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: X Y Zebra who wrote (5725)	3/19/2004 4:57:21 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

X Y Zebra, While most of what you say makes some sense, you're off on a couple of your statements. 1) Officially the WTC towers collapsed because of a failure in the connections between the floor slab trusses and the columns. Not, as you speculate, because of some failure of the central core columns. 2) Volatility of fuels -- Re: jet fuel is a very "explosive" fuel more so than regular gasoline, Nonsense. Jet fuel is very similar to kerosene. Gasoline is much more combustible and energetic than "jet A" or kerosene. Do a simple test. Pour a half a cup of gasoline on a bed of charcoal on your grill and notice your singed eyebrows when you attempt to light it. Now, try the same with kerosene. Notice that there is no big explosion, and the flame burns much more sootily.

To: X Y Zebra who wrote (5725)	3/19/2004 11:40:25 PM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

<<<It is my understanding that the NYC Chief fire marshal and his lieutenants were monitoring the temperature of the "core" of the towers and at a given point in time the math told them the buildings would collapse as they did... they probably did not think it would happen.>>> I would certainly be interested in knowing how you came to this understanding. There are an unholy number of articles available, from many different sources, related to the temperatures reached inside the towers, but the one thing they all have in common is they are pure speculation made in the absence of hard data. As I recall from transcripts released of fire department communications, firemen had climbed to within 2 floors of the point of impact, and reported no fires and no unusual amount of heat. They did however report explosions right before the tower came down on top of them. <<<jet fuel is a very "explosive" fuel more so than regular gasoline>>> I think Ray already covered that one. "Jet fuel" is kerosene and is far less volatile than gasoline. It's about the same stuff used in oil furnaces to heat homes. <<<The "height" at which the planes hit was the perfect one as it allow for sufficient supply of oxygen through the core to the burning fire... once the core collapsed, then the weight of floors above added to the destruction...>>> The only problem with your theory is you can watch the videos of the collapse and see that the top 30 floors had been completely turned to powder before the bottom 80 floors began to come down. If you have a mind capable of falling for the "pancake" theory, then what you would have seen is the top 30 floors pounding the lower 80 all the way down. That is NOT what happened. I'll refer you to this site again: home.comcast.net There are plenty of clips for you to download in case you want to test your theory against what actually happened.