Quote:
Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter
those planes were fueled for a cross the US flight, so they had a huge load of jet fuel (refined diesel).
btw, have you ever heard that if you hit water at a high speed it is similar to hitting concrete. these planes were going around 500 mph, they could have been made off goo and still would have made a huge penetration into that building.
what the Norweigan says makes sense, perhaps this could even provide logic to the "incendiary" found in the dust.
|
Whether you have a tanker full or a bucketful, that fuel couldn't have burned above 30% of the temperature needed to reach steel's melting point (if exposed consistently in foundry-conditions for several hours) or about 60% the temperature needed to get the steel to begin to soften (probably a little more).
NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission reports actually say the fires weren't hot enough at their hottest, and even then didn't maintain constant temperatures for very long.
You're right about speed and surface-impacts. (The speeds were probably overstated or the media probably reported the planes' top speed at high altitude, though, because they couldn't have been going so fast at this altitude - the air density would make it difficult for the engines to operate at that speed - but I'm sure their max speed was fast enough).
What the Norwegian said doesn't make sense to me though because of the improbability of the aluminum being uniformly molten across such a vast area and the chances of it all encountering water at so many equally distributed points to cause such a smooth and symmetrical progression of explosive reactions that would have taken out ten floors per second for the at least 50 floors we see getting destroyed before the cloud of pulversized materials obscures the views.
It couldn't explain the incendiary found, or the iron microspheres in the dust or even any of the molten metal that burned in the rubble for up to five months, but it could explain the oxidized steel beams that were discovered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PR_Glen
These should just be quoted over and over because they pretty much destroy any truther opinion on the matter...
Not believing in this bulshit doesn't mean we don't question our government and the media, we all do that daily. It just means we know the difference between what an actual fact is and what is science fiction and speculation.
|
I didn't say anyone in this thread blindly believes what they see on TV, just those that do believe what they see on TV are delusional - it was a general statement to define "delusional" and point out that the accusation was wrongly aimed at me.
I've stated one opinion, and then posted facts.
If you know the difference between "actual fact" and speculation (and sci-fi ;) ) can you point out to me how those posts or any other here do any "debunking" or offer anything other than ad hominems and opinions of agreement with the government theory (which to this day, without "actual facts" from the government, remains one step below theory - a basic hypothesis)?