|
| quote: | Originally posted by Vizay
jag f�rh�ller mig alltid v�ldigt skeptisk till konspirationsteorier och f�rs�ker ifr�gas�tta dom s� mycket som m�jligt innan jag v�ljer att tro p� dom.
En sak med filmen som st�r mig �r intervjuerna dom har, hur kan man �ver huvud taget vara s�ker p� att killen p� flygst�llet d�r en av kaparna var � fl�g ens jobbar d�r?
Hur kan man �ver huvud taget vara s�ker p� att vaktm�staren fr�n WTC som snackade om generatorexplosionen n�gonsin var d�r.
samtidigt talar tv� saker v�ldigt tydligt f�r att n�got fuffens var i g�rningen.
Explosionerna ser man klart och tydligt att de befinner sig l�ngt under raslinjen n�r byggnaderna faller samman. Dessutom styrker ber�kningen den teorin v�ldigt tydligt, det handlar om ett n�stintill fritt fall, det kan ingen neka till. Hur kan det vara s� n�r det finns s� m�nga miljoner ton st�l under raset som borde iaf. bromsa ner det hela? |
Från http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...html?page=1&c=y
| quote: | Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." |
Sen angående att stål inte kan smälta i dom "låga" temperaturerna.
| quote: | Jet fuel burns at 800� to 1500�F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750�F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100�F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800� it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832�F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." |
| quote: | | Sen är flight 93 och pentagon väldigt konstigt, framförallt flight 93 där det inte finns några vrakdelar what so ever. |
Vilket är en ren lögn, många vrakdelar har hittats 
|
