Results 71 to 80 of 106
-
08-03-2006, 01:42 PM #71Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
There's also video of the outer walls buckling inward as the support beams give way and the entire structure begins to collapse downward from the middle, beginning the 'pancaking' process.
I would still say that fire brought it down though, by burning away walls and other supporting structures, putting too much pressure on the primary supports. The heat also weakened the supports (heated metal isn't as structurally sound as unheated metal, whether it melts or not). Or to rephrase: without the fire, I don't think the collapse would have occurred.
-
08-03-2006, 02:25 PM #72Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
I don't think that the collapse could have been caused by the fire. That leaves the only other two possibilities being that it collapsed because of a few floors "buckeling down" like bongman said or that it was caused by thermite or some other shit.
I did some research and basically I found out that there's absolutely no way that the center columbs where melted by jet-fuel. Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. The Jet fuel burns at around 425 degrees F and it would have all burned up within a minute or two leaving shit around the office to burn until the buildings actually collapsed. And you have to take into account the fact that these planes couldn't have been fully fueled. And steels critical tempurature is at 1,100 degrees F, where it loses about half of it's stability.
Remember that the North tower had an intense fire in 1975 and suffered no structural damage.
In any case, a fire couldn't possibly have brought down those buildings. It's scientifically impossible. I'm sure there's a logical explanation that the official report fucked up on. -the official report says that they collapsed solely because of a fire-
-
08-03-2006, 02:27 PM #73Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
Originally Posted by LordSmaug
[SIZE=\"4\"]\"That best portion of a good man\'s life: his little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and love.\"[/SIZE]
[align=center]William Wordsworth, English poet (1770 - 1850)[/align]
-
08-03-2006, 02:29 PM #74Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
They don't have to melt for them to be significantly weakened by heat, and the NIST report showed that the temperature reached more than 1800 degrees in pockets, plenty enough to substantially weaken them. I really think that, without the fire and its effects, the structures would have withstood the actual kinetic energy of the planes themselves, although the WTC buildings were designed to withstand impacts from somewhat smaller jets.
-
08-03-2006, 03:46 PM #75Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
Originally Posted by LordSmaug
I did some research
and basically I found out that there's absolutely no way that the center columbs where melted by jet-fuel.
Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. The Jet fuel burns at around 425 degrees F and it would have all burned up within a minute or two leaving shit around the office to burn until the buildings actually collapsed.
And you have to take into account the fact that these planes couldn't have been fully fueled.
And steels critical tempurature is at 1,100 degrees F, where it loses about half of it's stability.
Remember that the North tower had an intense fire in 1975 and suffered no structural damage.
In any case, a fire couldn't possibly have brought down those buildings. It's scientifically impossible.
I'm sure there's a logical explanation that the official report fucked up on. -the official report says that they collapsed solely because of a fire-
-
08-03-2006, 04:08 PM #76Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
OK ok the fire............
what about the structural damage? watch the video again..... how they didnt fall on impact is beyond me.............like BA says it was just a matter of time.
-
08-03-2006, 04:22 PM #77Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
Originally Posted by LordSmaug
In all fairness.. I will say there are a lot of things in this world I have to take someone elseā??s word for because I have no idea and not enough desire to find out the truth for myself.. like say Art.. I couldnā??t tell you if one painting looks better than another.. but if your an Art person and you tell me.. I will take your word for it because its probably true. I donā??t know the first thing about art appreciation and I donā??t think I really ever will.
The moral of this story is.. pretty please.. with sugar on top.. if you continue to refuse to develop the background required to accurately interpret the very limited sources of information that somehow find their way to you.. let it go.
-
08-03-2006, 04:34 PM #78Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
Aaron....... they just hate Bush, and America so bad they just twist the truth to fit the hate....
-
08-03-2006, 05:34 PM #79Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
I hate Bush too, and the American government (not America...it's kind of hard to hate 300 million people I don't know, or the expanse of land between Canada and Mexico), but I'm not going to just parrot anything that portrays them in a negative light. I find it better to use logic and evidence to make my points. There are enough real reasons to hate Bush that we don't need to make shit up.
-
08-03-2006, 05:57 PM #80Senior Member
9/11 TRUTH
Morons all of you, Nowhere i the 9-11 Documents does it ever say that the Steel Melted! It got so hot that the steel buckled, which started a chain effect, But it did not melt. God you Tin Foil hat guys are gullable...
Advertisements
Similar Threads
-
Truth Comes Out
By gypski in forum Current EventsReplies: 4Last Post: 01-16-2011, 08:16 PM -
truth
By bobthom347 in forum CanadaReplies: 3Last Post: 01-21-2007, 03:16 AM -
What is truth, anyway?
By JunkYard in forum SpiritualityReplies: 17Last Post: 12-17-2006, 11:51 PM -
the truth
By hipEstoner in forum GreenGrassForums LoungeReplies: 7Last Post: 05-13-2005, 10:29 PM