the rubble is made of the same crap the skyscraper is obviously, its not a leap of faith to think it burns the same.
the rubble is made of the same crap the skyscraper is obviously, its not a leap of faith to think it burns the same.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The rather large explosion outside was NOTHING compared to the fire inside. And "fast burning jet fuel"??? Have you ever used or been around kerosene? It is comparable to diesel (but contains even more energy). It burns relatively slow and very HOT.Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Yes, I saw the rather large explosion it made OUTSIDE, inside it look like some spray while office furniture and crap burnt after being intitally lit by fast burning jet fuel.Originally posted by: Vic
I think you fail to realize just how much energy I'm talking about. Converted to electricity, it would be 454,062,222 watt-hours. More energy than the entire Bay Area uses in a day.Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Vic
Think on that the next time you board an airplane.
I don't buy it, you see the fuel blast outward in a huge fireball, a good part of that fuel was outside and fell to the ground, (most burned up I assume) not inside, nor does it seem like it would melt steel what little stayed in.
Wheres your evidence of anything to the contrary? my story is plausible using rational thought and deductive reasoning, yours relies on a hispanic janitor selling books and dvds.
My evidence is based on fire fighter testimonies of rivers of molten steel + many other witness testimonies (including videos).
It's obvious you can't come up with any evidence that "rubble" fires cause molten steel
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
For the record, the guy does source where he got all of his information, I dont know what him being hispanic has to do with his credibility though.
Originally posted by: noto12ious
My evidence is based on fire fighter testimonies of rivers of molten steel + many other witness testimonies (including videos).
It's obvious you can't come up with any evidence that "rubble" fires cause molten steel
Yeah, events like 9/11 happen every day.
You dont explain how the steel got there either, and my story doesnt involve black helicopters and the evil govt killing 3000 of its own people with cargo planes and bombs to start a war against islam.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Well, like the video starts with, it is not unheard of for our government to plan such things and that is documented fact also.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
If you watch it said that the engineer that designed the WTC said it was impossible for it to go down like it did from fuel, then changed his story to the government one.
The point is, nobody really knows... even more reason to reopen the investigation. You still haven't been able to substantiate your claims that "rubble" fires caused molten steel. I offered a possibility, ie thermite.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
No, it proves that such a event is not in the realm of tin foil hat as events like what happened have been planned by this government before. Put the PNAC into the picture and there is the motive.
and thermite doesnt explode, and turn cars, and other crap you posted.
Oh wait, it was a mix of demolitions. I forgot :roll:
What next? top secret sattelite used microwaves from space to melt WTC steel!!
MIT engineer, who also cites other engineers:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
faking deaths to incite a war (and the plan was denied and never put in motion), is a far cry from destroying a worldwide symbol of a superpower and killing 3000 of your own people.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
:roll:
You've already made it clear that you don't understand the physics involved. I thought you were leaving because of that?
Skyscrapers are far more frail than most believe. With maintenance they'll last -- no question of that -- but if you suddenly remove an entire floor of supports at once, causing all the weight of the floors above to drop 12 feet onto the floors below, then the entire building is coming down, no ifs, ands, or buts. Especially with the particular tube-frame design of the WTC, where the exterior walls were the principal supports for the building.
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
Eh, it's not like the government cries over "collateral damage" much anyhow.
That and stuff it has been up to in south america with death squads covering up stuff in vietnam, even how it runs the show day to day..
its not such a stretch when it comes to our government and money all cards are on the table.
With as much as you know of politics you should have learned long ago they are nothing but a bunch of crooks.
Now, I _hope_ they wouldnt, and I am not sure they are even competent enough to tie their own shoes, but they have shown to come up with little nasty plots like this in the past, like I said, who knows, I am sure we never will
But, that little PNAC document sure makes them look suspicious though, if I was in court and was under trial for murder having a letter that lays out a premeditated scenerio would be a pretty bad thing imo, you have to expect people to whisper when there is so much sketchiness going on. (And the american public loves a good conspiracy)
To ignore glaring problems in the story is silly, to not question our world is foolish.
Some people wear the tinfoil some people wear the blindfold.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
That is NOT an MIT engineer. He said (and I quote), "Uh.. I studied physics at MIT [note that he doesn't mention having acquired a degree there], I did electrical engineering for about 8 years, I've had quite a bit of practical engineering experience... "
Steeplerot
Lifer
- Mar 29, 2004
- 13,051
- 6
- 81
I looked for other refrences of him being a engineer or not and noone has debunked his degree or not, so you do not know that he doesent have one. I will look more though, maybe a MIT alumni site will show more.
Update:
Sooooooo many refrences to the guy on 9/11 sites, he seems to be a medical doctor too along with a engineer.
If that's how you want to interpret it... fact remains NIST is being called out by New Civil Engineering, if i recall correctly. Also the fact that NIST has not acknowledged the pre collapse explosions (along with the 9/11 Commission), which could very well open up new possibilites that would alter their findings.
Don't forget the lack of any steel examination from WTC7... their upcoming report analyzing the symmetrical steel frame collapse is going to be good
I haven't been able to read the entire thread...but has anybody actually looked at how long it took the towers to fall? They each took about 10 seconds to fall. Let's assume that the official "pancake theory" actually happened. That means that one floor fell onto the next, causing a chain reaction. If that were the case, then there would be a delay between each floor being hit, and the energy being transfered to the next. That is not the case on 9/11. The towers fell at about 30 floors per second. That is nearly freefall speed!
Second...we all know that steel doesn't melt until almost 3000 degrees Celsius, so how did those fires get hot enough to do that? They didn't. You can even see people standing in the hole where the plane hit, in the first tower. If the fires were hot enough to melt steel, how was a woman able to stand there and wave for help? What exactly happened to the 47 steel support columns that made of the core of the building? Are we to believe that fire melted all the steel in the entire core, in less than an hour?!
You all should know that Larry Silverstein (lease holder of the WTC complex) admitted to "pulling" WTC7. Are we to believe that they went in and did all of that in just a few hours? Why would they do that? There was minimal damage done to the building. Plus, it takes days, maybe even weeks of planning from structural engineers and demolition experts to prepare for that. We can conclude that explosives were already in WTC7. Is it that hard then to deduce that they were in the two towers as well?
More later
Second...we all know that steel doesn't melt until almost 3000 degrees Celsius, so how did those fires get hot enough to do that? They didn't. You can even see people standing in the hole where the plane hit, in the first tower. If the fires were hot enough to melt steel, how was a woman able to stand there and wave for help? What exactly happened to the 47 steel support columns that made of the core of the building? Are we to believe that fire melted all the steel in the entire core, in less than an hour?!
You all should know that Larry Silverstein (lease holder of the WTC complex) admitted to "pulling" WTC7. Are we to believe that they went in and did all of that in just a few hours? Why would they do that? There was minimal damage done to the building. Plus, it takes days, maybe even weeks of planning from structural engineers and demolition experts to prepare for that. We can conclude that explosives were already in WTC7. Is it that hard then to deduce that they were in the two towers as well?
More later
SarcasticDwarf
Diamond Member
- Jun 8, 2001
- 9,574
- 2
- 76
CptFarlow,
One of the videos/papers posted showed that different floors fell at different speeds. The first floor collapsed slowly, and then they progressivly collapsed faster as it fell apart.
One of the videos/papers posted showed that different floors fell at different speeds. The first floor collapsed slowly, and then they progressivly collapsed faster as it fell apart.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter