Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
I don't dismiss the speed for those reasons. I dismiss it because regardless or the speed of the impact, it wouldn't have made a difference to the damage or the resulting effect to the building/s...
|
You just dismissed.
And of course it would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Well if you want to venture into other areas of speculation, most of the engineers and pilots in question refer to the maneuvers as extraordinary.
|
Of course they would. Anyone would. The fact that anyone would call the maneuvers extraordinary is itself, not extraordinary. This too should be removed from your list of arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Radar and GPS data will not testify to whether an airframe's operator is human or programmed.
|
No, they testify to the speed and direction of the plane which was my argument. Are you seriously bringing into question whether or not they were flown by remote control now? Not only is that idea a little ridiculous but it also deflects from the point. Don't argue a point by bringing in another argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
This is a good question I don't have the answer off the top of my head. What I do know is that steel of this sort needs controlled and constant temperatures to reach the point of weakness or complete failure of support.
|
No, not at all. It needs "Enough" heat for a "Long enough" period of time. "Control" is a misleading statement. Remove "control" from your narrative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Apparently on the order of three hours. This so-called rate is usually 2500°F, which none of the three towers reached in their intended periods...
|
The fires need not have reached 2500F. All they had to do was burn hot enough and long enough to either weaken the steal beams or the weakest points of the structure would were most probably the points at where the floors were attached to the beams and building.
Also don't forget that The FEMA report also determined that thinning of the steel had occurred by the severe high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation, that heating of the steel in a hot corrosive environment at temperatures approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel, and that this sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.[73] The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found.[74]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
"Projections" at the time and later (as late as 2010) were based on scientific detail and information. You should stop trying to cloud this info in disinfo....
|
Same to you my friend..!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Isn't that the energy created by explosives rather than mass/volume failures...?
|
No. A strange as it is to believe, the energy in the plane crash and explosions was nothing compared to the energy released during the collapse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Wow. So rather than the "official" story which is put out by the govt. you're saying they're all saying something different? Why would that be? This is a single event coordinated by a single suspect and organization whose financing the 9/11 commission claims is not important and which you're now saying was actuated by a bunch of different groups? So who could have done it?
|
I'm not saying anything like that at all. I don't know who was responsible for it all. I'm only saying that WTC was not brought down by demolition. I didn't see anything else on TV about it so I can't comment on it. I can enjoy the stories and different points of view. The only thing I saw was what was shown to us on TV, and the images of the collapse do not look like a demolition.
WT7 Looks like a demolition at first, but with a little extra digging its easy to see that it is not a demo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
So why do you decide that the government theory/version/vision of facts is accurate? Since there are so many different versions, especially considering that before the firefighter testimonials were released no explosions were heard prior to collapse, for example, how do you make that decision? Faith in your government?
|
No. Faith in common sense and basic science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
We can't have the answers obviously because for some reason the City of New York thought it was appropriate to remove the evidence and recycle most of it - though your suggestion that we "never will" is gratuitous and only serves to remove any consideration of a real investigation of the facts in the future...
|
I know where you are going with this, but it leads to a dead end. It's easy to distrust government, but its not easy to distrust science. I'm no scientist, but you know from when we were kids that science is my hobby (so is astro physics btw). I'm no architect, no engineer, no nothing. But neither are you. I can only base my opinions on common sense, and a little bit of science 101. I have never seen or read anything that contradicts anything I have seen to date.
Lots of people believe in ghosts, religion, astrology, UFO's, etc. I do not. Whenever I ask for proof of any of these things nothing plausible is ever offered. Same goes for the "controlled demolition of wtc".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Your belief that exposure to the government's theorized amount of heat caused the building/s to collapse is no more than a religious aspiration - purely belief-based without a shred of actual scientific confirmation.
|
NooooOOoOoo... that is you doing that, Greggy-poo....