posted by James B. @ 2:29 PM
links to this post
If I made a list of "things people do to make themselves seem more credible than they are", finger quotes would have to go near the top of the list.
Finger quotes and the phrase "so-called" make my stomach turn.
For the most part, in the real world, I always saw finger quotes, as irony induced, or humor. Love'em both."I bite my thumb at thee." Or is that crook my thumb, to my ring and pinky finger, like a shadow bunny? Hmmm...
Didn't I say in SCL - NFA edition that he would be abusing his academic authority to push an agenda? And to think, I didn't make 3000 statements a day like AJ to get it right.
I would love to tell Kevin Barrett where he can stick all 4 of those fingers and he is such a big asshole that no doubt all 4 would fit.
I guess you guys can't actually make a case against his arguments, so you instead resort to making fun of him? that's the first sign of someone who's losing an argument and is backed into a corner. Bill O'Reilly does it all the time. pathetic.
by the way, http://belowgroundsurface.org
insidejob:No, we have already beaten down his arguments, long ago, as his are some of the most insane, weakest, of the CT bunch. Hence, now with nothing else to do, wrt Barrett, we mock him...lolTAM
insidejob said... Real experts have destroyed you whaks so bad that all that is left is laughter at you fools. You conspiracy theorists have taken fact out of context and turned it to fiction, they have carefully selected random clippings which were the extreme end of the spectrum not the mean average of the time, meaning it is a very skewed view of what we saw and heard during our present period
hmmmm. my comment was deleted. well well. Pat and James are now resorting to censorship. what a surprise. I'll just say it again.how do you explain the molten steel in the rubble, when the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel?
THERE WAS NO MOLTEN STEEL.Show me a photo of it if that's what you think was there.Jesus Christ...
how do you explain the molten steel in the rubbleThere was no molten steel.
are you claiming the molten metal was not steel (actually iron, to be precise - that's what the thermate reaction leaves behind), or are you saying there was not molten metal flowing in the rubble?also, when I give you the sources showing that there was molten iron flowing in the rubble, will you promise to place your hands firmly on your shoulders, and with all your might, pull your heads out of your arses?belowgroundsurface.org
Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdfAlison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htmRon Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano.http://www.neha.org/pdf/messages_in_the_dust.pdfNew York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”New York Post (3/3/04)William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32] According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001] http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200112/ai_n9015802/satisfied? or should I give more sources?you may now proceed to pull your heads out of your arses.belowgroundsurface.org
All the links seem to deal with are the dust and debris not with molten steel. Any molten metal would likely be AL , the towers were covered with thousand of tons of it. Just for information, what are your qualifications to make these assessments? In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.' He is a real expert.http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdfYou toofers love to use the buzzword Thermite but Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_explosiveAgain, Thermite leaves a trace and cools off quickly. It would've been found at day 1.http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdfHow about a point-by-point rebuttal to PM's claims?That's what PM did to your theories and what Mark's viewers' guide did to Loose Change."Oh yeah, well you suck," isn't a debunking.
Never mind that the great Steven Jones' proof of molten metal was nothing but a mis-captioned photo, as explained in an entry on this blog from less than three weeks ago.Your "proofs" of molten metal are nothing more than offhand remarks, conjecture, and metaphor. One of the speakers you cited was comparing the feel of the situation to a volcanic eruptions. Guess that means there was magma at the WTC site too.If there were any "molten metal," it would have been a significant factor in the recovery, if only for the injuries it would have caused to rescue workers.Hey 9/11 Deniers, here's a fun science test you can do: go to a demolition site, and pick up a wheelbarrow full of concrete debris, and a nice big hunk of structural steel. Have someone heat the steel to several hundred degrees, place it in your backyard, and cover it with the rest of the debris. Now, go digging for it like it's Easter Sunday and Mom hid your lithium in the last plastic egg. Oh, and in the interest of science, try to grab it with your fingertips, so you can't type for a few weeks. Your selfless contribution to the quality of discourse on the Internet will be most appreciated.
are you claiming the molten metal was not steel Yes, I'm saying it's not steel. It was aluminum if anything.
