Originally Posted by willravel

Well I finally got a hold of a decent structural engineer. Who would have guessed...he figures that 9/11 is fishy. He explained how the WTC would have had a static ratio of 5:1. In other words, if it was rated to hold 100 tons, it could theoretically support 500 tons. I keep hearing how the WTC was reduced to roughtly 60% of it's rated strength. So that's 20% strength loss. Even if the steel had been heated to 550 C, or about 1022 F, the towers would have stood. "Not only the fact that they fell, but the fact that they fell so fast is highly suspect", is what the reponse I've gotten from this engineer. He won't speculate as to how the towers fell, but suggested that the planes simply could not have been responsible.

I also found a really good page for steelwork fire resistance for anyone who's interested. http://web.archive.org/web/200308181...fire/fr006.htm

I've found that studies on parking garages could be relevant to the current discussion.

http://web.archive.org/web/200308181...arks/cp006.htm

Please note that parking garages do not have thermal insulation, like that found in the WTC. Also, parking garages do not have a fraction of the support and steel found in the WTC. The fires in the parking garages would be fueled by gas, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, hydraulic fluids, and the like can burn at a very similar temperature to airline fuel (diesel and kerosene have almost identical burning temperatures), espically over a very long period.

I still do not see how the relatively minor damage and fires could have completly demolished two of the best built, steel reinfirced buildings in the world. Maybe I'm just crazy.