NYTimes/FEMA WTC Update (page 2)

SYN

Geesh, SixOfNine, I didn't mean to upset anybody.

[SYN], UADA - Unseen Apostate Directorate of Africa - For Great Justice!

I feel that when this many people die, we need to examine very carefully what happened. There are still many things we don't know about the WTC disaster, that need to be clarified before I can dismiss the conspiracy theories. Remember, they are just THEORIES - never have I said "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED". They are presented as something up for debate, and are just ideas really. Whether they are true or not is the question.

I haven't accused anyone of anything. All I've said is that there is a possibility of somebody trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and I won't rest easy until I figure out exactly what happened on that disastrous day.

OK, I exaggerated (SP?) when I said that the jumbo jets are flimsy lightweight items, I agree. What I really meant to say was, they are not made of rock, and are mostly hollow. This is just a factor - in fact I'm probably entirely wrong on this point. What this relates to is the amount of damage such a structure would have done after impacting those buildings at such a high speed.

Also, what total unmitigated fucking moronic crap is this, "That fuel would have evaporated so rapidly..."??
OK, OK, OK, it was uncalled for. But I felt that the Yahoo article was insulting to my intelligence, too. OOPS. Post in haste and ye shall reap the fruits thereof...

Also, who exactly are the "other people" doing the mental masturbation on boogey men pumping c02 into the 92 floor of the north building and 78th floor of the south building? What are the specifics of their speculation?
I wasn't saying that there were guys pumping O2 (not CO2, that would have KILLED the fire, not accelerated it) into those buildings. What I was trying to say is, steel has a very high melting point, and to reach that melting point, the kerosene would have had to be burning for one hell of a long time. Kerosene needs a very large amount of O2 to burn that hot for that long...other sources (although their authenticity is questionable, I admit) have reported that steel is very difficult to melt indeed, and it strikes me as something that needs to be investigated very carefully. Perhaps we'll never know what really happened to the WTC buildings. They might in fact have collapsed due to an entirely different set of stresses, some vital structures collapsing, anything. All I'm trying to do here is debate the validity of this statement that the guys in the Yahoo article make.

What is the consensus of structural engineers on the posted topic? Fire safety engineers? Airline crash investigators?
Well I thought the Yahoo article pretty much cleared that up...

*raises hand excitedly* I know, I know! So does my 10 year old daughter. The correct answer is "not much".
Care to elaborate? ((((SixOfNine)))) I'm not here to make enemies, I just needed to discuss this topic with intelligent people. What do you think of the Yahoo article? I make mistakes sometimes, especially when the words are flying off my fingers faster than I can check them Unlike certain other people tho, I don't edit my posts and erase my mistakes, I do admit to them and take the gaff from other people.

Probably there is NO CONSPIRACY. Probably. But as long as there is a probability of a conspiracy, I will continue searching for clues.

[SYN], UADA - Unseen Apostate Directorate of Africa - For Great Justice!

SixofNine

You play fast and loose with propoganda involving life and death matters, and you don't think you are going to "upset" an ex-jw?

Go back to that religion. You were made for it.

SYN

Sorry I upset you. Geesh. I apologize OK? This info (and stuff I wrote) can be taken however you want it.

[SYN], UADA - Unseen Apostate Directorate of Africa - For Great Justice!

Waygooder64

Like the saying goes " I may be paranoid but that don`t mean they are`nt after me"....

Xander

Here is the problem, in a nutshell....

The government wants us to believe (I don't know why) that explosives WERE NOT on the airliners. That the fires pulled the buildings down. (Had to be the fires, because neither building fell down directly as a result of the impact - the north tower managed to stay up almost 2 hours after impact).

The problem is (as explained here: http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=860 and several other sites) is that jet fuel, combined with the available combustibles, doesn't burn hot enough to melt the building cores.

Don't forget, either, back in 1945 a B-25 collided with the MUCH less advanced Empire State Building and that building is still standing today.

In short, something just doesn't add up. No one is saying anyone other than the terrorists are at fault. It just seems we aren't being told the entire story. Something ELSE happened up there.

A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
--George Santayana

SixofNine

I don't understand why you feel comfortable saying

The problem is (as explained here: http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=860 and several other sites) is that jet fuel, combined with the available combustibles, doesn't burn hot enough to melt the building cores.

??The problem is???

Why do you give credence to the "meme geek", but not this guy:

The steel and concrete structures performed amazingly well, said John Knapton, professor in structural engineering at Newcastle University, UK.
"I believe tens of thousands of lives have been saved by the structural integrity of the buildings," he told BBC News Online.
"They had a lot of their structure taken out, yet they remained intact for more than an hour, allowing thousands to escape."
But as fires raged in the towers, driven by aviation fuel, the steel cores in each building would have eventually reached 800C - hot enough to start buckling and collapsing.

The building was compremised, was it not, by having a jumbo jet slam into it a over 500mph?

In fact, I cant believe you really read this paper, or you wouldn't have posted it: http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=860

Did you read all the way down this yahoo's page? This dumbass conspiratist speculates that the footage we saw of the collapse was edited.

I don't think so, lol.

That same moron goes on to say what the steel columns "should" have done, but I want to know what a moron like that knows about what complex structures should or shouldn't do under incredible and unique stresses. From his writing, I think we can surmise, not much.

ChuckD

I can't understand why people are citing the high MELTING point of steel. No one contends that this fire MELTED the steel, just that it weakened it, causing it to fail.

And as far as the Empire State Building is concerned, that structure was built with a completely different structure than the WTC. It was also built at a time when no one knew very much about how tall a building COULD be, so the techniques used in its construction were several times more durable than what was needed. The Empire State and the Flatiron buildings are both built like ricks.

cd

ChuckD

I mean built like ROCKS. Rick may be well-built also, for all I know.

cd

SixofNine

Exactly Chuck.

I have seen some use of the word "melt" in credible sources, but I think it is merely a poor choice of words. Certainly the engineers, when saying "melt" don't mean that the steel turned liquid, or even that it had to become like hot cheese. It simply had to fail in a key place.

NYTimes/FEMA WTC Update

Share this