they said the jet fuel burned hot enough to melt the steel in the twin towers.

Question:
how hot does jet fuel burn in a building with a big hole in the side of it?

Choices:
500 degree
1000 degree

 

No scientist, engineer, or investigator has ever claimed that the steel support beams of the WTC melted from the fire. The heat of the fire did soften the steel that was exposed by the crash, making it more bendy and unable to support the full weight of the floors above. This happens long before the steel turns to liquid. This whole steel-melting argument is a strawman that the conspiracy theorists bring up every time in order to support their fantasies.

The mythbusters have said they will never do 9/11 myths because they are too emotionally and politically sensitive.

Quite right Jaap - on both points.

Jet fuel maximum burning temp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

Steel melts at around 1370 degrees C

Only hot enough to soften

OK, basic 1st grade math question. Car A traveling 60 miles per hour rear ends car B, which is sitting in neutral. The speed of Car A immediately becomes:

A: 60mph
B: Less than 60mph
C: more than 60mph

and the speed of Car B becomes

A: 0mph
B: more than 0mph
C: traveling in reverse

In case you don't see where I'm going with this, I'll just tell you. The official story of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is this: The planes hit the tower, damaging about 20-30 perimeter columns, and damaging the fire protection on the core columns, leaving them susceptible to the primary cause of collapse, the fuel fire. Jet fuel, (which burns at about 560Fº) Weakens the steel, (which loses about 60% of its structural integrity at 600Fº) which causes a collapse of the top 30 or so floors, which causes a chain reaction collapse of the remaining 80+ floors. Here's my question... How, in a chain reaction, can the top floor, (dimensions 208ft x 208ft x ~12ft avg per floor) projected surface area 43264 m^2 with a mass of 4.091x10^6 kg hit the ground from 1362 feet in 9.67 seconds, the exact same amount of time it would hit at free fall with a drag coefficient of .1 (no wind resistance)..

The answer? it was being pulled down by the floors below it, not being slowed by the floors below it. The official story is impossible. It was a controlled demolition, and if the basic math isn't enough for you, they also found pools of MOLTEN steel and traces of THERMATE(Thermate is a patented form of thermite with an increased sulfur content, used in controlled demolition.)

Don't believe everything you hear.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Michael L Lawson,

1st grade math assumes that the cars are rigid. Real life says otherwise. Same applies with the rest of your argument.

you guys are missing his point.... the twin towers came down at FREE FALL SPEED. and a little more 1st grade logic here for you.....

Free fall speed means an object is falling while encountering no resistance from anything but wind, now how the hell does all that mass fall through floors of reinforced steel at the bottom " which has NOT been weakened" at free fall speed while encountering no resistance from those bottom floors?

ohhh yeeaah , tower 7 also fell to the ground
" at free fall speed" and it was never even hit by a plane?!?!! haha come on people wake up and look at the evidence, its in plane sight. those 3 building were the first 3 buildings in history to fall from a fire and coincidentally they all fell at the same exact rate as a demolition ? and you still believe otherwise? no wonder the rest of the world views Americans as being "dumb"

I love America, and i am not a conspiracy theorist , but i know bull**** when i see it, and the point we are all trying to make it that the official story our own Government is telling us does not add up, and they refuse to answer questions that concerned American citizens are asking.

If there was nothing suspicious about their story on the plane flying into the pentagon then why wont they relase any of the 20+ videos cameras from surrounding areas that would have clearly filmed the plane hitting the building? if it was a plane then just release a tape of the plane hitting it. that simple....

people who dont answer questions are those who are hiding something, and those who are hiding something do not want to get caught, those who do not want to get caught know they are the real criminals.

quote:

i am not a conspiracy theorist , but i know bull**** when i see it

2 mutually exclusive statements in one sentence, possibly both equally inaccurate.

I make 9.5 seconds of free fall to be about 1700 feet. (32 feet per second per second). Lots of mass falling down the outside at free air speeds, huge clouds of dust raised, did anybody have x-ray vision to be able to see exactly when that upper floor debris finished its plunge through the lower floors? Thought not.

As the mythbusters will not, as previously stated, be doing anything on this subject, it might be best to find a political site, rather than a light entertainment site. When I first started looking here this was a UK site, it appears to have been merged into an international one. Its only the sites that have merged, not the governments. You have a problem with YOUR government, we have our own problems with ours which we do not expect you to fix. You guys decided back in the 1770's that the two were not the same. Lets keep it that way.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MalcolmF,