. You can find comparisons of a 707 and 767 here:
911research.wtc7.net...
Again, keeping in mind that nearly all of it missed the core columns of the South Tower. Also keep in mind that no matter how big you make out a 767
to be, the core columns of the South Tower are inevitably going to be
much bigger, and
much sturdier. It's simply in the nature of
skyscraper support columns. And even the parts thaht
did hit the core columns, only skirted around the edge.
Again,
Even in a worst case scenario, there's not a very large portion of those columns that are going to be knocked out. Your 'bouncing shard of metal'
seems to be the best attempt at how those columns could possibly have been damaged very much at all, and it doesn't hold much water. And yet, the
buildings both fell the same way. Seems to suggest to me that no matter what happened or did not happen to those columns, the buildings would've
somehow came down anyway. Hmm....
Besides that, Just who exactly "rated" the building for an aircraft impact?
As I've already stated, the on-site construction manager of the WTC complex made this claim. I'd say he would know what he was talking about in
regards to this; at least much more than any of us.
It is a common fallacy that the building was designed to withstand an aircraft impact. The reality is, after the building was designed, the
principle engineer calculated the effect of a low speed impact from a 707. His calculation indicated that the building would survive the impact. He
did not, however consider the effect of the subsequent fires in his calculations.
And where exactly did you find his exact "calculations," Howard? Or are you speculating on all of this?
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building
probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid --
and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Those were the construction manager's exact words, Howard. His name was Frank Demartini. Unfortunately, he's been missing since the attacks, as he
probably died when the buildings were demolished.
Come on, have some self respect! 
