Unless someone was up there with a goddam thermometer, nobody knows what the temperature of the fire was. Especially since it could have varied widely all over the impact location.
The web is filled with jackasses on this subject. I looked. Like I said, a glutton for punishment. Ignoring the majority of the ignoramuses who believed that a fire would have to reach the melting temperature of steel for damage to occur, I find that most of them have, like you, seized on the car park chart, involving a few burning automobiles and maybe 100 gallons of gasoline, while ignoring many other studies actually done on skyscraper designs and more realistic fire scenarios.
I notice that neither you nor any of these other conspiracy nuts have addressed the biggest hole in the "demolition" argument, which is that someone would have had to plant hundreds if not thousands of pounds of high explosive onto dozens of major redundant structural elements of an inhabited building ahead of time, and plant them exactly where the airplanes were going to hit. That this is impossible apparently fazes you not in the least.
God...and all these people can vote...
Current Events » in reply to Structural steel and WTC burn temps
Geez, am I a glutton for punishment or what?
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