by reporter 145 Replies latest social current
also the tower that was hit on the lower level fell probably first because of the higher weight on the steel structure. therefore less time was required to heat up the steel enough for the structure to collaps.
Agreed. Also, the second tower had more damage to the external supports. The first building was hit head on but the second building was hit at an angle and damaged supports on two sides.
I can't believe the amount of effort some people put into conspiracy theories...
Underground NUCLEAR explosions???
Don't you realize that the heat from a nuclear explosion reaches 2 million degrees? If the surface was only 800 (and who the hell was measuring that at that exact instant in time??? and HOW?) then there is a few billion calories that went missing!
Lies! The terrorists were Saudi Arabian extremists who hijacked jets and flew them into the towers, melting the steel superstructure and thereby collapsing them. End of debate. There simply is no other explanation that makes sense - no further explanation is needed unless you are seeking to justify some kind of political agenda (like driving a wedge between the Israelis and the U.S.)
Rem will back me up - Occam's razor is the tool to use to get to the heart of the matter.
CZAR
Czar, I got your back!
rem
I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.
What about bottled oxygen and forced air?
My first thoughts when I saw the towers explode were, “what’s wrong with this picture?” as well. I was suspicious that there was quite a bit more happening then terrorists flying planes into buildings. However, to think that the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, White House, are all covering up something or “in on it” is pretty far out there. For one thing, our FBI etal could not possibly pull off a major conspiracy on such a scale as that. Nevertheless, assuming they could, that would mean the FBI, CIA etc…etc would consist of some of the most evil people in the world. No doubt there are some evil characters among all of them, but for them to be able to get together and pull off something like that with out it leaking like a siv?
I demand a recount. Simon should give reporter the honor of being publicly called the most worstest poster of whole articles taking up massive amounts of band width for useless intentions instead of just links. (Of useless impossible conspiracy information) This "reporter" person has earned this title. And it is the only reason that such silly things would be posted. Obviously reporter is jealous of the attention Simon gives me.
NOT GUILTY
God, people will concume the most blatent bollocks that has been prepared for consumption if it tickles their fancy rather than take the time to do some decent research themselves.
It's pure laziness; I go to Yahoo! and use "fires steel structure melting" as a search string and here is the evidence I can get in about half an hour that completely rubbishes most conspiracy theories;
Steel loses its load bearing properties at about 550ºC [1022ºF], which is much lower than the melting point of steel and much lower than temperatures reached in a fire. The temperature at which load bearing properties of steel are lost is more important than the melting point of steel.
...
However, during instances of irregular ignition—for example from a hydrocarbon source, such as petrol or aircraft fuel—fire exposure is significantly more severe. This is reflected both in the rate of temperature rise and in the temperatures reached. In certain cases, a high temperature torching jet-fire can occur, when pressure achieved by the flame front is also much higher than under conventional cellulosic fire conditions.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmtlgr/482/48240.htm
Square brackets and underlining is mine.
So, fact one is the statements that steel doesn't melt until x are irrelevent; melting is when it becomes liquid (doh!); it does not magically go from solid strong steel to liquid at x degrees, it melts and gets runny and becomes structurally useless progressively and is pretty far gone at 550 degrees Centigrade - 1022 degrees F.
Oh, also the calm statements from people that the fire couldn't be that hot as jet fuel only burns at x temperature are also stupidly uninformed;
When plastics are involved in a fire such as those found in modern day offices, atmospheric temperatures easily achieve 1200°C [2192°F].
http://www.corusconstructionandindustrial.com/corus/index.jsp?pageID=28#2
Moronic conspiracy theorists have about as much scholastic integrity as nazi revisonists;
As the FEMA “Building Performance Assessment” report says, “Temperatures may have been as high as 900-1,100 degrees Celsius (1,700-2,000 Fahrenheit) in some areas.”
“If FEMA’s temperature estimates are correct, the interiors of the towers were furnaces capable of casting aluminum and glazing pottery,” Eric Hufschmid, author of the book Time for Painful Questions writes. Yet the voices on the tape prove that several firefighters were able to work “without fear” for an extended period at the point of the crash, and that the fires they encountered there were neither intense nor large.
Here we see the phrase 'in some areas' in the first paragraph ignored by the author of the book quoted, His phrasing 'the interiors of the towers were furnaces capable of casting aluminum and glazing pottery' makes it seem that rather than there being isolated points where the temperature were very high, the temperature was even.
“I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” Evans said. “There was an explosion—I didn’t think it was an explosion—but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake . . . then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. . . . We can only wonder at the kind of damage—the kind of human damage—which was caused by those explosions—those series of explosions,” he said.
Evans is a professional journalist and although his observations of explosions in the second tower should be taken into account, they are not
In the first paragraph the quoted journalist corrects his first use of the word 'explosion' in the first paragraph by saying 'I didn’t think it was an explosion—but the base of the building shook', and then carries on using the term 'explosion', having made it clear he's NOT talking about explosions as in dynamite but explosions as in bang. This is ignored by the author of the article in the second paragraph. It also implies that journalists have special knowledge by benefit of being journalists that allow them to comment as an expert on loud bangs.
Both above quotes are from http://www.americanfreepress.net/08_09_02/New_York_Firefighters__/new_york_firefighters__.html Red higlights are mine.
I would suggest anyone interested in a pretty good discussion of what happened try this link; I've given the URL below, as well as embedding the page, you can actually get a full transcript of the program if you want at the foot of the page;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecenter.shtmlSo, make yourself look like an uninformed credulous ass or do some bloody work for half an hour; the choice is yours.Hamas: I am looking forward to your demonstration (steering clear of mistakes like those outloijn ed above) of old Bin Ladin's innocence...Jayson: Errr...oh, no, never mind, it doesn't matter...
Hamas: I am looking forward to your demonstration (steering clear of mistakes like those outloijn ed above) of old Bin Ladin's innocence
You clearly have no intention of viewing evidence with an open mind, rather you wish to cast aside all lines of evidence as mere 'conspiracy theories' with little if anything going for them.
Rather than simply parrotting what you hear on mainstream media and labelling any other belief that is different from yours as a conspiracy theory, why not open your mind to these things.
You remind me of a fully trained JW. I would be wasting my time and effort trying to give any information that may be against what you may think.
Hamas, there was nothing "JW like" about Abaddon's post above. He did the work, and criticised the bullshit.
Neither you nor reporter are willing to do that, so I really wish you'd ____ ___ ____ __, as you have nothing intelligent to say about this matter. Your agenda's have sucked your brains dry. Lose the agendas, and your IQ's will rocket upwards like a patriot missle arching towards a fully loaded 757.
Until then, you're just goddamn agenda mongers willing to lie to make your agenda sound more believable, if only to yourself. Not so unlike the governing body.
Lose the agendas, and your IQ's will rocket upwards
Do as I say, not as I do eh Six?
You know nothing of my IQ. I have no interest in whether there were explosives at the base of the towers, and what kind of steel was used etc. My arguement is that Bin Laden and Al Queda are innocent.
