Ok, I will explain everything you are asking about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootermuze
I think you just like to try to keep things stirred up..
Explain this in that you seem to have the answers..
One of the buildings is hit on one side only.. with a large portion of the fuel expoding outside of the building, and no fire or intense heat on the other side, yet that side starts crumbing at the same time the damaged side did..
|
1) The plane was travelling at about 400 MPH. I can assure that there is no such thing as 'magic fuel' that manages to physically seperate itself from the fuel tanks and explode outside the building while the entire plane enters the building. A little wonder of science called "pressure" is what caused your giant fireball.. in laymans terms: there was not enough air (oxygen) inside the building for the explosive chemical reaction to consume all the fuel.. so, in an effort to get more oxygen, the explosion will travel to where there is lots of oxygen. The sheer magnitude of the explosion consumed all the air available inside the building, let's not forget the percussive shockwave created by an impact and explosion of this magnitude.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootermuze
Fires burned for about an hour.. Not enough time to cause enough steel to melt to the extent of collapse.. (If you want to believe kerosene can melt hardened steel)
|
No, but steel doesnt have to melt to lost most of its structural integrity.
Here's a science experiment you can do at home:
Take a wire coat hanger. Bend it - make a note of how much force it takes to bend the metal.
Take a lighter and hold the flame under a piece of the coat hanger for, oh, say 5 minutes.
Now, bend the metal again - Amazing!! See how much weaker the hot-yet-non-melted metal is! Science is fun!! Structural steel behaves in much the same way. Dont believe me? then you're crazy and/or retarded.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootermuze
The buildings were designed to take 2 plane impacts from planes in that size range, yet both buildings failed.
|
Actually, this is completely false. Please cite your source. They were NOT engineered to take the impace of 757-sized commercial jets travelling at 400mph.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootermuze
The buildings fell at a speed and in a manner that has never happened other than from controlled demolition.
|
This is a lie propogated across the internet by such geniuses as Dylan Avery and Phoenix. Watch every internet video on this subject - none of their 'sophisticated timing mecanisms' actually start when the building begins to fail, nor do they end at the right time. It is impossible to see the whole collapse because of the debris cloud - and thus it is impossible to accurately time the collapse.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootermuze
So you have 2 buildings designed to take multiple impacts, that were hit in different places, and had fires that burned for a very short period, yet they both fall in the exact same manner, at a rate only acheived through controlled demolition..
|
95% of everything you just said is
not true.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootermuze
One building collapsing in that manner is unlikely enough, but two side by side collapsing in such a manner is a bit more than coincidence.
|
???? I dont even know how to comment on the above statement.. there is absolutely no rationale/logic/thinking/brain activity going on there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scootermuze
No.. I don't have the answers.. nor do you..
I just have questions, like a growing number of people in this country..
|
I have lots of answers!! keep on asking!!