Originally posted by jaden101
steel rarely melts in building fires...this was another conspiracy theorists argument...jet fuel burns at 800 but steel doesn't melt until 1300-1400pity that steel loses 80% of its strength at about 600 though
wrong again.yes jet fuel burns at 800 but the steel doesnt melt till 2500.Its just absolutely ludicrise to buy into that fairy tale that jet fuel caused the buildings to collapse. 😆 buildings dont collapse like that due to fire,they crumble down slowly bit by bit,in demolitions though,that is typical for them to come down like that.not to mention it was the first time in history that a skyscraper collapsed due to fire.Planes have hit buildings before in the past but there is no record of any plane causing the buildings to collapse in such fashion that we know of.matter of fact,if you study the film of the towers collapse,you can see that the top portion of the tower is starting to tip over sideways.thats why the explosives were planted to keep it from TIPPING over sideways.
Even if all those people say that,they fail to mention people like steven Jones.A physics professor at Bringham Young university who many physic professors around the country have praised as well for his work and determining that explosives went off in the towers.I used to respect popular mechanics in the past but around the mid 90's all they did was start propogating government lies which continues today.Matter of fact,steven jones has been suspended recently for speaking the truth about 9-11 and the school is having hearings to get him fired.
whats the difference between them and him....they actually investigated it...he didn't...
the main evidence for someone saying explosives were used was the testimony of Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology who actually said that it "looked like" explosives may have been used...yet who now agrees the tower collapsed without them...
steven jones also claimed his report was peer reviewed prior to publication...just last week he removed his report prior to an investigation into it
not to mention that the list of high profile people who dont agree with the common account of how the towers collapsed aren't even scientific based experts and thus actually have no knowledge of how it happed from a physics standpoint
Originally posted by Mr Parker
wrong again.yes jet fuel burns at 800 but the steel doesnt melt till 2500.Its just absolutely ludicrise to buy into that fairy tale that jet fuel caused the buildings to collapse. 😆 buildings dont collapse like that due to fire,they crumble down slowly bit by bit,in demolitions though,that is typical for them to come down like that.not to mention it was the first time in history that a skyscraper collapsed due to fire.Planes have hit buildings before in the past but there is no record of any plane causing the buildings to collapse in such fashion that we know of.matter of fact,if you study the film of the towers collapse,you can see that the top portion of the tower is starting to tip over sideways.thats why the explosives were planted to keep it from TIPPING over sideways.
nice way to put it...one temp in celsius and the other in farenheit...luckily some of use can spot that eh?
and jet fuel actually burns at 800-1500F...and once again for those among us poor in physics...steel loses half its strength at 1100F
not to mention that jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in the towers
you also say that explosives were used to prevent the building from tipping...yet also say that the building tipped...nice way to contradict your self
theorists also completely forget (conveniently) about the damage to the towers support columns by the plane impact
uh yes they do.And if you would bother to study 9-11 message boards you would know that what eyewitnesses have said doesnt match up to the governments explanation not to mention the firefighters who fought the fires and said they heard explosives going off and have since then been told to shut up and have gone on radio shows saying they have been threatened with death threats to their familys if they dont keep quiet.Did it ever occur to you that Van Romero has changed his testimony because of death threats? I know John Mccain was initially doubting the official version as well but he is now praising and whomping the official version to a hoot now which doesnt surprise me because he is a corrupted politician.He for one ignored complaints by family members and vietnam vets to do something to get vietnam POW'S out and totally blew them off.Now popular mechanics is promoting that S O B since he is going along with the lies.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
uh yes they do.And if you would bother to study 9-11 message boards you would know that what eyewitnesses have said doesnt match up to the governments explanation not to mention the firefighters who fought the fires and said they heard explosives going off and have since then been told to shut up and have gone on radio shows saying they have been threatened with death threats to their familys if they dont keep quiet.Did it ever occur to you that Van Romero has changed his testimony because of death threats? I know John Mccain was initially doubting the official version as well but he is now praising and whomping the official version to a hoot now which doesnt surprise me because he is a corrupted politician.He for one ignored complaints by family members and vietnam vets to do something to get vietnam POW'S out and totally blew them off.Now popular mechanics is promoting that S O B since he is going along with the lies.
yes because the 9/11 message boards are a better place to find information than scientific studies into it
i have also seen the "documentaries" about supposed firefighters saying they heard explosives...they all have one thing in common...they dont actually have any firefighters saying it...just someone saying that they said it...funny that isn't it
Van Romero's career is in tatters because of his comments...not to mention that he dismissed accusations that he got death threats
what does John Mccain and vietnam have to do with anything?
oh..and in relation to your "wing shaped hole" theory
Originally posted by jaden101
nice way to put it...one temp in celsius and the other in farenheit...luckily some of use can spot that eh?and jet fuel actually burns at 800-1500F...and once again for those among us poor in physics...steel loses half its strength at 1100F
not to mention that jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning in the towers
you also say that explosives were used to prevent the building from tipping...yet also say that the building tipped...nice way to contradict your self
theorists also completely forget (conveniently) about the damage to the towers support columns by the plane impact
true jet fuel burns up to 1500 f but AGAIN it would have to approach 2500 to begin to weaken the metal.the top part shows it is tipping on the north tower,well you can see lights of explosives going off in the film in that area as well,which conviently kept it from tipping.even so the fire was NOT enough to cause it to collapse,again no skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire,AGAIN palnes have hit buildings before,but there its not normal for them to cause the building to collapse like that.is any of this getting through to you? the planes impact was at the top of the towers and yet you buy into that line of B.S that the support columns were damaged by the plane? 🙄 dude your hopeless,I give up on you.
Originally posted by jaden101
yes because the 9/11 message boards are a better place to find information than scientific studies into iti have also seen the "documentaries" about supposed firefighters saying they heard explosives...they all have one thing in common...they dont actually have any firefighters saying it...just someone saying that they said it...funny that isn't it
Van Romero's career is in tatters because of his comments...not to mention that he dismissed accusations that he got death threats
what does John Mccain and vietnam have to do with anything?
oh..and in relation to your "wing shaped hole" theory
yes they are a better place because the best work done in government coverups like this one is by independent investigaters,not by people like the 9-11 commission or popular mecahnics,i mention john mccain because popular mechanics praises him and you list popular mechanics as your source.I meant to say that if you look at those 9-11 message boards,they have documents where the firefighters are saying that,again researchers have found that they have been threatened,again they have gone on radi saying that.of course he will dismiss them.i give up,this is going nowhere with you.
true jet fuel burns up to 1500 f but AGAIN it would have to approach 2500 to begin to weaken the metal
no...it wouldn't...you clearly dont have any clue about physics despite the fact that i have posted the scientific facts about steel and how it is affected by temperature
i've actual investigated fires as part of my forensics studies and questioned leading fire investigators..they all say the same thing...they rarely see melted steel...but regularly see buckled steel because it weakens at a relatively low tempeture compares with the the temp that most domestic and non industrial workplace fires get to
well you can see lights of explosives going off
no you cant...you see a lot of dust being ejected from floors as the floors above cascade down...
and would you look at that...there was a hell of a lot of dust
not to mention the fact the it was predicted that parts of the plane fuselage may have ignited in the fires (the temp was high enough to ignite aluminium) and these burn white hot
the planes impact was at the top of the towers and yet you buy into that line of B.S that the support columns were damaged by the plane?
obviously you never bothered looking into the design of the WTC before concocting your bizarre theories did you
works like this...the WTC has 2 main support areas...the core and the perimeter columns
the perimeter columns are bound together by the floor braces...the impact destroyed several perimeter columns on 3 sides of the building, much of the central core that supports the vertical loads and removed several floors...thus what bound the rest of the undamaged columns together was missing and so the force of the floors above pushed the perimeter columns out...
heat then weakens remaining steel (as proven before) and the building collapses
i love the fact that people post videos saying "look...explosive coming from the building during collapse" yet most of them come from the sides of the buildings when the main vertical supports are at the centre of the structure and the corner perimeter supports
not to mention that i've witnessed controlled demolition and none of them have ever had the huge outspray of wreckage that you see at the top of the building
controlled implosion???
mm...yeah...clearly 😆
not to mention that there wouldn't have been anywhere inconspicuous to plant explosives on the perimeter supports unless you conclude that they were put on the engineering levels which would be contrary to the so called testimonies of firefighters...i'm sure the employees would have noticed the people drilling into the supports and wiring up stick of high explosive...funnily enough...there aren't any eye wintnesses saying that