wow. one of you denies outright that there was molten metal, a clear lie given the several sources I gave, half of which said specifically that there was molten metal flowing in pools - that doesn't sound like "metaphor" to me (and as I said, I can give more sources). the other two claim it was Aluminum, "if anything." the "if anything" part is a lie (see above). steve, the first source you gave (implosionworld pdf) is dishonest on every single item it discusses, but we're only talking about the molten metal. they do not name any of the "operators" whom they CLAIM to have said there was no molten steel, saying the operators wanted "anonymity so they wouldn't be harassed." that is ridiculous. they are clearly lying and did not talk to anyone, whereas I gave sources of NAMED people (and I can give more) who said they saw molten steel. here's a photo:http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar0601.jpgthat's metal being pulled from the rubble. the color shows that it's about 1725 - 1830 degrees Farhenheit. Aluminum melts at about 1220 degrees Farhenheit, yet this metal is fairly solid. what melts at a temperature above 1830 degrees F? iron and steel (about 2800 degrees F).also, a large chunk of solidified metal taken from the rubble was largely iron, as shown by iron oxide:http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar0605.jpghttp://belowgroundsurface.org
You call the Implosionworld artcle a report full of lies, and then quote Steven Jones. lol, just take your crappy old toys, and non working links, and go home child.TAM
half of which said specifically that there was molten metal flowing in poolsYou gave four links. The word "pool" does not appear at all in three of them, and the fourth one uses the word only in the context of swimming in water.I didn't bother checking the .org URL you've spamming since you showed up here. But it wouldn't save your "half" claim from being a complete lie.here's a photo:Gee, I can't but notice that the URL contains the word "Jones." That wouldn't be Steven Jones, would it? You know, the guy who was just shown to be misrepresenting photographs of this very subject? Why should we believe further unsourced photos from him? He has no credibility, and if you're using his photos as proof, then you have no credibility either.that doesn't sound like "metaphor" to meHere's what it says: "A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods to Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. 'Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster, he said.'"This isn't a meaningful metallurgical analysis of the contents of the debris, it's a guy describing what it felt like being there. This section of the article is called "The Scene at Ground Zero," for fuck's sake. Can you say "out of context," boys and girls? I knew you could.(Implosion World) do not name any of the "operators" whom they CLAIM to have said there was no molten steel, saying the operators wanted "anonymity so they wouldn't be harassed." that is ridiculous. they are clearly lying and did not talk to anyoneAnd if they did name the operators, you'd just say they were paid shills. Heads you win, tails we lose. Besides, the very next page of the document does name groups and individuals who handled the steel debris.the several sources I gaveWhich were all bullshit.(and I can give more)Which would just be more bullshit.I gave sources of NAMED people (and I can give more) who said they saw molten steel.Yeah, and I'm sure you can also give sources of NAMED people who said they heard explosions, thus proving controlled demolition. This is basically the same exercise: you're claiming that a collection of obscure, quote-mined remarks made by random citizens on 9/12/01 somehow invalidates the avalanche of scientific study that came to the opposite conclusion.
Odd, I can post dozens of witnesses to a Boeing hitting the Pentagon, or firefighters who reported that WTC7 had a big hole in it and was leaning, and all the CTs say is how unrealiable eyewitnesses are. Now all of a sudden everything they say is the word of God, without error and not subject to interpretation.
Inside jobI looked at all your links and told you what I found. Are you a CD expert? You make claims, nothing more.Blanchard of Protec is a 20 year expert in CD, are you, he said that if there had been any molten steel in the rubble, it would have permanently damaged any excavation equipment encountering it. "As a fundamental point, if an excavator or grapple ever dug into a pile of molten steel heated to excess of 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, it would completely lose its ability to function," Blanchard wrote. "At a minimum, the hydraulics would immediately fail and its moving parts would bond together or seize upHis team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams.Whe you are confronted for facts you alawy fall back on the "anonymity so they wouldn't be harassed." excuseYou clowns show a pik of rescuers over what you call a pool of molten steel but forget to say that the light was changed to a yellow color to make it fit what you say it was but it was really a rescue light and there was a fireman in shirt sleves. I don't think he would have been in shirt sleeves looking at a 3000 degree pool of steel. Any molten metal was AL, it was .062 sheet metal cladding and would melt very easly, sorry you are wrong again. Can you give some history on your pik, time , date etc? 1800 degrees is not molten and many of the girders could have gotten that hot.Again, Thermite leaves a trace and cools off quickly. It would've been found at day 1.http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdI could not imagine what the people on the ground went thru. The rescuers did a magnificent job but like I said It is hardly suprising with 1.8 million tons of debris and who knows how many different carsogens. The primary goal of the rescures was to look for survivors, many did not wear masks and it they did they were the little surgical ones, who knows what they might have inhaled. It is very sad but not unexpectded. Can you imagine the cocktail of carcinogens that they had to sift thru?The towers were also built at a time when many EPA regs were not in effect I bet there was a lot of abspestos and other nasty stuff not to mention what the fire turned things into via chem reactions. Give us your qualificationsTell us about all your mechanical design experience Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial DynamicsTell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators. Which crashes did you investigate?Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes. Which ones have you worked on? Tell us about all your experience with building designTell us about all your mechanical design experience with missles. which one have you designed?
