Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Andy Thomas who wrote (5683)	3/17/2004 11:56:13 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20039

The tale that that fire could not have weakened the steel sufficiently to cause collapse has been endlessly repeated on this site and others. And they are flat out WRONG. I've have also checked the relevant figures in those links with an antique ( more than 30 years old) copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and it is in good agreement. fanatics visiting a titty bar the night before and leaving a koran about... a car filled with korans and flight manuals... a passport found intact from one of the on-plane hijackers... 2 blocks from wtc... really ad naseum... Document that. I documented my claims. But what does it mean in any case? The buildings clearly were hit by large commercial jets. and the so-called 'opposition' to bush What does that mean? i think it would be hilarious if we stuck with bush and turned into a theocracy led by pat robertson style phreaks... maybe we can all be moonies at some point... I don't believe for a minute that will happen, but if it does, I'll be on YOUR side of the barricades. There's an election in 7 months. It will be held. If Bush loses, he will go. If he wins, he goes in '08.

To: Andy Thomas who wrote (5683)	3/18/2004 3:41:14 AM
From: Don Earl	Respond to of 20039

I think most of these have been posted in the past. This one is kind of interesting in that it points out that the steel did actually melt, which would require temperatures above 1500C, which kerosene can't possibly produce. For those of us who get tired of cranks doing name calling, you've just gotta love the theory where acid rain provided enough sulfur to cause the steel inside the building to melt at lower temperatures. wpi.edu While a lot of the stuff on this site starts looking redundant after awhile, there is a great photo of The First Interstate Bank skyscraper fire in 1988. utopiax.org This one has some good data toward the bottom on actual tests conducted for fuel fire temperatures. public-action.com There are plenty of official theories available online, and most of them are flat out absurd. No two of those sort of "experts" can agree on the same theory, and in spite of their degrees, most of them seem to be making stuff up as they go along. Try a search for "WTC melted steel", you'll get a bit of everything, but the "official" versions would be almost funny if they weren't so sad. Some of the things we do know is there was melted steel where there shouldn't have been. The fires probably didn't get hot enough to seriously compromise the design strength of the steel, let alone melt it. Fire fighters reported smoke on every other floor on the lower levels, and the box columns spanned several floors, which suggests something was burning its way through the columns, causing hot spots on the way down. There's a ton of video evidence showing the demolition charges going off, not to mention tons of eyewitness reports of seeing and hearing the explosions. The video evidence shows the towers didn't "pancake", the upper floors were turned to powder before the lower floors began to collapse. <<<the manner in which the buildings collapsed looked funny to me>>> Indeed.