More evidence

But were any of those caused by a plane? What you have to understand is that jet fuel burns at a much higher temperature than the gas you put in your car. It won't even ignite at the minimal temp regular gas would, so that means you have an extra hot fire blazing. I recall hearing the temps inside were about 2,000 degrees, enough to soften the steel supports. After long enough exposure to high enough temps, the weight on top of those beams is going to overcome the strength of the softened beams and you have a collapse. When the first plane crashed, liquid, burning jet fuel fell into the elevator shaft of the building and was weakening the outer main supports with the same high temperatures. I understand how some of you think that if anything collapsed it should be the area above the plane crash, not everything below. But none of us are structural engineers and all we have is the differing statements by some who say this shouldn't have happened and some who say that when you take all these things into consideration, it's easy to see why they fell. In any case the fires were too far up to be accessible so at no point were the blazing fires in any amount of conrol by firefighters and for me it is perfectly understandable why the towers fell - extreme heat, time, and gravity....steel can still melt you know, how the hell do you think they make shit out of steel in the first place? Any metal is melleable, meaning it has bendable properties. The higher the temp the easier it will be to bend. You can't just say "well I took a lighter to a paper clip and it didn't melt, so how can steel melt?" I'll tell you how - because your bic lighter doesn't reach 2,000 degrees and burning jet fuel does

By the way let me just say I am really enjoying this debate it has remained so civilized and everyone's intelligence is just making this a really interesting argument to take place in. Everyone has information that is quite concrete and since such accurate research has been done, none of the debate has been about people's sources, just opinions. All in all these debates are what I log on for I hope some of you are feeling the same way about a civilized debate...and I recall reading some shit that potheads can't participate in an intelligent conversation, that were are put in the mindstate of a 6-year old when we are high. Yeah right, fuck em if they don't chief pass it to em if they do!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. VanNostrin

By the way let me just say I am really enjoying this debate it has remained so civilized and everyone's intelligence is just making this a really interesting argument to take place in. Everyone has information that is quite concrete and since such accurate research has been done, none of the debate has been about people's sources, just opinions. All in all these debates are what I log on for I hope some of you are feeling the same way about a civilized debate...and I recall reading some shit that potheads can't participate in an intelligent conversation, that were are put in the mindstate of a 6-year old when we are high. Yeah right, fuck em if they don't chief pass it to em if they do!

---

I agree........:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. VanNostrin

But were any of those caused by a plane? What you have to understand is that jet fuel burns at a much higher temperature than the gas you put in your car. It won't even ignite at the minimal temp regular gas would, so that means you have an extra hot fire blazing. I recall hearing the temps inside were about 2,000 degrees, enough to soften the steel supports. After long enough exposure to high enough temps, the weight on top of those beams is going to overcome the strength of the softened beams and you have a collapse. When the first plane crashed, liquid, burning jet fuel fell into the elevator shaft of the building and was weakening the outer main supports with the same high temperatures. I understand how some of you think that if anything collapsed it should be the area above the plane crash, not everything below. But none of us are structural engineers and all we have is the differing statements by some who say this shouldn't have happened and some who say that when you take all these things into consideration, it's easy to see why they fell.

---

building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and fell... and yes those buildings were hit with planes... and the fuel would have burnt very quickly.... it's the explosion you see when the planes first hit the building... that's the fuel... metal, mainly steel needs to be exposed to heat for a prolonged amount of time. That why you can't melt it and why they need mills... that's why it is used in construciton... because it doesn't melt in fire... STEEL DOESN"T MELT IN FIRE... GET THAT IN YOUR HEAD... SCIENCE DOESN'T ALLOW IT.... YOU LEARN THAT IN HIGHSCHOOL... the wouldn't build building out of steel if it melted in fires... that's stupid... and the main reason why they invented and use steel, cause it doesn't melt in a fire...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr. VanNostrin

In any case the fires were too far up to be accessible so at no point were the blazing fires in any amount of conrol by firefighters and for me it is perfectly understandable why the towers fell - extreme heat, time, and gravity....steel can still melt you know, how the hell do you think they make shit out of steel in the first place?

---

The New York Times revealed the existence of a 78-minute audiotape of radio transmissions of the New York Fire Department (FDNY), which proves that at least two firefighters reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower. 1
Chief Oreo Palmer radioed from the 78th floor of the South Tower.

For over a year the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey with the blessing of the U.S. Justice Department refused to release the contents of the tape.

Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html

too far up?? to me it sounds like they were there and ready to work at putting them out... not the 3000 degree raging inferno it took to bring a 110 story building to the groud... I just wonder why it took them 4 yeras to release that the firefighters made it to the 78th floor and only need 'two lines' to knock it down... 7 MINUTES BEFORE THE WHOLE THING FALLS?? so seven minutes is long enough to cause a fire to spread across a building and melt the steel in the building?? think for once just think....

[/QUOTE]
Any metal is melleable, meaning it has bendable properties. The higher the temp the easier it will be to bend. You can't just say "well I took a lighter to a paper clip and it didn't melt, so how can steel melt?" I'll tell you how - because your bic lighter doesn't reach 2,000 degrees and burning jet fuel does[/QUOTE]

no fire doesn't reach 2,000 degrees.... you need optimum conditions for that... that's why they make steel mills and why they are so hot... don't just try a Bic lighter... get a steel grill... buy fucking airline fuel if you want... put in paper, pens, office crap, computers, concreate... stuff in a building... see if the steel melts... it can't not cause a Bic doesn't get to 2,000 degree but fire doesn't... the black smoke that you can see coming out of the building shows the temperatures didn't get that hot... black smoke in a fire means that it is being fueled by carbon based material and there wasn't enough pure oxygen to get the temps up that high... you learn that in high school chem... am I the only one who learned anything in science class?? 2,000 is fucking hot... really fucking hot... it's not easy to get that temp much less maintain it... and I assured you a plane flying into a building didn't do it...

http://septembereleventh.org/documents/rodgwtcpdf.pdf