Guest bengalrick Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295849' date='Jul 18 2006, 03:36 PM']You're onto something. How can Larry Silverstien claim that #7 was demolished by the NYFD *during the tumultuous events of 911* because of fire/loss of life? Completely implausible. And completely unaddressed by the 911 commission. The simply offer no explanation. [b]As to the twin towers, my only guess (and i freely admit it is nothing more than that) perhaps the necessary munitions were planted duing the reconstruction required after the initial bombing of the building in '96? Again, I do not claim to have all answers, only an educated skepticism.[/b] Several firefighters in the vicinity have claimed to have herad explosions occur immediately prior to the collapse of the towers. Perhaps this is accurate...[/quote] this would blow alot of the claims of the PNAC out of the water... if this was teh case, then clinton would also be involved in this plot... along w/ his administration, who don't exactly see eye to eye w/ the current admin... he was also not in the PNAC and is far from a "neo-con"... and like who dey said, that is teh only possible way that we could have imploded that by our own control... the explosions are easy to explain... there were 2 110 story tower's that got hit by airplanes... there was jet fuel running throughout both buildings... i don't know exactly what would make a sound of an explosion, but i'm sure that there are many things in the building that were extremely flamable, and since teh fuel was freely running through the buildings, it is concevable that it found something very flamable... still agree w/ you on building 7 (unfortinately)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='295853' date='Jul 18 2006, 08:49 PM']this would blow alot of the claims of the PNAC out of the water... if this was teh case, then clinton would also be involved in this plot... along w/ his administration, who don't exactly see eye to eye w/ the current admin... he was also not in the PNAC and is far from a "neo-con"... and like who dey said, that is teh only possible way that we could have imploded that by our own control... the explosions are easy to explain... there were 2 110 story tower's that got hit by airplanes... there was jet fuel running throughout both buildings... i don't know exactly what would make a sound of an explosion, but i'm sure that there are many things in the building that were extremely flamable, and since teh fuel was freely running through the buildings, it is concevable that it found something very flamable... still agree w/ you on building 7 (unfortinately)...[/quote] Again, if the Dems were truly any different that the Repubs, they would be leading this charge, not me. As to jet fuel running through the buildings, I cannot buy that. Either the shit exploded or it didn't. If it did, it happened in the big fireball we all saw upon impact (which I can believe). But once it's gone up in smoke, it has gone up in smoke. It could not suddnely come back an hour later to recombust again in an explosion. (If we could burn the same fuel twice, it sure would help vs those crazy gasoline prices we're seeing ) Please take a peek at my second suggested reading to Honkey at the beginning of this thread for more insight on this. And in case I forget to mention it again, thanks for the honest debate everyone. You too, Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Ill agree that a lot of things dont seem to make sense, but i find a very hard time that all of these things could have been thought of, and been planned for probably years before half the people involved were ever even in office or in the role that they are...for everysone of these "holes" it seems to me like there are 2 possiblities, a more logical explanation and a conspiracy theory. For example, with regards to the hijackers that people think are still alive, even though bengalrick has already shown that that might not be true, if the Mossad or Pnac or whoever actually did this you think they would take more time picking who they were gonna set up and not people that were still alive. Do you honestly think they would just half ass it and pick 20 random arabs. I think the much more logical explanation if these guys are alive is that the government mixed up names or got the wrong names or something. Or as rick said they are probably just really actually dead. Another thing about the towers...lets say something happen like what "supposedly" happened in the plane that crashed into the ground in pennsylvania...what if that happened to the second or first plane that crashed into one of the two WTC towers. Lets say 1 of the planes never got there because the people overthrew that hijackers (unless you are gonna go on to say that there were no hijackers and the pilots were part of it). Then no plane would have crashed into the tower, and there would still technicallyhave been tons of dynamite or whatever for the controlled demo. What would the conspirasts have done then...exploded the tower anyways or just left the dynamite there to be found later? I just think its much more plausible that the towers just fell down and the explosions they heard was from the fuel, rather than somehow people putting dynamite in the building 5 years prior without anyone finding out about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 I too would like to thank everyone for giving a great debate even without our resident expert of BJ whose opinion I usually most enjoy reading. I'm sure he'll be around soon to fire things up a bit more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 PS...its alot easier to have honest debates where both sides get to state their opinions fairly without having BJ here to yell at you if you disagree with what he says... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Another point is that I couldnt see a huge cover up like this taking place for over 5 years without this ever coming out into the open...most people are claiming that there are onlyl like 100 people that would no the truth or whatever but think abou it...they would need to hire people that are really good with computers or whatever to try to make fake tapes of bin laden which would add more people to this, they would have to have people that know a lot about the wtc buildings and how to get them to fall, and all these other people would have to be involved for this whole thing to work rather than just 100 people. There would be way to many people involved for this whole thing to run smoothly without anyone ever finding out about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyT Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295829' date='Jul 18 2006, 07:16 PM']The buildings were so much taller than the usual when they were built, they were actually designed to withstand the impact of large airliner hitting them. Yeah, they were designed to withstand a 707 I think as opposed to a 767, but I've read that the mass/force of the older 707 was actually greater than the modern day replacement 767 which actually hit the towers. The buildings were designed specifically to withstand this force, yet yielded to gravity anyway. As for why to demolish them, I have two theories. And yes, I freely admit they are theories. The first is that 911 did indeed serve as a second pearl harbor. In the first in '41, the US gov't had complete foreknowlege of the attack (having cracked the Japanese secret communication codes), but turned a blind eye (other than removing their most valueable ships (aircraft carriers) from the ports beforehand) in order to have a justification for joining WWII (b/c the US was an isolationsist country at this point. the populace wanted nothing of a second world war. kinda like no one wanted a second gulf war come to think of it...) In this case, 911 provided justification for invading Iraq, etc. Do some googling on the Northwoods documents to see that the CIA/intelligence neocons had proposed feigning terroism as as excuse to invade cuba in the 60's. Pehaps it took 40 years for this strategy to finally be put to use. As a seconday reason, Larry Silverstien had conveniently just insured/reinsured/etc the WTC buildings for billions right before the attacks. Someone conveniently collected some serious cash from this, as disgusting as it sounds. Pretty damn convenient if you ask me. [/quote] Another valid point is that jet fuel has not been found to burn even close to hot enough to damage the steel structure enough to collapse. and the weakened steel due to heat caused by burning jet fuel is the explanation we where handed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyT Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295866' date='Jul 18 2006, 08:11 PM']Another point is that I couldnt see a huge cover up like this taking place for over 5 years without this ever coming out into the open...most people are claiming that there are onlyl like 100 people that would no the truth or whatever but think abou it...they would need to hire people that are really good with computers or whatever to try to make fake tapes of bin laden which would add more people to this, they would have to have people that know a lot about the wtc buildings and how to get them to fall, and all these other people would have to be involved for this whole thing to work rather than just 100 people. There would be way to many people involved for this whole thing to run smoothly without anyone ever finding out about it.[/quote] The cia has been known to knock a person off here and there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295862' date='Jul 18 2006, 02:05 PM']Ill agree that a lot of things dont seem to make sense, but i find a very hard time that all of these things could have been thought of, and been planned for probably years before half the people involved were ever even in office or in the role that they are...for everysone of these "holes" it seems to me like there are 2 possiblities, [b]a more logical explanation and a conspiracy theory.[/b] For example, with regards to the hijackers that people think are still alive, even though bengalrick has already shown that that might not be true, if the Mossad or Pnac or whoever actually did this you think they would take more time picking who they were gonna set up and not people that were still alive. Do you honestly think they would just half ass it and pick 20 random arabs. I think the much more logical explanation if these guys are alive is that the government mixed up names or got the wrong names or something. Or as rick said they are probably just really actually dead. Another thing about the towers...lets say something happen like what "supposedly" happened in the plane that crashed into the ground in pennsylvania...what if that happened to the second or first plane that crashed into one of the two WTC towers. Lets say 1 of the planes never got there because the people overthrew that hijackers (unless you are gonna go on to say that there were no hijackers and the pilots were part of it). Then no plane would have crashed into the tower, and there would still technicallyhave been tons of dynamite or whatever for the controlled demo. What would the conspirasts have done then...exploded the tower anyways or just left the dynamite there to be found later? I just think its much more plausible that the towers just fell down and the explosions they heard was from the fuel, rather than somehow people putting dynamite in the building 5 years prior without anyone finding out about it.[/quote] Interesting way to look at things. I would say the accounts of the "conspiracy theorists" as we are so often called would be the more plausible reality and the government account of 19 Arab hijackers controlled by a supposed cave dweller with diabetes the conspiracy... The story of the overthrow of Flight 93 also prompts me to believe that these "passenger" planes were actually remote controlled planes. These have been used and tested before by the likes of NASA and the Air Force. I do not see a group of 200 Americans letting a group of Arabs take over a plane with BOXCUTTERS. I always believed that if Flight 93 was in fact as the government stated a real flight that it was shot down by the Air Force, but after Cheney ordering the Air Force to not fire upon the "plane" that flew into the Pentagon I wonder of its reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyT Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='whodey319' post='295834' date='Jul 18 2006, 07:23 PM']not to mention the amount of explosives that would have to be planted in that place in total secrecy in order for it to happen. If you have ever watched one of those demolition shows on TV it takes weeks or full work days for them to prepare a 10 story building because they have to drill into the supports and place explosives exactly where needed on every floor. Pleae explain how this could be done at a place like the world trade center without the thousands and thousands of people there not noticing anthing.[/quote] It takes time if your tring to be up to safty standards. The people that dp demos for a living must maketake every precaution because one death could destroy there business by way of bad reputation. For the 9/11 planners saftey would have been on the back burner it would have been as useless as wiping a codemned prisoners arm with an alchohol swab before inserting the I.V. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295862' date='Jul 18 2006, 09:05 PM']Ill agree that a lot of things dont seem to make sense, but i find a very hard time that all of these things could have been thought of, and been planned for probably years before half the people involved were ever even in office or in the role that they are...for everysone of these "holes" it seems to me like there are 2 possiblities, a more logical explanation and a conspiracy theory. For example, with regards to the hijackers that people think are still alive, even though bengalrick has already shown that that might not be true, if the Mossad or Pnac or whoever actually did this you think they would take more time picking who they were gonna set up and not people that were still alive. Do you honestly think they would just half ass it and pick 20 random arabs. I think the much more logical explanation if these guys are alive is that the government mixed up names or got the wrong names or something. Or as rick said they are probably just really actually dead. Another thing about the towers...lets say something happen like what "supposedly" happened in the plane that crashed into the ground in pennsylvania...what if that happened to the second or first plane that crashed into one of the two WTC towers. Lets say 1 of the planes never got there because the people overthrew that hijackers (unless you are gonna go on to say that there were no hijackers and the pilots were part of it). Then no plane would have crashed into the tower, and there would still technicallyhave been tons of dynamite or whatever for the controlled demo. What would the conspirasts have done then...exploded the tower anyways or just left the dynamite there to be found later? I just think its much more plausible that the towers just fell down and the explosions they heard was from the fuel, rather than somehow people putting dynamite in the building 5 years prior without anyone finding out about it.[/quote] As far as the planes hitting the towers, we have had the technology (and tested it repeatedly) to fly airliners as drone aircraft. (I have a link to this effect somewhere. I'll dig deeper on this if someone requests it...) Given the info on the poor piloting skills of the supposed terrorists, it would not surprise me at all if the planes were drones. Again, a freely admitted theory, and nothing more. But an educated guess that donkey who couldn't handle a cessna couldn't handle a jumbojet, either. Given the testimony on how poorly these guys performed in flight school, what is the liklihood of them pulling off hitting the towers, much less pulling off the late 270-degree banked turn that supposedly took place at the pentagon? (oops, i opened a new can of worms mentioning the pentagon. another one i'm happy to discuss though...) And why would these morons even go to flight school in the US? There would be no need, except that it provides a nice and tidy backstory to them being readily availble to board planes in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='Honkey' post='295870' date='Jul 18 2006, 09:14 PM']The story of the overthrow of Flight 93 also prompts me to believe that these "passenger" planes were actually remote controlled planes. These have been used and tested before by the likes of NASA and the Air Force. I do not see a group of 200 Americans letting a group of Arabs take over a plane with BOXCUTTERS.[/quote] Yup. I must admit I felt a sincere sense of pride when the offical account mentioned that it was an Ohioan who decided it was time to "Let's roll" and storm the cockpit. Really, who among us would watch some moron with a knife take over a plane we were on? Not this Buckeye, that's for damn sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295866' date='Jul 18 2006, 02:11 PM']Another point is that I couldnt see a huge cover up like this taking place for over 5 years without this ever coming out into the open...most people are claiming that there are onlyl like 100 people that would no the truth or whatever but think abou it...they would need to hire people that are really good with computers or whatever to try to make fake tapes of bin laden which would add more people to this, they would have to have people that know a lot about the wtc buildings and how to get them to fall, and all these other people would have to be involved for this whole thing to work rather than just 100 people. There would be way to many people involved for this whole thing to run smoothly without anyone ever finding out about it.[/quote] I feel like I keep repeating myself... but watch the video Loose Change.. It shows you key names that keep coming up over and over again. Bush's brother was in charge of security for the WTCs... And I am sure CIA has the capabilites to make falsified tapes of Osama in a cave somewhere.. I mean look what they did with the moon landing hahaha but that is neither here nor there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295873' date='Jul 18 2006, 02:22 PM']Yup. I must admit I felt a sincere sense of pride when the offical account mentioned that it was an Ohioan who decided it was time to "Let's roll" and storm the cockpit. Really, who among us would watch some moron with a knife take over a plane we were on? Not this Buckeye, that's for damn sure.[/quote] Neither would this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBandJoeyV Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 So these planes were all remote controlled so they crashed one in the middle of pennsylvania just for the sake that they could make this big hero story up about how these guys took down these terrorists? So they purposely crashed it in penn just to make the rest of the day look resonable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='RoyT' post='295867' date='Jul 18 2006, 04:12 PM']Another valid point is that jet fuel has not been found to burn even close to hot enough to damage the steel structure enough to collapse. and the weakened steel due to heat caused by burning jet fuel is the explanation we where handed.[/quote] it doesn't have to... all it has to do is weaken the steel enough to allow the massive amount of weight to use gravity, and fall on its own... noone says that the beams have to literally melt... and according to most things i have read, the temp. that jet fuel burns around 700-800 degrees... at that tempature, steel loses about 90% of its strength... to me, that is the kicker, and proves that it could happen... also, the fact that asbestos was on every floor as could (and would) accelerate the temperature... and guys, there was 18,000 gallons on each plane... so yeah, i don't think its out of wack to say that it made its way into the elevator shafts... [url="http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1031/news_3-2.html"]here is an extremely interesting[/url] article on this... it actually says that at 1400 it only loses about half of its strength, and the steel doesn't melt until about twice of that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='Honkey' post='295874' date='Jul 18 2006, 04:23 PM']I feel like I keep repeating myself... but watch the video Loose Change.. It shows you key names that keep coming up over and over again. Bush's brother was in charge of security for the WTCs... And I am sure CIA has the capabilites to make falsified tapes of Osama in a cave somewhere.. I mean look what they did with the moon landing hahaha but that is neither here nor there.