|
JasperRenfree (October 10, 2008 at 7:45 pm)
What did I just post? Are you ignorant? I said the reports of molten steal are credible and plentiful.Johns Hopkins (enviro science team) on site!The Head of American structural engineering in his address to an annual meetingin 2002.Numerous archived FDNY accounts & UTube vids.Saying it ain't so is all the evidence you and the denialists need..The rest of us are looking at the evidence.
BoomBoom2055 (October 10, 2008 at 7:39 pm)
JasperRenfree No, you're mistaken because there's nothing that could've produced let alone maintained it in a molten liquified state. AT 1500F it was already melting the bootsoles of the people working there. 2500-2700F wouldn't have physically allowed them to work on the pile.
JasperRenfree (October 10, 2008 at 7:35 pm)
"There was no molten steel after the collapse. There was nothing that could've created it."What a steaming pile of crap! Credible reports of Molten steel are allover Utube with the FDNY.Its not like you even have to try.
BoomBoom2055 (October 10, 2008 at 7:27 pm)
21433H There was no molten steel after the collapse. There was nothing that could've created it, not kept it molten,liquified. Jetfuel burns 800-1500F. Steel weakens down to 50% at 1100F. The steel was softened by the extreme thereby causing the sagging of the truses that occured & the ensuing collapse.
bogieman987 (October 10, 2008 at 7:15 pm)
you know what it was a reply to your comment. i see what your doing your acting stupid to make me look wrong and stupid. the world could do with out people like you
bogieman987 (October 10, 2008 at 7:13 pm)
yeah but i do recall something about the elevater shaft being air tight so the fuel wouldnt even ignighted
21433H (October 10, 2008 at 7:12 pm)
but there was molten steel after the building collapsed. I'm confused as to how that could be if aviation fuel burns at a lower temp than that required to melt steel.
BoomBoom2055 (October 10, 2008 at 7:02 pm)
"We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel." Managing PartnerLeslie E Robertson Associates,RLLPdesigned itlera com/sep11 htm
unclesamsnephew666 (October 10, 2008 at 6:38 pm)
"yeah i know that"you know what?"but if the top bit"what bit? the top 12 floors of the N tower or the 30 floors of the S tower? are those the "bit"?"...fails and the bottom part has no fire therefore it cant fail and the tops should fall off the top"LOL! really? it can't? fascinating!tell me, how did you come up with this?was it by studying all the other 110 story buildings hit by airplanes?
unclesamsnephew666 (October 10, 2008 at 6:31 pm)
when jet fuel floods the elevator shafts, fire goes downward. you do recall hearing about the burned man on the elevator shortly after impact, right?but the airplane tearing through the inner core...think maybe that had some thing to do with it, too?or are you of the mind that the building was really 110 separate buildings completely independent of each other?how else to explain the wild assumption that nothing below the impact should be damaged? |
