Carlton Supporters Club

As part of basic bushfire research, CSIRO did extensive testing of various building materials, and found steel and some metals although less likely to catch would also suffer the most catastrophic failures at lower temperatures or from being heated to high temperatures. The structural members buckle and fold like a melted straw once they get above a critical temperature.

The longest survived structures in bush fires are solid log constructions, because although they burn the timber chars on the outside but doesn't become structurally weaker in the process lasting much longer before failure. Sort of makes sense when you see the charred forests after regional fires. For this reason they are now developing new building codes that may permit construction up to 10 stories structurally built out of wood.

It's probably fair to say the Twin Towers must have been exposed to some extreme heat, they were basically 100 story chimneys. I think CSIRO and other local scientists debugged the 9/11 conspiracies very well a long time back on The Conversation website, you might still be able to find that information.

There will always be alternate opinions, some because they just refuse to accept what they think is right is wrong, others because they have some external motive affecting their judgement, others because they want there to be a conspiracy.

All that is debunked lp.

Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering...

Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

Yeah right.
80 plus floors were not even impacted by the plane.....

That's really poor for a scientist.

By the by, even the NIST report concurs that a minimum 90% of the fuel load was expended outside the building ie in the explosion during impact.

What energy source then brought the building down in next to free fall speed?

Heard of the law of conservation of momentum?

That's not even addressing the symmetry of descent, the vapour point of jet fuel and the melting temperature of treated steel......

The NIST report has so many errors in it that are 'tweaked to try and cover up what really happened. Even if there was no tweaking..it still has so many errors.

@lp
You reckon its been debunked,  show me your evidence. I'll point out the inaccuracies in it for you.

Apparently YOU can.

Listen to the people who designed them, architects and engineers. THEY are the ones who have done the research.

Stop arguing about something you havn't seen.

So you say it's a conspiracy and there is proof.

So it's all black and white for you then?

All I can comment on is what specialists and scientists have reported, I'm not an engineer and won't pretend to be one from my armchair, neither are most architects they employ engineers to do the math for them.

The universal consensus doesn't really exist amongst the experts as some would like to think.

I didn't say there was a conspiracy, I said there were various hypothesis.

Come back when your less grumpy and more likely to post sensibly.

Yes there are....and the one trotted out to the public is completely wrong.

....and I havnet even started on the non twin towers inaccuracies....

And I'm completely well fine thanks for caring.

I prefer to discuss the un-doctored reports posted by authorities through authorised channels and verified by collegiate entities like universities or research organisations

....

And I apply the same applies for COVID-19 disease or vaccine, I don't change tactic dependant on the subject matter or personal preference!

The videos show that the report used was presented 2 days after the incident.
Full and thorough you reckon?

I don't change tact either. I question things and don't believe what the government says because the government said it.