View Single Post
Old 26th September 2010, 12:15 PM   #20
Sivan Kurzberg
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures.
Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though.

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred.
This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated?

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire.
See number 2

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others.
Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure?

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
5 - Progressive collapse does exist.
Sure. But not sudden rapid global collapse complete in a matter of seconds like what was witnessed three times on 9/11.

Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire.
It's still unprecedented and unproven. This is the problem.

Last edited by Sivan Kurzberg; 26th September 2010 at 12:19 PM.
Sivan Kurzberg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top