[/quote] have you verified these "facts" on the loose change video that seems to be used as a bible? no offense, but it goes both ways... how accurate is the tape? and yes, i've seen it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu-Zayd Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Peace to all-- Look up the formula for free fall. Very simple it is, as Yoda would say. The mass of an object does not matter. All objects fall at the same rate. So, only [b]time[/b] is considered. All objects fall at an acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s, and starting from 0 velocity, only the height of the tower, actually, the height of the damaged floor would need to be known. This is very straight forward, and has been done and demonstrated with a stop watch next to footage of the collapse (see it in LOOSE CHANGE). It was freefall speed. The planes were never claimed to have brought the towers down, as far as I know. It was the fire that they claim melted/weakenned the steel beams for it to collapse. Check what temperatures the jet fuel attains at max temperature. Then check the rating on the specialized support beams to see what they need to melt/buckle/weaken. The numbers are not even close. There have been fires that have burned for 24 hours, and the building stood. The ST911 professor talked about the thermite residue...this is only evident in demolitions, not heat induced buckling. And where did MORE jet fuel come from, if it instantly vaporized when the plane hit, as they say? And even if miraculously the fire caused buckling and the upper floors caved in on the lower floors one after the other to the bottom, there is significant resistance, these beams are not popsicle sticks. They would cause the collapse to be dramatically slower and the collapse would not happen neatly upon itself, the buildings would have swayed, leaned, buckled, and fallen to some side, probably onto other nearby buildings and areas. And also in LOOSE CHANGE, he mentions the fact that just a couple of weeks prior, they were evacuated as part of an exercise and incidently enough, the bomb sniffing dogs had been removed as well for this 'exercise'. When the demolitions were emplaced is not something I would care to get bogged down with. And to CJandRudiJ.....the buildings surely would not have "come down anyway". They were designed to withstand greater impacts than that. Many other buildings have burned much longer and there was not even a question of whether they would come down. why the demolition? I don't know. You would think that the planes being rammed into the buildings would be enough of a turroriss act...but then again, no collapse, no 4000 deaths...no collapse, no billions for Silverstein...no collapse, no chance at the billions in gold taken....etc. etc. AZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='CJandRudiJ' post='295879' date='Jul 18 2006, 09:34 PM']So these planes were all remote controlled so they crashed one in the middle of pennsylvania just for the sake that they could make this big hero story up about how these guys took down these terrorists? So they purposely crashed it in penn just to make the rest of the day look resonable?[/quote] The one in PA intrigues me. For one, since when does an engine fall off of a plane? One of the damn engines was found like 5 miles away from the rest of the wreckage. huh? How is this possible? My only guess is that it would have to have been shot down.... ...but then, why shoot the damn thing down if you are in control of the gov't (and therefore the conspiracy)? My only guess is for the human interest side of the fable. (again, a freely admitted guess) if you know the damn thing isn't going to blow up a target, it is no threat, and wouldn't need to be shot down.... But W wure did play that whole "let's roll" thing to the hilt, didnt he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='295884' date='Jul 18 2006, 02:37 PM']have you verified these "facts" on the loose change video that seems to be used as a bible? no offense, but it goes both ways... how accurate is the tape? and yes, i've seen it [/quote] Can you refute its findings like it can refute the government's accounts? Popular Mechanics (run by the cousin of the new secretary of the department of homeland security) attempted to debunk the supposed 9/11 myths proposed by conspiracy whackos and it failed miserably. Believe me BR, I would love nothing more to be able to believe the account of the government and I pray to God that it is true, but deep down and in my brain I know there are just too many things that cannot be answered and too many that are being ignored. I've lost nights of sleep after watching tapes and reports on 9/11 and I'd love to sleep in peace at night like I could before this happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295889' date='Jul 18 2006, 02:45 PM']The one in PA intrigues me. For one, since when does an engine fall off of a plane? One of the damn engines was found like 5 miles away from the rest of the wreckage. huh? How is this possible? My only guess is that it would have to have been shot down.... ...but then, why shoot the damn thing down if you are in control of the gov't (and therefore the conspiracy)? My only guess is for the human interest side of the fable. (again, a freely admitted guess) if you know the damn thing isn't going to blow up a target, it is no threat, and wouldn't need to be shot down.... But W wure did play that whole "let's roll" thing to the hilt, didnt he?[/quote] There is also a lot about the crash site that leaves people wondering... The huge hole but no real parts to a plane found.. more like dumped but this is something i need to examine more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bengal Migration| Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='295882' date='Jul 18 2006, 09:36 PM']it doesn't have to... all it has to do is weaken the steel enough to allow the massive amount of weight to use gravity, and fall on its own... noone says that the beams have to literally melt... and according to most things i have read, the temp. that jet fuel burns around 700-800 degrees... at that tempature, steel loses about 90% of its strength... to me, that is the kicker, and proves that it could happen... also, the fact that asbestos was on every floor as could (and would) accelerate the temperature... and guys, there was 18,000 gallons on each plane... so yeah, i don't think its out of wack to say that it made its way into the elevator shafts... [url="http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1031/news_3-2.html"]here is an extremely interesting[/url] article on this... it actually says that at 1400 it only loses about half of its strength, and the steel doesn't melt until about twice of that...[/quote] Oops. There is some horseshit in there. Jet fuel (basically kerosene) burns nowhere near the 1000-3000 degrees farenheit discussed in this article. It's closer to 500 F. [url="http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm"]http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm[/url] Dammit Rick, if you keep posting real info in your replies, I'm going to have to re-evaluate my initial impression of you bro. Please, keep it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyT Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='bengalrick' post='295882' date='Jul 18 2006, 08:36 PM']it doesn't have to... all it has to do is weaken the steel enough to allow the massive amount of weight to use gravity, and fall on its own... noone says that the beams have to literally melt... and according to most things i have read, the temp. that jet fuel burns around 700-800 degrees... at that tempature, steel loses about 90% of its strength... to me, that is the kicker, and proves that it could happen... also, the fact that asbestos was on every floor as could (and would) accelerate the temperature... and guys, there was 18,000 gallons on each plane... so yeah, i don't think its out of wack to say that it made its way into the elevator shafts... [url="http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1031/news_3-2.html"]here is an extremely interesting[/url] article on this... it actually says that at 1400 it only loses about half of its strength, and the steel doesn't melt until about twice of that...[/quote] I seen a controlled experiment reguarding the asbestos on the gerters and it showed the asbestos to just pretty much flash off steel at a certain (relativly low) temp. Also, one of the civil engineers that conducted this went on to explain that if heat and not explosives are all thats used the steel will tend to bend as it's heated not all of a sudden fail. I will say that it was more like 1700 to 1800 degrees that I thought I heard that jet fuel burns. Another thing you have to consider is the people that excaped the building, many of them have come forward reporting that they heard a series of explosions just prior to the collapse. The steel melting thing is no kicker here as I for one have never just seen steel (espeacially the grade used to construck tall buildings) just snap from being heate even to the point of melting. The use of explosives just seems far more convincing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 [quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='295892' date='Jul 18 2006, 04:55 PM']Oops. There is some horseshit in there. Jet fuel (basically kerosene) burns nowhere near the 1000-3000 degrees farenheit discussed in this article. It's closer to 500 F. [url="http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm"]http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm[/url] Dammit Rick, if you keep posting real info in your replies, I'm going to have to re-evaluate my initial impression of you bro. Please, keep it up![/quote] definately, i want to bring real info out, and not just stuff that supports my POV.... but my point in that, is that kerosine burns at about 600-800 degrees Farenheit (depending on what you read, its different)... but in any science project, you have to have controlling factors too... in other words, is there anything in the building that could make the temps rise even more? asbestos is everywhere in the building and is something that could raise the temperature... its hard to tell where the large amounts of fuel went... even though it can't be burnt twice, it doesn't burn out in a matter of seconds either... and once it catches other places in the building, the fuel is not needed anymore anyways... so its hard to say how hot it was in there... and all of this combined w/ the fact that the beams didn't have to literally melt, but only lose strength... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honkey Posted July 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Who DeyUK BR ????? Just kidding boys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.