Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
No, I said the government's version isn't consistent or logical because it's version has fires burning much below and for much less time required to soften/bend/weaken steel.
|
Your right, the government's version isn't consistent at all. This is because it's not putting out a story at all, but instead, smaller government agencies are trying to explain what happened. These government agencies do not have anyone telling them what to say, and they come up with their own, independent versions of what happened.
It's like ten people seeing a car accident from different angles. Ten people will come up with three or four explanations of what happened.
The truth is they are trying to explained what happened on 9/11 without having enough information, and only going on clues. They can't explain why steel bent because they didn't have a camera up there recording what happened during that hour.
You can pick it apart so quickly because we don't have all of the answers - and we never will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
The only way the steel could have softened/bent/weakened so much - and so universally and equally - in such a short time is if the alternate theory were accurate.
|
Not true at all. You assuming that only fire did damage.
At the moment of impact, some of the support was instantly destroyed while others were damaged. Yet other support beams were instantly supporting more and more weight. The already damaged beams, under a huge amount of stress, were then exposed to heat... Plenty enough to do further damage to the beams.