WOW. the swarm of bullshit is really coming down now. you guys love to play games, huh. just ignore the facts and create diversions, right?first of all, the links work. for some reason you can't click them, but if you left click, hold it, and scroll right, you can highlight the whole link. then just copy and paste into browser.to triterope: I gave 6 sources (4 links). HALF of them specifically said molten metal was flowing. I can give oodles more. you're the liar here. you're claim of quote-mining is ridiculous, given the sheer number of such quotes that are readily available. and the NIST study to which you are referring amounted to antiscience - they developed a conclusion, then ignored/fudged the facts and ignored the laws of physics so they could explain their conclusion. to steve: so because this guy's a CD expert, we're supposed to believe what he says about the people he supposedly spoke to, who conveniently asked to be anonymous, while we have video of workers on the scene saying there were pits of red-hot metal, as well as a photo of 1800-degree iron, and a big chunk of solidified iron? we also have video of them hitting it with water, which counters your silly claim that it would have destroyed equipment.everything you Deniers said was a diversion. we have a multitude of quotes of people saying there were pools of molten steel(iron). we have a picture of an 1800 degree chunk of near molten iron. we have a big chunk of solidified iron.http://belowgroundsurface.org
well as a photo of 1800-degree iron, and a big chunk of solidified ironI assume you are referring to Steven Jones fraudulent photos. The first is hot glass, if you look carefully you notice it is partially translucent, you can even see the chunks of rebar and other debris stuck in it, the second is concrete and other compressed debris. http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htmYou can see pieces of paper and other stuff stuck in this "molton steel". Jones other picture of workers "peering into the red hot core" has also been debunked at length on this site. He is a fraud, period.
You did not address anything nor did you answer any questions. Why is that?Here they are again, address them if you can.Give us your qualificationsTell us about all your mechanical design experience Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial DynamicsTell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators. Which crashes did you investigate?Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes. Which ones have you worked on? Tell us about all your experience with building designYou need to learn how to read, he said moltensteel, red not is not molten nor is red hot 1800 degrees. Molten steel is some 2700 drgrees. All reports of molten steel were AL if they were even true. You said your source said he wanted to be anonymous not me. Nice spin though.The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area. http://www.scieneering.com/wtc_update.html Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten steel found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. How could a bomb leave molten steel after 6 weeks, the bombs energy would have long disapated It's not unreasonable to expect the aluminum to be a mix of other things in the towers that day. There could be all kinds of things in the towers. Even wood might have effected the color...The main point is, jumping to the conclusion that it's thermite is intellectually lazy given all the other possibilities. It's a logical fallacy to conclude a lack of evidence is evidence of something. Yet this is the conspiracy theorist credo.
stevew said:You said your source said he wanted to be anonymous not mewtf are you talking about? it's the source that you gave who said HIS sources wanted to be anonymous. james, the stuff in the photo may indeed have been glass (although I dont't see the transparency you mentioned), but regardless it was 1800 degrees F. stevew points out that this stuff was found up to 6 weeks later. several huge pockets of molten to semi-molten metal were found. yes, stevew, that means a huge release of energy, such as from many thermate reactions (not thermite - you guys always seem confused about that. there's a difference).as for the pictures of the solidified lump of iron, those were taken before the stuff stuck to the exterior was taken off, stuff which may have stuck to the outside when the excavators hit the molten chunk with water. Jones' photo shows that the chunk is made mostly of iron, as shown by the iron oxide.and Jones is absolutely not a fraud. there's no doubt about that. the molten iron is just one piece of evidence among many suggesting controlled demolition, and that's just one piece among many suggesting PNAC planned and was intimately involved in 9/11.http://belowgroundsurface.org
Idiot.Colour only indicates temperature if you know what the material is. Different materials at the same temperature will glow at completely different colours. Likewise, two different materials heated to two completely different temperatures could glow the exact same colour.With that said, maybe you can explain to me why anyone here should waste their time on a person who continues to insist that the towers fell at free fall speed even though falling debris outside of the main mass can be seen falling faster than the rest of the building. If the rest of your claims are as reliable as that one then it's safe to say that you're completely full of shit.
