No. What stinks is your "evidence". No matter how many times it gets shot down, you just restate the same garbage. And you NEVER admit that any of the actual facts proved you wrong.

Did you try the coat hanger in the fire test?

That is absurd a coat hanger is made from a low carbon steel big differance between that and high grade construction steel.


Oh should I ask if your useing metal or plastic?

The really high grades of steel aren't used to build trusses and the properties of mild steel are pretty similar when it comes to heat. So since you don't know the properties of steel you just make up a response that sounds good to you? Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Do you know what A36 means?

The OP "experiment" was fatally flawed but you didn't seem to notice. Why is that?

Ok mr Wizard Your acting like the built the twin towers out of sheer bolts In fact if they had that would explain the sudden and total collapse.

As a former steel heat treat wizard of 18 years ago I do recall the differant types of steel.

A2 D2 8620 1150 1045 etc etc

I didnt deal with yeild strengths much beyond the basics but I can assure you if the used a36 to build the twin towers it would have good ducutility as is standerd for that type of construction. It would bend before it would break.

Alas thats it for me this round another working day ahead tomorrow.

Ah! So you know that A36 is the standard steel for building construction and it is low carbon, just like the coat hanger wire. So you probably know the coat hanger is a real test to show how the strength drops with heat and this whole BS 9/11 pretense is just about politics. You can't have it both ways.

Especially when there's a whole thread with 700 posts debunking this and making the "Truthers" look like morons, maybe thats why they started a new thread.

Now you think they construct buildings out of giant coat hangers.

Wana hear a better one?

After the twin towers were hit, the air space over washington was undefended.

Low carbon steel is what they use to build buildings and coat hanger wire is low carbon steel ... as is most of the steel used. You cannot claim to have any significant knowledge of steel and not know this so you are making yourself out to be a bold faced teller of untruths.

The facts are that after anyone actually goes through the debunking process, the whole 9/11 conspiracy story falls apart. This is not the second or third thread at Mingle. There have been at least half a dozen and they keep coming back with the same crap over and over and over.

Nobody is that stupid. This thread is all about politics.

And for the record, I have breached Restricted Airspace a number of times and no one ever shot at me. I have breached "no fly" zones and have flown into controlled airspace without clearance. I only got a "talking to" once.

yep scientist vs security guard

whats your I.Q.?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s4oDBszE_5E/SKJLHGUp5rI/AAAAAAAAA3o/ZiwPV2SD-qk/s400/arguing_on_the_internet.jpg

titanic = twin towers

same thing

satanic ritual sacrifice


look up new world order and then come back and tell us how your

votes count and why you drink fluoride and so on

So, you are saying you are retarded?

Low carbon steel is used so it bends instead of breaks. I would suspect that yes the coat hanger would bend but still think it is more like brass than a36 steel.

Did you by chance fly over washington and what is the standerd procedure for flying over washington without clearnce?

Steel is like steel, it is not like brass ... and you know it.

I have never flown over DC. After 9/11 they changed the rules. Before 9/11 pilots casually went sightseeing there. I have since violated a no fly zone which got them a little excited but the military has never really been set up for attacking civilian aircraft. Before 9/11 a hijacked airplane was expected to land somewhere and then demand "something" so the FBI ran the show.

For you to expect fighters to have been ready in DC because of a plane crash in New York is giving our government way too much credit for "being ready".

You should try the wire experiment. You might actually learn something.

The US military has spent billions of dollars developing stealth aircraft which are invisible to radar so they can mount surprise attacks on adversaries, but it seems they should have saved their money and bought a fleet of airliners because they appear to be far more effective.
On 9/11 the world's only military superpower was apparently oblivious to the location of rogue airliners in it's airspace for over an hour, and military commanders were left perplexed on how to deal with the situation of hijackers using these planes as flying bombs.



This confusion resulted in fighter jets flying around aimlessly whilst the hierarchy fully assessed what was going on, and this total lack of cohesion ultimately led to the loss of nearly 3000 lives.
All that was required to overcome America's military might on 9/11 were 19 hijackers on 4 airliners.

Does this sound plausible to you?

It's what you're expected to believe.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html

Repeating over and over and over that 9-11 alternate theories have been debunked does not make it so. They have not been debunked in the least. Sorry. Saying it, repeating it does not make it so.

The official report is a fabrication and spun propaganda.

The 9-11 commission made a habit of ignoring and excluding evidence. These are facts you continue to ignore.

NIST is not an independant agency either. It is as connected to the Bush administration as much as the 9-11 commission is.

If the attack was an inside job, neither NIST or the 9-11 commission can be credible to investigate or report what happened.

I started a new thread with facts for people who want to discuss the facts. Most people don't.

Only intelligent inquiries are welcome.

"Dr. Robert Bowman, a man so decorated with medals and honors they could fill a patriotic Christmas tree, has joined the ranks of those who are declaring that the attacks on 9/11 were an inside job. As right wing world comes tumbling down, more prominent individuals are coming forward with their doubts and concerns with the official report.

Some have little more than the powers of their own deduction, others are expert engineers and physicists.

Dr. Bowman has inside knowledge of military protocol, and has stated that it is apparent to him that the massive military exercises that took place on September 11, 2001 were intentionally staged to confuse civil defenses. The person who headed those exercises? None other then Richard Cheney, otherwise known as Dead-eye Dick."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usaf_911.html

Umm 3000 people were not killed in the pentagon and as far as I know NYC isn't a no fly zone. So those two posts have nothing in common.

they said norad was shut down practicing drills of the same thing

that happened that day


didnt anybody see how they built the wtc towers it was a

concrete inner building inside of a outer steel tube building?


how thick was the wtc towers concrete inner core compared to the

pentagons concreted reinforced skin?


oh btw mythbusters debunked hho gas for the last time yet it works


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMgGC9W-ks8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LEljS3ib84

http://www.youtube.com/user/mrvolant7#p/a/u/0/BKeq7ss4hUU

The buildings were indeed solidly constructed, proof of this lies in the fact they stood for thirty years in winds which sometimes reached hurricane force. Would ¼ mile high buildings which relied solely on the integrity of weak trusses and 5/8" bolts have stood for thirty years?

When Flight 11 flew into WTC 1, one of two things should have happened:

If the building was constructed with non-composite steel trusses bolted between the inner core and perimeter walls there should have been an immediate "pancake collapse" of all floors (but the core should have remained intact).

If the building was solidly constructed it should have remained standing.

Neither of the above occurred.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/trusstheory.html

That doesn't mean anything.



I don't think you know what a composite steel truss is. Can you describe one? The trusses were not supported by the inner core (not that it has anything to do with anything.)

The inner core is not capable of supporting itself as it was designed for core duty only. Without the rest of the building the core would have acted as an extremely tall thin column.



That statement doesn't mean anything. The building code is the same for different buildings.


That is one of the dumbest explanations ever! The fact that they got anything right is amazing. What on earth does the size of the connecting bolts from the joist to the joist supports have to do with anything? You could take the bolts out and the building wouldn't fall because they are BEARING connections. They do transfer some wind load in high winds but that doesn't apply. They are not SHEAR bolts because they are in SLOTTED HOLES.

Jeezzz

There you go quoting me again and having nothing relevant to say with what I posted. You also posted this all before.