I'm sure being in the middle of the 9-11 disaster was like being in a war zone. Being an eyewitness doesn't impart some ability to deserne impirical truth.
Science does.
Jarhead thinks he knows something about structural engineering because, well because he does.
I am a general building contractor, mostly residential construction, but I have installed a few structural steel beams and columns in my day. I've spoken with structural engineers and many iron workers. I haven't met one yet that believes that all the structural column/beam connections in Building 7 failed within miliseconds of each other in perfect sycronistity from floor to floor (what is required to make a building collapse into it's own footprint) as a result of an office fire. They all agree that it is an impossibility.
I've asked at least two structural engineers why they don't join A & E for 911 Truth an both told me they are afraid it would hurt their business, afraid they would be called conspiracy theorists. But they both told me catagorically that modern steel frame office towers can not collapse due to fire.
I challange any of you who think this can happen to find a strutural engineer (who is not already a 911 conspiracy denier) who will say that modern stell frame office towers can collapse into their own footprint due to fire.
I think I know something becuase I watched a documentary explaining how such was possible. I am and have always been a student...I dont watch basic TV...I watch science shows and documentaries...news and sports....
Likewise, I applied my own logic and realized that the heat of the fire was greater than the heat that is used to melt steel commerically.
I also understood the physics as it pertained to the collapse..and why the pancake affect was not only possible...but very likely.
You and I dont need to see eye to eye on this....but do I warrant your ridicule? Am I ridiculing you?
I would like to point out an interesting request you made....
I challange any of you who think this can happen to find a strutural engineer (
who is not already a 911 conspiracy denier)
The words in bold...
What is wrong with a structural engineer who has reviewed the scenario and has determined that such is possible?
So you are convinced there is some sort of conspiracy based on the information offered by structural engineers that are truthers (but not outspoken for privacy reasons), but those that are structural engineers that are deniers are not worthy of similar respect?
Do you not see the bias?
Why ridicule? Hers's a quote from your first reply "So, they are a group...with an agenda.....gee......that makes them credible.
LOL...there are 100 times as many successful and accredited Architects and Engineers that agree that the collapse was quite feasible in light of the intense heat created by jet fuel fires.
Seems like another Al Gore situation to me"
That's not ridicule?
As for your 'logic' that because people can work in a foundery where the heat is so intense that it can melt steel and that people exposed to the fire in the towers jumped because they were overpowered by the heat, that therefore it means that the heat in the towers was sufficient to melt steel (mind you melt, molten, is the operative word) is nonsense. Do a little research and you will find that hydrocarbon fires, those composed of hydrocarbon based fuels such as wood, paper, synthetic fibers like carpet, etc. cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt steel which is at least 2500F degrees. Hydrocarbon fires cannot exceed about 1500F degrees without adding compressed air or pure oxygen.
As for the "pancake theory", where did all the pancaked floors go? There were no floors stacked up at the bottom.
Why exclude those who are already convinced that it was an accident? Haven't they also shown their bias (I would say complicity)?
The only reason that this has gone on so long is those like you who are only too ready to ridicule those who say there was a conspiracy, in fact the perpetrators of 9-11 were counting on those like you to cover their tracks.
Boil it done and the fact remains that modern steel frame office towers can not collapse imto their own footprints due only to fire. It is an impossibility, yet Building 7 did just that more than six hours after the twin towers went down.
A lucky strike by Al-Queda, or very careful planning?