Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points, is it Grace?
I said that they used a stronger steel on the lower levels...In otherwords, it wasn't the 18 inch steel that was used in the UPPER levels. I've repeated that several times to you darling, and you don't seem to be able to grasp that concept at all...
Secondly, the pieces for the building of the WTC wasn't done on-site...But at the steel factories themselves...In otherwords...Pre-fab pieces...
Sorry, but demolition DOESN'T 'cut' steel pieces before demolition...They tape on explosive to major support beams and the 'explosion' wouldn't 'cut' the steel either...
What you see there is where a weld had been done, to join two pieces together, and it broke at that welding spot when the tower collasped. Nothing more, nothing less...More then likely, it was one of the support beams that had been replaced after the 1993 bombing which had to be fitted into the space of the removed support beam.
Also, not every piece of steel was coated with fire-resistant materials...There was no need, since the towers were built by building code standards at that time...Which were non-exsistant/lax in the 60's. Only the outside corner struts were as well as the inside corners around the fire escapes and elevators were coated with the paint-type fire resistant. And the rest of the 'fire-resistant' materials used were in plaster and drywall form, used on the inside the building itself for ceiling/walls.
When there was a fire in the late 70's on one of the office floors (severe structual damage was noted), the inspectors at that time determined that the fire safty was inadequate and that the possibility of a fire causing severe loss of structure integrity were a huge risk so more fire-proofing materials were added. So their recommendation was adding water sprinklers to floors above the garage levels throughout the buildings.
When the first bombing happened in 1993, inspectors once again found the fire-proofing inadequate and in need of replacement. As well as severe structual damage to the basement level secondary support beams. But the port authority only had 18 floors finished in building 1, and finished only the floors that were effected by the previous fires when 9-11 happened.
In fact, the only sprinkler system in the WTC was the basement levels prior to 1993...They'd installed a full sprinkler system then had just replaced in 2001 , the same year the towers were destroyed.
And your so-called 'expert' there actually has no more knowledge about what he is talking about, then you do...Just like you, he's imagining what happened, based of of no actual workable knowledge he has himself.
The 'Boeing 707' myth you cling to, was actually only an assumption on the part of engineers...Their assumption being that the lightweight trusses and columns might perform as well as the heavier materials used in the Empire State Building (which was incidentally hit by 2 planes with little to no damage itself)...But they didn't give any thought whatsoever to what possible fire damage might cause to that lighter frame...
Robertson, who was the head engineer,did an analysis himself in the 70's and stated that possiblity of fire from fuel wasn't taken into consideration to the original claims that it could survive a plane hit.
After 9-11, he restated that claim, saying that they hadn't taken into consideration the fuel itself or it's being kept burning by the office supplies and materials themselves....
And that's the man who designed and built the towers, stating himself, that his own design wasn't 'fire-proofed'...That his design hadn't taken into consideration many other factors outside of possible initial impact of a plane. And that the steel used hadn't been as durable as that used in the Emipire State building...
Although those within the engineering fields have stated that his design probally saved lives, as it lasted long enough to allow thousands on the lower levels of impact to escape with their lives.
Sorry Grace...But I'll take the man who designed it word over your wannabe authority any day of the week.
