Your prediction came true but, it only took a few minutes for another same CT thread to start here.

BTW, I have an engineering license too and was in the honors program. Structures and material science is my field. What is yours?

I highly boubt your credentials but I rely on the 1360 A&Es who are calling for a real investigation.

Please post your links to your extensive work in the field concerning the 9-11 events....would love to see them!

I have a Masters in the Obvious...

One explosion isn't going to burn up all the jet fuel. Plus I mentioned that the insulation burned. The jet fuel was the catalyst for the fire not its sole source of fuel.

Hope the mods get you for your insults. I already said I was a EE and no I don't have papers written on the subject.

Lets see I was one of only 2 EEs from my school to pass the FE exam on the first try. I got a job with the largest defense contractor in the world right out of college. (they are also considered one of the top 5 companies to launch a career) So what do I have to prove?

I am speaking science and you are speaking assumptions and are trying to insult me. Of course I guess thats what all bad debaters do when they are losing an argument.

The same picks keep being altered to show what the CTers want folks to see

the problem is,is that this has never happened before a commercial airliner flying into a 100 story building,before 911,so nobody really knows. i mean i don't think the engineers were thinking "well we may need to do this here and there in case a commercial airliner crashes into the building"

He never had an argument. He has put up photos of the cut beams where the rescue firemen pulled out buried bodies and claimed "explosives cut the steel". It goes on and on. He reminds me of those villagers on the south sea islands who worshiped the newcomers as "gods" because the science was so far beyond anything they (or he) could understand.

Oooof...the building WERE designed to withstand an aircraft hit.

"Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

well obviously it couldn't withstand a jetliner crashing into it

they may have did studies but seriously how can you make a building "jetliners crashing into a building" proof?

So you think the aircraft should just bounce off...okay then. Anyone here have a sane debate point here? The buidings were designed to withstand an aircraft hit and NOT FALL DOWN..and especially NOT BLOW UP...egads the IQ level of the duhniers have completely bottomed out.

Duh! The buildings were run through a scenario where the FORCE of an airliner hit the building. The heat was not analyzed and this fact is discussed at every legitimate source.

What was it they thought about the Titanic??? Just saying...

That is too funny.

The architects anticipated a jetliner hitting their building in 1960s

Even with their assumptions that the building could withstand the crash of a jetliner, they had nothing to go on to prove it.

They could say it all they want, that doesn't make their assumptions accurate.

How many building have withstood a jetliner with that much fuel on board hitting it?

Show the proof.

What is it with all the degradation and name calling?

Can't you make a point without slamming folks who disagree and show you truth??

No CT.

Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."

-September 11, 2001 (telegraph.co.uk)

Yes they did dragoness I thought you said you at least researched this a little.

Cars are designed with safety features to keep people from dying in a car accident. Why do some people still die then? I guess you think its a government conspiracy while the rest of us realize that there is no perfect form of protection. Nothing has a 100% success rate.

If I remember correctly, when they did their calculations they expected an accidental crash. That means a plane would be coming in to land. It would have much less fuel and would be at lower speeds. In this scenario maybe the towers would still be up, maybe not. They didn't anticipate the temperatures that the fires got to and how the materials in the building fueled them.

Not to mention I am sure there have been major changes in structural buildings including what is used in them in the past 50 years. Any structural engineer want confirm that for me?

SO why did building 7 collapse? no planes verry little fire yet "poof" it fell at free fall speed?

Yes they did anticipate an aircraft hitting the building. The aircraft they calculated on was the Boeing 707...not much smaller than the 737 that hit tower one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNskClIyGfY&feature=related

See for yourself...

I don't know the whole story to building 7 nor have I seen any documented proof that it fell at free fall speed.
but here is a video of engineers explaining it.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/874281/world_trade_center_7_demolition_theory_debunked/