feather wrote:
Mike wrote:
feather wrote:
3 buildings, all impacted differently, yet all freefall collapsed?
The welder here needs a might of convincing that aircraft fuel burning in the atmosphere melted those H beams.
PNAC's world vision anticipated it would be a difficult sell to the US public, absent "a Pearl Harbour type event".
Months after they take office there is a "Pearl Harbour type event".
Precisely when this all happened the air defence for the area is off on an exercise leaving the area vulnerable.
I'm not even going near fucking death rays and devils.
I'm not going near the questions you ask, they've already been answered as far as I'm concerned, all i can really suggest is pose them to people on JREF or something?
Or you could inform me of the explanations which convinced you they had been definitively answered.
I tend not to focus on selectively chosen specifics, overall the conspiracy narrative is negative, it doesn't and cannot, provide any substantial positive truths about the events of that day, merely supposition and anti-government rhetoric.
This was a specifically good article on the events of that day however:
www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor.
Though the Boeing 767s airliners that hit the towers were somewhat larger than the Boeing 707 (maximum takeoff weights: 395,000 pounds versus 336,000 pounds) the structures were designed to resist, the planes carried a similarly sized fuel load as the older model—about 24,000 gallons versus 23,000 gallons, according to Kausel. "Most certainly," he continued, "no building has or will resist this kind of fire." The sprinkler system, which was probably compromised, would have been are useless against this kind of fire, he said, adding, "The World Trade Center towers performed admirably; they stood long enough for the majority of the people to be successfully evacuated."
?
