^^^Idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshank
Printable View
^^^Idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crookshank
What was their explanation for the moltenQuote:
Originally Posted by Sean
steel?
Fire caused by exploding airplanes. Don't underestimate the power of American Airlines
these are the seeds that they planted with 9/11
while I suspect that you know you're full of shit when you type it but I'm going to address it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Quan Youngest Wu
Ignited jet fuel can burn hot enough to weaken steel it will not however achieve enough heat to actually melt steel.
Yes, what I just said was BS.
However, the fire did burn for a few days so steel being constantly exposed to flame it is only natural it'll melt
so if I took a butane lighter and held it up to a steel beam for 4 days, I should expect that steel to melt? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Quan Youngest Wu
If you don't know what you're talking about its best to say nothing at all. I was looking for legitimate answers based on physics not hair-brained assumptions people pull outta their ass.
Is there photographic evidence that the steel was 'melted'?
It is quite possible that the fire caused by the plane crashing into the building could have weakened the steel enough to cause the building to collapse. I'm unsure about actually melting it completely though.
1) JET-A fuel is not the only source of fire/heat in the event. Therefore it is incorrect to imply that jet fuel does not release enough energy in a fire. There are other items such as carpet, furniture, paper, etc... that all added to the situation. That doesn't even mention the idea of any magnesium components from the aircraft that caught on fire.
2) The yield strength of most ferrous metals does not hold up well under heat. Most steel will have a yield point reduction of around 25% at 600°F. It's not until the addition of nickel and other alloying components which are very expensive, does steel start to do better under high temp conditions.
I didn't write that by the way.
I couldn't view the videos you posted earlier Visions (they're not appearing on my browser for whatever reason).
However the combined eat generated by not only the fuel but other materials is one explanation for the 'molten steel'.
Obviously the burning temperature of jet fuel is much lower than the temperature needed to melt steel, but this discounts any other material which was also burning.
This is all assuming that there was molten steel found.
Building 7 wasnt hit by a plane. 47 stories, fire burned for a few hours, it fell perfectly into its own foot print at near free fall speeds. Same thing with the towers if they had toppled over instead of falling straight down at near free fall speed maybe I could have bought it.
Im sorry I just cant belive the oficial explanatin of it all. I mean I dont know much about physics but Im pretty sure that if you drop something and as it falls it hits another object it will slow down its rate of decent. That throws the pancacking floors theory right out the window, in my book anyway.
http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Sean Bateman
http://9eleven.info/MetalGlow.jpg
http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2...enclose5mt.jpg
I can't watch the video, but those images are far from conclusive.
The first one, looks like an explosion.
The second one, could be anything, but looks like a spot fire much like many of the other areas.
And the final image is equally unclear.
Are these the only images you guys are basing this on, or are there more conclusive shots?
Because that as "proof" is worthless.
You won't take the time to watch a 6 minute video, and you're calling the evidence worthless? How very small of you.
It's clear you are not even opening up your mind to the possibility that it could be an inside job because that would mean your beliefs are worthless, which they pretty much are because you won't even be bothered to take the time to research.
Watch this video, or don't, but don't comment on something you refuse to acknowledge as a possibility.
What do you think Kennedy is talking about here?
I'm guessing you won't watch that either.
If there was any "proof", or "evidence" at all, to even suggest that the towers fell as a result of anything besides planes flown by terrorists crashing into them, then they would not be "conspiracy theories". They would be actual theories.
Let us honestly look at why conspiracy theories exist:
It is my proposition that people want to believe such things because of an internal dissatisfaction with their own lives, and a frustration at their perceived inability to better their situations.
Reality is scary and confusing, so people try to distance themselves from it, by calling it fake or creating their own "reality".
Other people believe everything they are told, and that is another way of excaping realilty, but not having to critically analyze it.
And some people believe that cable news is 100% truthful and they never censor anything because they're idiots.
And where are you getting your "proof" from? That reliable 9-11 commission that wasn't at all self interested and didn't cover anything up?
still look like an explosion Sean?