That makes no sense, and is not in accord with a televised interview I saw with one of the principal design engineers whose exact words were "...a fully fueled 707."
It would be absurd to think that a plane might blunder into the towers at the end of a flight, and not at the beginning, and that design engineers would not figure both contingencies into their design considerations.
Almost everyone has bought into the specious argument that it was the burning fuel, not the energy of the impacting jets, which brought the towers down. But jet fuel is essentially kerosene, incapable of sustaining burn termperatures much beyond 800C, according to data I've seen.
If kerosene were so good at melting structural steel, we might expect that steelworkers would be using kerosene torches in their work, rather than the acetylene torches which are actually employed.
In any event, most of the fuel from the second impact was consumed in the huge fireball -outside the tower - plainly evident in videos of the horror.
And in the case of the first tower strike, suppressed audio communications indicate that firefighters had reached the area of impact, and were proceeding normally to extinguish the blaze.
Furthermore, the thick black smoke pouring from both towers is a clear signature of an oxygen-starved fire, and that should tell us quite clearly that the temperatures of the fires in both towers were not of adequate intensity to have caused the carnage attributed to them.
In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, an authority on controlled demolitions, A Mr. Val Romero, went on record stating that the collapse of the towers bore all the characteristics of a controlled-demolition. His comments were published in an Albuquerque newspaper. A week or so later, the paper published a retraction from our Mr. Romero.
The towers collapsed straight down as if in free-fall. In both cases, it was over in seconds, a fact which hardly jibes with the bogus theory of pancaking floors.
And then there are the numerous reports of explosions in the towers, and that troubling story of the celebrating Israelis and their suspect van.
Finally, the seismic record bears the signatures of the explosions which doomed the stricken towers, in the form of sharp spikes immediately prior to their rapid collapse.
That's enough for now. I'll try to re-visit this issue again later. In the meanwhile, you might want to read Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics for additional background on some of these questions.
Thanks for your comments
sp
Current Events » in reply to Oh ya
Towers of Deceit
The whole thread (56 posts)
- What we know, and don't know, about 911
- Re: Item 8 -- slight revision
- Oh ya
- Towers of Deceit
- P.S. Note the mental impermeability displayed here
- Speaking as someone who actually knows something about structural steel...
- Name correction and Romero link
- Towering Deceit is a gret name for what the wackjobs have done to lie about 911.
- Thanks Tom
- Thanks (n/t)
- Towers of Deceit
- Re: What we know, and don't know, about 911
- Re: What we know, and don't know, about X-mas
- You post this even though you know you are wrong.
- Re: What we know, and don't know, about 911
- Re: What you don't know about 911
