|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
^^^
Another hard question...
Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn?
In my eyes the plane was just the catalyst to the whole structural problem. It was like adding a lit match stick to a cord of dry firewood.
So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
^^^
Another hard question...
Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn?
|
And then we get back to the fact that the building never ignited to the degree required for steel to melt, as evident by the recorded communications of Batallion Chief Orio J. Palmer. He said that on the 78th floor there were only two small pockets of fire which could have been knocked out with two hose lines.
|
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
^^^
Another hard question...
Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn?
|
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
"The fires going out, toss some more concrete on it."
:stongue: :haha: :haha: :haha: :stongue: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted. |
Or why there was red-hot molten steel in the sub basement more than a month afterwards.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...035#post5399035 |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
"The fires going out, toss some more concrete on it."
:stongue: :haha: :haha: :haha: :stongue: |
Yea, I suppose the only thing in those towers were concrete...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Have you guys ever been camping and actually made a camp fire??
What do they tell you to do with the campfire before you leave and why?
Think about it people...
The 'red-hot molten steel in the sub basement more than a month afterwards' don't surprise me in the least Trancer-X, in fact that only gives validity to what I'm saying.
It's obvious it got pretty damn hot for the structural beams to bend and give way. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Have you guys ever been camping and actually made a camp fire??
What do they tell you to do with the campfire before you leave and why?
Think about it people...
The 'red-hot molten steel in the sub basement more than a month afterwards' don't surprise me in the least Trancer-X, in fact that only gives validity to what I'm saying.
It's obvious it got pretty damn hot for the structural beams to bend and give way. |
You pour water on the ashes so that embers don't fly into the woods and cause a forest fire. Just like when you're camping on the beach - you can just cover the fire with sand. Sand also puts it out by cutting off it's supply of oxygen. But I guess you just forgot that part.
Remember this - oxygen is one of the three components needed for combustion with the other two being fuel and heat.
So tell me, how did red-hot molten steel defy such amazing odds by staying in it's molten liquid form in an oxygen deprived, suffocatingly compacted environment which was under thousands of tons of pressure in a sub-basement level of the WTC complexes?
I think your conspiracy theory of the jet fuel melting the steel in the first place is further of a stretch than the one that says that controlled demolitions may have brought those buildings down. There was nothing in them that could have burned hot enough to melt steel in the first place - except maybe some high-explosive cutting charges. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
You pour water on the ashes so that embers don't fly into the woods and cause a forest fire. Just like when you're camping on the beach - you can just cover the fire with sand. Sand also puts it out by cutting off it's supply of oxygen. But I guess you just forgot that part.
Remember this - oxygen is one of the three components needed for combustion with the other two being fuel and heat.
So tell me, how did red-hot molten steel defy such amazing odds by staying in it's molten liquid form in an oxygen deprived, suffocatingly compacted environment which was under thousands of tons of pressure in a sub-basement level of the WTC complexes?
|
There's an automatic assumption here that just because there were tons of rubble means somehow that ALL the oxygen was miraculously cut off.
I'm willing to bet that obviously, it wasn't and since they did find molten liquid, it only furthers my point.
| quote: |
I think your conspiracy theory of the jet fuel melting the steel in the first place is further of a stretch than the one that says that controlled demolitions may have brought those buildings down. There was nothing in them that could have burned hot enough to melt steel in the first place - except maybe some high-explosive cutting charges. |
Except I never said it was the 'jet fuel' as was suggested by this:
| quote: |
How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?
|
...in fact, quite the opposite, I questioned it myself:
| quote: |
In my eyes the plane was just the catalyst to the whole structural problem. It was like adding a lit match stick to a cord of dry firewood.
So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted.
|
There's no way the jet fuel could have done that by itself. ;) |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
^^^
Another hard question...
Why is it everyone forgets the building (not just the plane) probably did more damage to itself in acting as a fuel source for the fire to burn?
In my eyes the plane was just the catalyst to the whole structural problem. It was like adding a lit match stick to a cord of dry firewood.
So while the question raised about the jet fuel and the melting point of steel may be valid, it certainly doesn't take into account all the factors as to why the steel melted. |
Then explain how WTC 7 collapsed.
That building was 40 or so stories high with no airliner impact damage.
Let's say we go with the official story that jet fuel and office supplies brought down both WTC 1 & 2. Let stick to that story for a minute.
How does someone explain WTC 7 collapsing with the same theory? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Then explain how WTC 7 collapsed.
That building was 40 or so stories high with no airliner impact damage.
Let's say we go with the official story that jet fuel and office supplies brought down both WTC 1 & 2. Let stick to that story for a minute.
How does someone explain WTC 7 collapsing with the same theory? |
Well obviously little trained Bush gnomes set charges at predetermined, fragile structural points to explode only after the others collapsed.
Sheesh...:crazy: |
|
|
|
|
