Update: I previously said he is wrong about this issue and who knows what he would say today, but I hadn't seen the full interview where he clearly thinks bombs must have been involved.
Donald Trump at Ground Zero right after the terror attacks - Interview English/German on 9/13/2001
It's no secret that I think Donald Trump is right about a lot, but I don't hesitate to point out things he is wrong about.
First off, the upside to this video as noted by a YouTube commenter, "So nice to stop his projects and send over 100 of his workers over to help find people alive at ground zero." Now to the the downside. The interviewer makes the point that "a lot of people ask" how the towers were destroyed by planes when they were designed to take just such an impact. Trump argues that the jet fuel and "1,600 degree temperature" did the trick. This a view still held by many, many more at the time of this interview, but not supported by the facts.
The video 9/11 Debunked: On WTC’s Design to Withstand 707 Impact, by RKOwens4, the page WTC 707 Impact, at 911myths.com, and the First time in history page at Debunking911.com, all make the case, based on statements from Leslie Robertson, that the Twin Towers were only designed to survive a low speed, jet fuel free, impact from an airliner. This article shows otherwise...Donald Trump at Ground Zero right after the terror attacks - Interview English/German on 9/13/2001
It's no secret that I think Donald Trump is right about a lot, but I don't hesitate to point out things he is wrong about.
First off, the upside to this video as noted by a YouTube commenter, "So nice to stop his projects and send over 100 of his workers over to help find people alive at ground zero." Now to the the downside. The interviewer makes the point that "a lot of people ask" how the towers were destroyed by planes when they were designed to take just such an impact. Trump argues that the jet fuel and "1,600 degree temperature" did the trick. This a view still held by many, many more at the time of this interview, but not supported by the facts.
Debunking 9/11 Debunking: On WTC's Design to Withstand 707 Impact
As to those supposed 1,600 degree temperatures...
AE911Truth’s Statement on the Viral Blacksmith YouTube Video
Excerpt:
Tye’s demonstration is wholly irrelevant for the simple reason that the fires in the World Trade Center could not have heated the structure anywhere near as high as the 1,800°F to which Tye heated his piece of steel using a furnace.
Jet fuel fires reach temperatures of around 1,500°F only under optimal conditions. In open air conditions like the WTC buildings, they burn at around 600°F. Even according to the government agency that investigated the disaster, there is no evidence that any of the steel was heated to the point where it would lose its strength.Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality - Part 2
Excerpt:
PM next goes on to discuss NIST’s assertions that the fires in the buildings were sufficient to weaken the steel to the failure point. However, NIST’s own tests show no evidence of this. While PM asserts in their book that “[steel] loses roughly 50 percent of its strength at approximately 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 Fahrenheit)” (pg. 38), NIST cites no evidence that the steel in the Towers sustained temperatures anywhere near this range. The highest temperatures NIST estimated for the steel samples was only 250 °C (482 °F), according to the metallographic paint tests they performed on WTC core column specimens.4
Related:
