Reply With Quote
I should win troll of the week for causing Mouse, the orignial troll, to have a meltdown.
wow, this thread has taken a strange turn
I should win troll of the week for causing Mouse, the orignial troll, to have a meltdown.
Mouse, don't look for a physics answer from these guys, it's way beyond them - the amount of force is equal to the mass times the amount of gravitational pull...and depending on what variables you use, the amount of force I've seen on physics sites is consistent with the force needed to crumble the building and account for a 10-11 second collapse time...does that mean that I believe that this is how the towers came down? Maybe, but you cannot discount that the building could have collapsed just from the amount of force being applied, just as you can't completely discount that some type of explosives were used.....This is in fact a load of . Why are there so many pictures of debris falling ahead of the building collapse?
Sure I can discount explosives being used. I just did. Once 30 acres of office building start falling, nothing is going to stop it. You simply don't need to have squibs going of on the outside of the buildings on the bottom 20 floors once those 30 acres of top floors starts moving. Yet you are expecting us to believe just that -- that in some compulsive fit of overkill, the conspirators wired the entire building from top to bottom under the noses of everybody working there.
..you really didn't prove anything Chumpy and neither have any of the 'official' government report on WTC1 or 2, not too mention the 6-year and running official NIST report that the greatest scientific minds in the world haven't been able to wrap your preset conclusions against their set of logical facts....
You're the guy who needs to prove something.
What is your theory again?
Hey dan, has that guy confessed yet? I thought I would
get a PM, but nope, nothing in the old mail box.
Sure you can.
When you hear hoof beats, don't automatically assume there's a herd of zebras coming.
Any reasonable person could conclude that explosion is capable of weakening that structure enough for it to collapse on itself. WTC1 was similarly affected.
It's not that big a mystery.
I retract my earlier statement.
Explosives were definitely used.
Jet fuel is explosive.
Sure you can.
When you hear hoof beats, don't automatically assume there's a herd of zebras coming.
Any reasonable person could conclude that explosion is capable of weakening that structure enough for it to collapse on itself. WTC1 was similarly affected.
It's not that big a mystery.
So the building collapsed immediately at impact? I did not know that....
You mean the jet fuel that would have burnt immediately at impact....and no where near the temperature needed to bend steel girders...
I mean the jet fuel that obviously exploded at impact -- or are you disputing that too?You mean the jet fuel that would have burnt immediately at impactIf you can tell me the burning temperatures of every piece of equipment and furniture in the two or three acres of office space in each impact zone?and no where near the temperature needed to bend steel girders
The jet fuel fumes that exploded at impact...jet fuel does not combust so easily or you would have many more horrific mid-air plane explosions...so the fire at impact was from the scattered jet fuel fumes...but after that where was the source of the fire?I mean the jet fuel that obviously exploded at impact -- or are you disputing that too?
Sure, but there was still an explosion. And of course the jet fuel that wasn't consumed in the explosion didn't just sit there, it burned and traveled down the elevator and service shafts and started fires all over the building.You're right, there would be no fuel for a fire in three acres of working office space. Not one combustible.but after that where was the source of the fire?
Hate to say it, but Chump has you on this one. Unless you
are saying that the "live" pictures on TV are saying: Our
lying eyes deceived us. Explosions=fire=ignites unexploded
fuel=fuel sources within building (like wooden furniture,
paper, cloth, plastics).
Yes...and you can see the jet fuel running down the sides of the building in some 911 videos, but if it wasn't the jet fuel burning and weakening the steel girders.....then your saying it was the burning office furniture?Sure, but there was still an explosion. And of course the jet fuel that wasn't consumed in the explosion didn't just sit there, it burned and traveled down the elevator and service shafts and started fires all over the building.
Tell me everything that existed in those three acres of impact zone and their burning temperatures. I'm certainly willing to accept there was something that could generate enough heat to weaken some steel.
That theory is bunk...even if the steel girders were compromised by direct impact and fire, the building would have toppled over like a tree...there must have been a way where the inner core-steel girders were also compromised, that is the only answer...
I think you and the other truthers are confusing the temperature required to compromise steel with the temperature required to liquify (melt) steel. there's quite a bit of territory in between.
No, the temp to liquefy steel would be much higher than the temp to weaken steel....besides, I think the real clues to what might have caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 are in the Pentagon attack photos...
It did topple over like a tree at first. Once the top thirty acres of building broke free, the whole thing went straight down.
They were hit by a jet flying 500 mph, then subject to uncontrolled fire.there must have been a way where the inner core-steel girders were also compromised, that is the only answer...
Yeah, yeah.....we've been down this road before...but I don't completely buy into the theory that the building core could have collapsed the way it did even with the top third of the building collapsing on top of it....for instance, try stomping your foot on the edge of a sharp nail in a board facing upward and see what happens....It did topple over like a tree at first. Once the top thirty acres of building broke free, the whole thing went straight down.
Yeah, and the temperature to weaken steel was reached in WTC1 and WTC2.
....not for long enough.....
For long enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
