Pavel
Posts: 308
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Washington
Status: offline
|
Stupid roomate got the frisbee times wrong. Now I'm quite cross.
Firstly, I'm unaware of HI TECH being an explosive device. Can you name an explosive device that will make effects produced on 9-11 that isn't nice and large? Or do you just TALK IN CAPS WHEN YOU WANT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE YOU KNOW SOMTHING.
I'll admit to not know much about aviation fuel. Generally I ride on planes, and that's about the extent of it. However, my question still stands, has any other building been exposed to the same situation?
I've seen pictures of bigfoot, and of poorly photo shopped evian water bottles by Mars Pathfinder. Just because you have a picture, does not mean it's proof, or facts. Doubly so given the sites of origin.
However, in the battle of websites;
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat."
While I'm loath to quote popular mechanics, it makes a lot of sense. The steel doesn't have to melt into a puddle of goo to collapse, it just as to weaken to the point where it can no longer hold the weight of the structure above it. I'm not a structural engineer, but it's a logical way to put it, and I'm sure someone with a bit more knowlege on the topic can back me up.
Also, the fire wouldn't have to have kept burning, it could have done it's damage, then mostly gone out, and the weight upon the weaked steal structure would have done the rest.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.""
Again, quoteing the same source. That might explain the "woman" photo of yours, (if it's not faked) as the fire could have died down haveing done it's damage. As to your lovely little "spain=new york" photo, what was the fuel for the Spanish fire? What was in the building? it looks like the fire did most of it's damage on top and continued down from there, but since provideing details is too hard, I can't say much further.
I think you're the one avoiding the issue however. All you have is people with agendas, and some poorly put togther theories. I suppose you're one of the people convinced the pentagon was fake because there wasn't a plane shaped hole in the side, no? I'd be curious to see your thoughts and ideals prior to 9-11. I'm sure you were just as suspecious then, and now you just claim to be patriotic in your doubt as a bit of cya. You're already approaching the question with an answer. To you, you already "knew" it was a cover up.
|
RE: Hunter Thompson suicide - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread