See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC 7 is 9/11 Key
Source:
http://www.republic-news.org
URL Source: http://www.republic-news.org/archiv ... epub/154_kevin_potvin_9-11.htm
Published: Jan 9, 2007
Author: Kevin Potvin
Post Date: 2007-01-09 07:38:50 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 1047
Comments: 95
Current Issue • January 4 to January 18, 2007 • No 154 9-11 WTC 7 is 9/11 key Those who poo-poo alternative theories about 9-11 should adopt the methods of science and try to explain what happened to the building that was not hit by a plane By Kevin Potvin You decide how much it's worth to you: By Kevin Potvin We’ve just witnessed, if not participated in, a massive conspiracy. Tens of millions of people every winter conspire in a flat out lie to fool millions more of society’s most gullible members when they all agree to keep silent about the truth about Santa Clause. Sure, you're laughing, that’s a funny example of a conspiracy, but there it is: those who deny there could possibly be massive conspiracies involving thousands of people or even millions, are wrong. Hannah Arendt, among so many others, wrote about how the German people were swept up in a conspiracy of lies about how the Jews among them were not human, and so deserved to be exterminated. When professional standing, personal prestige, working incomes, even ordinary, seldom-examined personal belief systems, are at stake, millions will engage in the common telling of lies if they find it necessary to do so to sustain their place in life. According to authors like Arendt, they don't even necessarily know they are telling lies. The conspiracy of 9-11 and the related conspiracy of its cover-up can never be compared to either Santa Claus or to the Holocaust. But these examples can serve to show that many people can be involved in a conspiracy, that many can be motivated to do so by base, ordinary concerns, and that many may not even be consciously aware of their participation in a conspiracy. For obvious reasons, the realization and admission by anyone with official authority to speak on the matter that some arm of the US government was responsible for the crimes of 9-11 would involve so much destruction of belief systems, not to mention security, incomes, and reputations, that blind instinct dictates the official version be upheld. Popular Mechanics magazine some time ago published a special issue that purported to destroy all versions of events of 9-11 besides the official version. Last week, the editor of the magazine wrote a newspaper editorial documenting the results: hilarious and disturbing attacks on him and his magazine by the so-called conspiracy theory industry. But what if, after launching its investigation, the magazine’s editors found that 9-11 was in fact an inside job, and reported this. Where do you think the scientists who made that conclusion, and the magazine's editorial staff who reported it, would be today? When we see the level of vitriol leveled at any questioning of the official version of events that creeps into mainstream media, with accusations of anti-patriotism, treason, and anti-Semitism, it is no surprise few mainstream newspapers will touch 9-11 conspiracies. The lack of reporting on alternative versions of 9-11 in the mainstream press is no evidence of their weaknesses. If anything, the lack of mention of strong alternative theories, except to laugh at the least plausible of them, attests to their strengths. In a book called Hitler's Scientists, we find personal diaries where German scientists caught up in Third Reich politics express serious misgivings about their work, misgivings that were nowhere evident in their published work, some of it very crucial to horrifying medical experimentation, mass murder systems, and nuclear science the Nazis were carrying out. Scientists who were sure there was nothing but dangerous hubris to Nazi theories about racial intelligence and other pillars of Third Reich philosophy nonetheless signed off on published documents extolling the virtues of those "scientific" claims. This was not some backward savage place, but the leading educated and scientific nation on the planet. Those who ask, How is it all those engineers, metallurgists, physicists and material scientists who produced both the Popular Mechanics 9-11 issue, as well as the official US government 9-11 report, could get it all so fundamentally wrong, need only remind themselves of the broad popular, as well as corporate and scholarly support, the Nazi regime engineered in Germany. 9-11 is an event that registers nowhere on the scale of something like Nazi Germany and its Holocaust. But that is a fact that makes the 9-11 conspiracy an easier thing to imagine than Germany in the 1930s. The basic known facts of 9-11 need to be reviewed, beginning with the most beguiling of them all: World Trade Center building number seven fell straight down later on that fateful day but registers in mainstream media as almost a forgotten footnote. This building was the same square footage of one of the towers, half their height but twice their footprint. It was huge, one of the biggest buildings in the world, and it was not struck by a plane nor badly hit by debris from the falling towers. It may have had a diesel fire on its lowest floors, a fire that could never burn hot enough to make the steel frame of the building melt. Yet the building fell down as though every one of its steel columns, back to front and side to side in this massive building, melted and collapsed all at once. The official Congressional investigation, as well as Popular Mechanics, simply said of building seven's collapse that no known theory explains it, and moved on. The best explanation, assuming we wish to have at least one, is to theorize that it was brought down by controlled demolition. And that means it must have been pre-wired to be brought down, and who would or could do that but someone with regular access, such as members of the many US government overt and covert agencies that maintained offices in this very building? And of course, a plan and the means to bring down building seven presupposes foreknowledge of 9-11 as a whole, and foreknowledge means participation. It is the fate of building seven that has generated most of the legitimate questioning of the official version of events of 9-11, and it was that incessant questioning that lead to both the official Congressional investigation and the special issue of Popular Mechanics magazine. Yet both investigations, after clouding the issue with brain-numbing detailed examination of the fate of the two towers, completely passed over and ignored questions about building seven. Five-and-a-half years later, the controlled demolition theory still remains the best theory about why building seven collapsed. Every scientist always goes with the best theory available on any phenomenon, and never accepts no theory at all. Every good scientist does, anyway. You decide how much it's worth to you:
Poster Comment: The bottom line is no changes in skyscraper fire codes have been passed. Highrises would be upgraded and retro fitted if there was this dire flaw. Fire has never resulted in a complete collapse of a structual steel highrise. The steel used in these buildings is massive and the PSI ratings are from 36,000-100,000. There never has been even a failure of a single primary vertical girder. Ever.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-25) not displayed.
.
.
.
#26. To: Destro (#25)
not one time have I ever called you a disinfo agent or a shill.
Swarthyguy - you know what I see as the biggest difference between myself and I presume you as well and our fellow posters on this issue (I don't know YT that well so I won't include him but I remember Swarthy from Freerepublic)? While we discount the possibility of demolitions in conjunction with the plane crashes being the scenario behind 9/11 we are open to the possibility. But the other side is TOTALLY against all contrary opinions to their dogma. Rational inquiry does not work that way.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And I thank you for that (though I should not have to). .
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Surely an oversight !
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
We have ways of dealing with COBRA agents.
If that's the case, then why are steel components that are stress relieved carried to temperatures of 1200° F, and kept there for a minimum of 1 hour? That is the industry standard recognized as the time/temp necessary to relieve 90% of the internal stresses.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
FYI, Alex has Amira Woods, expert on Africa, particularly Somalia, as his guest right now. I thought you might be interested to hear it. http://www.infowars.com/listen.html
You're not even close. Try about 1200F.
But, even if the 500° F thing IS correct, then to facilitate the pancake theory would mean out of necessity the entire building reaching the necessary 500° temp. Otherwise, the fully intact integrity of the unheated steel would be sufficient to cause a slowing of the collapse upon impact with the resistance met at each subsequent floor. If you apply physics formulas to this scenario you'll find that there is no way to allow for even the most minute resistance at each subsequent floor and still have the entire collapse take place in the less than 11 second time frame in which they happened. Also, if this fire/heat causing the collapse is viable, then why did 4 remain standing? It was apparently hit harder by fire than either 1, 2, or 7: I know - it's because 4 didn't sustain the structural damage to go along with the fire... Well, I'd say 5 and 6 sustained plenty of structural damage, as well as fire, YET they BOTH remained standing: How much "fire" was in 5? You decide: And if the weight of part of the towers was enough to cause a "domino effect" and thus the entire collapse, then why didn't that weight and momentum take down 3: These seem to me to be rational questions, to which I have yet to see a rational answer.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
The 500-600F is wrong and a mis-print. Structual steel loses 50% of its strength at 600C or around 1100-1200 degrees. It still doesn't matter because even highrise fires such as Madrid had air temps of over 2000 and physical steel temps of over 1500. There are photos of the girders glowing. While some horizontal beams collapsed, no primary girders did, and certainly didn't explode into a complete collapsing heap. Weakened structual steel skyscrappers don't collapse, even uninsulated. The UL/NIST tests prove this. You are wasting your keystrokes. Myself and others have beaten this poster so badly in the past on this subject, he is still staggardly hanging around and posting nonsense.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Those are some good photos. 5 is a burnt out husk/shell. WTC 5 burned like a blow-torch. I don't see any wet noodle steel girders that collapsed.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
What does that have to do with 600degreesF needed to reduce steel to 75% of its strength?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Try about 1200F. I don't know what you are talking about facts wise - here is my source: "The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
No it does not, IMHO. Logic dictates that if a section of the steel frame fails in a building with that internal structure design then the building will collapse.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Prove it is a misprint. I showed you my link - you show me yours.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Just seems to me a little odd that it takes an additional 600° F on TOP of the first 600° F and keep that 1200° F temp for an hour just to relieve an additional 15% of the internal stresses in steel (and even higher temp/time for alloys). Something in this equation doesn't quite pan out... Look, you're saying the important questions concerning 9/11 are WHO and WHY. I'm inclined to agree with you on that. BUT, as long as there is viability in the "official story" concerning the collapses, then it can be argued that there is viability in the whole damned story. If you want to get the majority of people to "wake up" to the truth and question the why and who of the "official story", you first need to be able to show holes in the story. And the best way to get that process started is to show holes in the "official" collapse theory. The pictures I've posted here of 3, 4, 5, and 6 all seem to show very contradictory evidence to the "official collapse story". All I know for a certainty in my life is what I've personally witnessed and done. And my personal experiences dictate that those building collapses didn't happen for the reasons stated in the "official story".
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
http://good- times.webshots.com/photo/1433433334063851566drYzwk
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You have yet to provide a link so your claim can be authenticated - maybe you misunderstood?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Gremlins. That's your answer. Pyromaniac Gremlins.
#27. To: All, noone222, christine, innieway, YertleTurtle, Kamala, Swarthguy, Burkeman1 (#25)
#28. To: christine (#26)
not one time have I ever called you a disinfo agent or a shill
#29. To: christine (#26)
not one time have I ever called you a disinfo agent or a shill.
#30. To: Destro (#25)
am I a 'disinfo agent'? If so who do I work for? COBRA?
#31. To: Destro (#24)
Not really - as soon as the steel reaches the 500-600F degrees the strength of the steel beam is gone. heat is the deciding factor not time.
#32. To: Destro (#28)
#33. To: Destro (#24)
500-600F
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#34. To: Destro (#24)
as soon as the steel reaches the 500-600F degrees the strength of the steel beam is gone
#35. To: innieway (#31)
#36. To: innieway (#34)
#37. To: innieway (#31)
#38. To: Critter (#33)
500-600F You're not even close.
#39. To: innieway (#34)
But, even if the 500° F thing IS correct, then to facilitate the pancake theory would mean out of necessity the entire building reaching the necessary 500° temp.
#40. To: Kamala, innieway (#35)
The 500-600F is wrong and a mis-print. Structual steel loses 50% of its strength at 600C or around 1100-1200 degrees. It still doesn't matter because even highrise fires such as Madrid had air temps of over 2000 and physical steel temps of over 1500.
#41. To: Destro (#37)
What does that have to do with 600degreesF needed to reduce steel to 75% of its strength?
#42. To: Kamala, innieway (#36)
I don't see any wet noodle steel girders that collapsed.
#43. To: innieway (#41)
Just seems to me a little odd that it takes an additional 600° F on TOP of the first 600° F and keep that 1200° F temp
#44. To: innieway (#34)
These seem to me to be rational questions, to which I have yet to see a rational answer.
 | This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#45. To: Destro (#40) (Edited)
Anyone who thinks a finite amount of burning jet fuel would collapse these buildings in the manner the collapsed is either living in La La land, or has a vested interest in keeping the truth concealed. If the towers had pancaked, they would have fallen slower, not have been pulverized into concrete dust and gases that turned into roaring pyroclastic flows, and the strong structural steel in the cores of the building would have stood. This demolition was done with carefully placed charges that cut the steel and vaporized the very material of these buildings into super heated gas and dust. The Bush administration knew these attacks were coming and used them and the chaos and potential plausible denial they created to mask and to try to hide their work in indertaking this false flag operation. So, were you one of the men in the buildings 'rolling out new computer conduit' before the demolition? Were you one of the men creating the noise in vacant floors and spreading the light concrete dust on everything people coming to work noticed for the first time in the buildings histories the weeks before this power play was engaged? Just curious, mind you.
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#45) (Edited)
They will if a crashed airplane A) Weakens the superstructure of a building designed like that and B) the fuel fire caused subsidiary fires to burn on their own - evidenced by the fact that the rubble pile was still smoldering for days.
Anyone who thinks a finite amount of burning jet fuel would collapse these buildings in the manner the collapsed is either living in La La land, or has a vested interest in keeping the truth concealed.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#47. To: Ferret Mike, swarthyguy (#45)
Yea, you got me, it was I Destro and Cobra Commander working in tandem that day..... 9/11 truther thinking on display - 'nuff said.
So, were you one of the men in the buildings 'rolling out new computer conduit' before the demolition? Were you one of the men creating the noise in vacant floors and spreading the light concrete dust on everything people coming to work noticed for the first time in the buildings histories the weeks before this power play was engaged?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#48. To: Destro (#43)
You have yet to provide a link so your claim can be authenticated - maybe you misunderstood? My bad. I guess I did misunderstand, since this is what you said: Anyhow, here is a link to some engineering fundamentals...
Just seems to me a little odd that it takes an additional 600° F on TOP of the first 600° F and keep that 1200° F temp
What does that have to do with 600degreesF needed to reduce steel to 75% of its strength?
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
#49. To: Destro (#46)
Except all evidence is that all fire in the structures was lacking heat and oxygen and was nowhere near reacting the temperature range to cause these very well designed, over engineered with heavily redundant strenght buildings to collapse. The steel was cut at the bottom with charges before the charges were detonated in the upper parts of the buildings. There is just flat no way to get jet fuel and burning carpet and paper to pulverize a building so profoundly it turns to dust blowing out hundreds of feet from the building's foot print to fall as if there is no resistance to the collapse. If it was a chain reaction pancaking collapse of falling floors overwhelming the structure below them, the collapse would have been far slower, and the uneffected core steel structure would have still swayed in the air above the debris. There was too much of the sort of smoke generated by oxygen starvation and too many signs of abating heat and fire to believe the sort of 9 11 fairy tale you seem for some reason to be fond of.
"They will if they A) Weaken the superstructure of a building designed like that and B) the fuel fire caused subsidiary fires to burn on their own - evidenced by the fact that the rubble pile was still smoldering for days."
#50. To: Destro (#27)
IMO, the emphasis and obsession with the mechanics of the act detracts from the actual actors and their motivations. The real question is the level of US knowledge and culpability. 119 has transcended facts and is now in the realm of faith. One thing is for sure, apart from lively net discussions, out in the real world it's a non issue. Hell, I tried to engage some people last night in looking at what might be our pending attack on Iran. You can guess how far that got.
#51. To: swarthyguy (#50)
The destruction of the WTC complex center was a windfall finantially for the owners who faced huge bills upgrading and modernizing the place with no guarantees they would cure the vacancy problems. It was a win for those who wanted files and evidence destroyed in Building 7. It was a win for the Bush Administration with a president who believes there must be a limit to freedom and Americans must be tempered into a population accepting of war and conflict to extend American hegemony in the world at large. The explosions taking these buildings and so many lives was just so much an exercise of priming the pump with an event that would be the catalyst for the sort of change the henchmen conducting these operations wanted. That is the bottom lie; that Nine Eleven is undeniably and quite obviously and inside job.
#52. To: Destro (#41)
Rather than edit that reply, I chose to add to it in another reply. I didn't learn all the things I know getting it from "books". A good deal of what I've learned in my life is from personal experience. IF I had taken the "wisdom from the book" I would never have attempted to weld the diesel tanks without emptying or purging them. FACTS speak for themselves. And the FACTS are: This flies in the face of "doing it by the book". It also flies in the face of the diesel tank theory in 7. And my other real-life experiences (which I have noted in this thread) fly in the face of the whole official story of what caused those collapses.
All I know for a certainty in my life is what I've personally witnessed and done. And my personal experiences dictate that those building collapses didn't happen for the reasons stated in the "official story".
(1) I managed to weld and seal the holes in those tanks, and
(2) I am still alive to tell you that it can be done.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
#53. To: Ferret Mike, swarthyguy (#51)
I did not see Swarthy or myself doubt the connections between al-Qaeda and the black govt of the USA. In fact, Swarthy and myself implicitly implicate the US govt in the events around 9/11. But I do notice that if you don't buy into the collapse via demolition charges theory that you are giving the US govt a free pass. This disconnect in logic is why I thing the 9/11truther movement has gone from fact finding to presenting dogma as fact. PS: Judging from Bush's stunned silence and almost catatonic state in that classroom that day would it be acceptable to state that there is doubt he was in on it?
It was a win for the Bush Administration
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#54. To: Destro (#53) (Edited)
ROTFLMFAO! Stunned silence? He looked like he was doing as he was told to do, to carry on as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening. Judging by that incriminating lack of reaction, the lie he saw the collapse of a tower on commercial TV a day before it was actually on TV and the way they flew him around trying to hide him while he might still engage in inappropriate and incriminating behavior, I would say you are off the mark by allot. A husband reacting to the murder of his wife the way Bush took the news of 9 11 would have made him a prime suspect in her death. Bush should have reacted like all would expect such a man to react at the death of his wife and shown enotion and a commitment to getting into action immediately. The 'grown-ups' gave Smirk a simple assignment while they did the false flag op and he even screwed that up. That is the fact of the matter. Stunned silence? More like he was capible of another scene like Mike Moore used in his movie where Bush goes right into the statement, "watch this putt" immediately after hearing this news showing graphically how shallow this puppet at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue actually is.
"Judging from Bush's stunned silence and almost catatonic state in that classroom that day would it be acceptable to state that there is doubt he was in on it?"
#55. To: innieway (#52)
So the FDNY were being Chicken Little in calling the placement of the tanks there a pending disaster?
It also flies in the face of the diesel tank theory in 7.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
Make up your minds - is Bush a puppet or puppet master? I say puppet.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#57. To: Destro (#53) (Edited)
Lying is a dangerous game. There are too many veriables that work to undermine deception that is this complex and that has so many elements to it. There is no way the explosions that happened at ground and below ground level should have happened. Physics is a science that makes nonsense out of the delayed as in a vacuum fall of building seven and the documented facts known about the fall of the twin towers. The fairy tale is debunked, ok? Get over it. It is only standing now because of momentum and that is aided by the unspeakable horror in the ramifications involved with people in power being capible of such acts. The science investigated and written about is undeniable. 9 11 is an inside job, and our critical task is to pierce the veil of people hanging on to the implausible notion that it wasn't because of the ramifications of that being so. They know that the longer it takes to accomplish this, the easier it is for them to escape punishment and accountibility for their actions in conducting these false flag operations. Time gives them the opening to try to block and hide enough of the facts concerning who what where and why of who did this to preserve the integrity of the shadow government that did this and other nasty things like murder JFK. I predict that the Internet and other tools that gave unexpected windfalls to rallying researchers and activists with their facts and evidence together quickly enough and with damning force to pierce this deception as well as it has been pierced will be attacked to try to neutralize this advantage. To these people the lesson learned was not that what they did was evil, criminal or wrong, but that certain things must be bullied, suppressed and destroyed to make the next operation far more seamless with far better plausible denial in it to protect the guilty better.
"But I do notice that if you don't buy into the collapse via demolition charges theory that you are giving the US govt a free pass."
#58. To: Destro (#56)
What do you mean? He is a puppet, but one who is allowed to believe he controlled his own strings and destiny. If this were not so, he would not be motivated enough in his task of being a puppet to be a good one.
"Make up your minds - is Bush a puppet or puppet master? I say puppet."
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
From what I saw from the classroom video Bush looked like he was blindsided. If not blindsided by 9/11 then by the scale.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#60. To: Destro (#59)
Nah, he looked like he was hearing what he expected to hear. The only time I've seen him caught off guard was when he was asked in a Rose Garden press conference about the 9 11 conspiracy question and he kept repeating himself about there, "is a time for politics" and seemed to suffer from a thousand yard stare one would expect someone feeling some guilt would have when caught off guard. Not only that, why oh why would he lie about seeing a TV with a commercial broadcast showing a tower collapsing when the only way he could have done so in that time frame is if it was later viewing footage from cameras prepositioned by those who did this? He sure can't keep his facts straight, can he?
"From what I saw from the classroom video Bush looked like he was blindsided. If not blindsided by 9/11 then by the scale."
#61. To: Destro (#38)
The correct temperature should be 500c to 600c. If you're basing your argument on that much lower temperature, and if my providing proof that it is wrong will help you see the light, I will find the proof.
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#62. To: Destro (#55)
Depends on how they defined disaster. I deisel fire in a fully occupied office building could be a disaster, yes. But the threat to life would not have been from collapse, but from heat and smoke.
So the FDNY were being Chicken Little in calling the placement of the tanks there a pending disaster?
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#63. To: Destro (#24)
so let me get this straight, I can put my turkey in a 165 degree oven for an hour and dinner is done? Come on schmuck, you are being more ignorant than your usual self. Even if heating it to 600 degrees could weaken the steal sufficiently enough to collapse the building, that would mean that all of the steel supports would have had to been heated to 600 degrees THROUGH AND THROUGH This would take TIME. Look at the turkey, to cook it thoroughly, it must reach an internal temp of 165. That means that you cook it in an oven at a minimum of 325 for many hours In order to heat the steel to a weakened temp of 600 degrees, you would need a fire much hotter than the desired temp, the cooler the temp, the more time it would take for that heat to get the steel to that dangerous temp. Just as with a turkey, you are cooking it at an average minimum of double the desired safe eating temperature for hours until the deepest tissue of the bird reaches that safe eating temperature. It would take TIME for this steel to reach this weakened state, and it would have to happen in all of the floors of BOTH the towers in order for the rubble to be nothing but a mangled melted mess. Just for a good laugh, I would LOVE to hear your explanation of the molten metal in the basement
as soon as the steel reaches the 500-600F degrees the strength of the steel beam is gone. heat is the deciding factor not time.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#64. To: Destro (#25)
This from the MOST closed-minded individual I have had the opportunity to converse with on this forum?!?!?!
This closed minded thinking is disturbing to me.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#65. To: ladybug (#63)
Listen, Yid speaker - I don't insult you using Yiddish so don't insult me back with that language. It depends on the thickness of the steel - the thicker the steel or the thicker the insulation the slower it heats to the critical temperature. If a chair has four legs and you cut off one leg can you sit on it without falling over? Especially if you are heavy?
Come on schmuck, you are being more ignorant than your usual self. Even if heating it to 600 degrees could weaken the steal sufficiently enough to collapse the building, that would mean that all of the steel supports would have had to been heated to 600 degrees THROUGH AND THROUGH This would take TIME.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#66. To: ladybug, noone222, swarthyguy (#64)
Not really. I don't try and avoid people I disagree with - I like hearing other views. Even debating other views. Close minded to me has to do with people not wanting to hear other opinions or have their views challenged. I welcome challenges to my views. I find it intellectually stimulating. The person that suggested I be placed on ignore because I disagree on this point are the types that are close minded - wanting only to hear views that match their own - very George Bush like thinking don't you think?
This from the MOST closed-minded individual I have had the opportunity to converse with on this forum?!?!?!
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
.
.
.
Comments (67 - 95) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest