Prof Jones Responds to National Geographic

reply to post by hooper


Hooper everyone knows an airplane crashed into the WTC however the WTC were design to withstand multiples airliner crashes at the same time. If the WTC burnt from the bottom all the way to the top the WTC would have stood. That’s right the WTC would have stood. The designers who built the WTC came out and made a public statement about this.

The fire-melting-steel claim was introduced by apologists for the official story, and has been used repeatedly as a straw man claim to disingenuously attack critics of that story.




[edit on 4-9-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by hooper

 

Hooper everyone knows an airplane crashed into the WTC however the WTC were design to withstand multiples airliner crashes at the same time. If the WTC burnt from the bottom all the way to the top the WTC would have stood. That’s right the WTC would have stood. The designers who built the WTC came out and made a public statement about this.

The fire-melting-steel claim was introduced by apologists for the official story, and has been used repeatedly as a straw man claim to disingenuously attack critics of that story.




[edit on 4-9-2009 by impressme]

Sorry, these cannards have already been put to rest a long time ago. There is no evidence, calculations, etc. that support your contention that the WTC towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts. If this were true, then why hasn't a group like AE911truth prepared and distribute the calculations? The buildings don't need to be standing to do the analysis, it is all based on design and "as-built" conditions that are well recorded.

Secondly, nobody has ever stated (except 911 deniers in the throws of strawman jousting) that the fire "melted" the steel. Getting the structural steel of the buildings all the way to the liquid state in order to effect failure is neither sufficient nor neccessary.

Originally posted by hooper
Just as a matter of curiosity, what started those "simple little office fires"? Cigarette butt in the garbage can? Faulty wiring on a desk lamp? Candle from a birthday cake? Boeing 757 crashing into the building at 500 MPH?

As an experiment I flew a model of a 757 into a tower I'd constructed out of matches, cardboard, and the top bit of a detergent bottle. When I say "flew", I actually mean that I held it between finger and thumb and made a "vrrrrrrmmmm" noise, then pushed it into my tower at a speed that I reckon roughly equals 500 mph if it was a real plane.

And when I say model of a 757, I actually mean a plastic B-Wing fighter with the gun turret missing, but still, this is a science experiment, not the real thing.

After twenty minutes the tower is still standing! Which if you adjust for the scale of the B-wing and the height relative to the real WTC equals 17 hours! Debunk that.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by hooper
Just as a matter of curiosity, what started those "simple little office fires"? Cigarette butt in the garbage can? Faulty wiring on a desk lamp? Candle from a birthday cake? Boeing 757 crashing into the building at 500 MPH?

As an experiment I flew a model of a 757 into a tower I'd constructed out of matches, cardboard, and the top bit of a detergent bottle. When I say "flew", I actually mean that I held it between finger and thumb and made a "vrrrrrrmmmm" noise, then pushed it into my tower at a speed that I reckon roughly equals 500 mph if it was a real plane.

And when I say model of a 757, I actually mean a plastic B-Wing fighter with the gun turret missing, but still, this is a science experiment, not the real thing.

After twenty minutes the tower is still standing! Which if you adjust for the scale of the B-wing and the height relative to the real WTC equals 17 hours! Debunk that.

757's don't go "vrrrrrrmmmm", they go "wosssshhhhhhhhh".