hey alex, why don't you show us your "credentials," like stevew continously demands. you're obviously no physicist, ya douche waffle.variation in material only means a slight effect upon color. it's mostly a matter of temperature:http://22.214.171.124/jitt/sampler/physics/physics_archive/colorandtemperature.htmlhttp://www.cowtown.net/mikefirth/techspec.htm#MELTINGPas for collapse speed:the falling debris only went slightly faster. 1 second faster overall, if that. the towers collapsed in 10 and 11 seconds, respectively. the seismic data show that, as does video footage.belowgroundsurface.org
So, in other words, the buildings didn't collapse at free-fall speed. Thanks for finally admitting it. Now how about promising never to repeat that lie again?
haha. I promise. from now on I will be precise and say "each floor fell 12 feet down to the next floor and caused its collapse, with this taking an average of ONE-TENTH of a second per floor." wow, when you're precise about it, it actually makes it even more obvious that it was controlled demolition.please promise not to ever again say your lie about only knowing temperature from color when you know what the material is.belowgroundsurface.org
No, because it's not a lie. Even the site you link to states that material composition does in fact affect the colour/temperature ratio. Granted they state it only has a minor effect, but it DOES have an effect. So in other words, I was technically right, whereas you are absolutely wrong on both counts.Try again?Maybe for an encore you can explain just how long you think the buildings SHOULD have taken to fall. Don't forget to include the calculations you used for your assessment. Also, it'd be nice (not required, but nice) if you'd list the qualifications which make you more qualified to speak on the subject than the majority of the worlds structural engineers and physicists. Maybe you have a computer simulation showing how much resistance should have been offered by each floor? I'd LOVE to see it!
Granted they state it only has a minor effect, but it DOES have an effect. So in other words, I was technically right, whereas you are absolutely wrong on both counts.you were implying a large effect, and basically calling me stupid for suggesting (correctly) that you can tell temperature from color. and you're being anal retentive about the freefall speed. do you know what conservation of energy means? do you think all that concrete disintegrated without any expenditure of energy? do you think all those steel beams snapped without any expenditure of energy?Also, it'd be nice (not required, but nice) if you'd list the qualifications which make you more qualified to speak on the subject than the majority of the worlds structural engineers and physicists.the majority of the world's structural engineers and physicists haven't even put any thought into 9/11. nice try, though. and the NIST study didn't even examine the events after "collapse initiation." it only takes an elementary knowledge of physics to realize that gravity is not powerful enough to destroy one of the best-built steel-frame buildings in the world, not to mention at very close to freefall speed. and not to mention make building 7 fall straight down without even so much as tilting to one side, when the gash in the side was supposedly a cause of the "collapse," and to "collapse" utterly and completely without even having the fake "progressive collapse" argument.*makes finger quotes*http://belowgroundsurface.org
you were implying a large effect, and basically calling me stupid for suggesting (correctly) that you can tell temperature from color.And you are (stupid that is), because there CAN be a large effect depending on the material and the circumstances. Aluminum, for instance, due to it's composition wouldn't look the same as Iron. In the dark they would look very similar, but due to the reflective nature of aluminum they would look MUCH different during daytime. "Aluminum is highly reflective to radiant energy, including visible light and heat. Consequently, it does not assume a dark red color at 1200F just prior to melting, as does steel. The lack of color change makes it difficult to judge when the metal is approaching the molten state during welding." - AWS Welding Handbook Volume Four Seventh Edition The article YOU link to talks about the frequency of the light emitted by the material. It doesn't say anything about what happens when that object also reflects ambient light. Aluminum is just one example where the conditions around the material can make a big difference in it's appearance. Do a bit more research next time.do you know what conservation of energy means?Yes, and it has nothing to do with demolition. You could say "do you know what gravity means?" and achieve the same effect. You can't just quote a physical law and expect it to prove that there were explosives in the buildings. If you think there's a connection, you better explain just how exactly conservation of energy applies.You also may want to run the figures on just how much energy the buildings contained. By my calculations, it works out to just under 1 terajoule each. To get the same ammount of energy with TNT you would need 234 tons of TNT per building. You don't think that's enough energy?it only takes an elementary knowledge of physics to realize that gravity is not powerful enough to destroy one of the best-built steel-frame buildings in the world, not to mention at very close to freefall speed.How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that?It's clear that you only HAVE elementary knowledge of physics, otherwise you wouldn't be making silly statements like "gravity is not powerful enough". Gravity on it's own has no power. Gravity is a force which acts on objects, and it's power is a product of the mass of the object, the strength of the gravity field, and the amount of time during which gravity acts on the object. More importantly, an understanding of physics really doesn't tell you much about structural engineering or materials sciences. The fact that you actually BELIEVE the idiotic statement which you just made tells me that you don't understand the first thing about how structures in general work, let alone know anything about the design of the WTC.
LOL Why do you slime lie about everything? You made the statement about your guys wanted to be anonymous not me. Now you try and spin things as usual. I gave you hard proof from experts and you tapdance and take things out of context as usual and never address anything. I ask questions that you will not answer to see if you are qualified to give a real assessment or do you just C&P from the whak sites, seems to be the latter.http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144446008Many CD theorists make the assertion that the ‘core columns should have remained standing’ during the collapse of the Towers, presenting the metaphor of records (as floors) sliding down the central spindle (as the building core). But they do not consider the NIST explanation which points out that the core columns were designed only to withstand compressive loads, whereas the outer columns were the ones designed to withstand all lateral loadings (principally winds up to hurricane speed). As each floor collapsed it would have created lateral forces on the core columns which were sufficient to either tear away the bolts or sever the columns themselves as they ‘peeled’ away from the centre. If the CD theorists insist that explosives were used to sever the core columns, then this commits them to a variant of the CD theory requiring explosives on every single floor, multiplying the tonnage of explosive required by a factor of around 100. It also commits them to a sequential detonation, which would travel down in the Towers and up in WTC 7, requiring technologies well beyond anything seen in industrial practice.There are well over 300 qualified experts in the relative fields that have proven all this whaks claims to be 100% bogus, every real scientific, engineering and architectural publication agrees with the current findings, only the unqualified whaks do not believe. Where are your experts?The facts are on the side of truth http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/Totalsceptic posted this on another thread, but I thought it deserved more attention for its profound yet simple logic:FACT... Not a single Institute of Civil Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.FACT...Not a single of Institute Structural Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.FACT...Not a single Institute of Fire and Safety Engineers on the Planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.FACT...Not a single Institute of Demolition Engineers on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.FACT...Not a single Institute of Architects on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory.FACT...Not a single Institute of Engineers in any field on the Planet agrees with the controlled demolition theory. Nobody, not a single institute of engineers in the world agrees with the controlled demolition theory, Every single professional institute of Engineers from everywhere, including Russia, China, Germany, the rest of Europe, the entire planet agree with NIST.Here they are again, address them if you can.Give us your qualificationsTell us about all your mechanical design experience Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial DynamicsTell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators. Which crashes did you investigate?Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes. Which ones have you worked on? Tell us about all your experience with building design
AlexTalking sense to people like these serves as much purpose as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations.
ok, insidejob, people like you piss me off to no end, here we have an utterly brilliant quote from you, "it only takes an elementary knowledge of physics to realize that gravity is not powerful enough to destroy one of the best-built steel-frame buildings in the world"Well no shit, because if gravity alone was enough to destroy it, it never could have been built in the first place considering the fact that gravity is acting everywhere all the time. Good lord, if you're going to run you mouth (or keyboard in this case) about elementary knowledge of physics, would you at least have any understanding of physics at all next time?!?!Perhaps, just maybe, what destroyed it was the damage it sustained when a big freaking plane hit it.And another thing genius, can you explain why the building should have fallen anywhere but straight down?? In order for it to fall sideways, there has to be a force making it move that way...the othe one there might have been was wind, but that's negligible due to the mass of the building...so the only other force that was acting on it was gravity, which, strangely enough, acts straight down!!And in order for steel to melt, the fire needs to be hot enough to melt it, meaning that the fire needed some fuel that burns at a temperature high enough to melt it, which (as has been pointed out by people like you time and again) jet fuel is not. So...what did burn hot enough to melt it?? Last time I checked, explosives (which you just seem sooo sure were planted in the towers) blow stuff up, but they don't melt it because most of the energy released goes to the destruction they cause, not to melting stuff. Besides, an explosion (by definition) is practically instananteous, which doesn't leave much time for melting steel/iron/whatever other metal you want to use...materials don't go "poof" and change state once they hit thier melting point, it takes a while...if you need proof, go to your freezer and take out an ice cube...no tell me if it instantly turns to water.Anyway, I'm done wihth you now
Post a Comment
Create a Link