Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Of course speed matters.
If you ram your car into a brick wall at 10mph, you'll dent your car. Ram it at 60mph and your going right through it. A plan hitting a building at 300mph does a certain amount of damage, and a plane hitting a building at twice that speed does a lot more damage.
|
Of course it makes a difference. But the difference here is not 600%.
The difference between the actual probable speed and the reported speed of the airliners is a niggle, not really pertinent, just further evidence of the self-evident and admitted fallacies of the 9/11 Commission report...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Not at all. A few hours of flight training and I'm pretty sure anyone can do it.
|
Ok, now you're being ridiculous. There is a very huge window of qualification for even Cessna pilots, let alone commercial jet pilots...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
No, not at all. The steel was already bent, twisted, mangled, and damaged. Undamaged steel beams not under stress will start bend at between 600-800 degrees. The steel in the WTC was subjected to the same temp, but was damaged and under stress - a lot of stress.
|
SOME of the steel was damaged and/or compromised. This was accounted for.
You're referring to degrees celsius, which is not the same at all. 800 celsius is 1472 ºF. Read the NIST report. Non of the temps got that high for more than a few seconds, IF they did...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
There is no "single" version the government is putting out. There are multiple agencies and multiple private companies that have done investigations, and have come up with multiple reasons for the fall of the towers.
|
Please point out the divergencies? The government (ie. NIST) claims that super-heating somehow caused support columns to expand rather than weaken/soften in the case of WTC7, but that softening/weakening caused these supports to pull in the external supports in the case of the towers...
Either way, they couldn't and didn't account for the differences in reported temperatures, actual temperatures, and the subsequent collapse. They simply did not report on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And you think we should do what? Store it until the end of time? Your talking about millions of tons of debris. Where would you store it? And how much would it cost? And why? We've been over the debris, and most of it was sent off to various agencies, private and government, for testing. Multiple investigations was done, answers were handed out, and it's over.
|
Most of it was NOT sent off to various agencies. Only certain authorized representatives from certain authorized agencies were allowed to look at the debris. Most of the debris was not authorized to be removed for investigation. Read up on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The buildings were in fact no designed to withstand such impacts or the resulting fires.
|
Please provide your sources for this? In fact, the buildings were in every way designed to withstand not just such impacts but multiple impacts of the sort, and especially the fires...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
They were designed to withstand impacts from smaller planes at lower speeds that hit the towers by accident - not by someone intentionally ramming the buildings at 600mph.
|
The planes they used in their projections were larger and/or heavier than the planes that actually hit the WTC - because less aluminum and more steel was used in those at the time. You can't even find sources for that useless and false claim...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
From one of your friends: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...res/steel.html
They claim that steel will melt at 800 degrees. That is, of course, undamaged steel not under any pressure or stress. The fire was between 600-800 degrees... More than enough to cause the steel to bend or melt. |
Again, these are scientists and scientists use centigrade, not Fahrenheit, for their science.
Review your considerations....
:D