|
highthief, in both the FEMA and NIST reports they include that they were not able to keep and study any of the material from the Twin Towers or WTC 7. The problem I am having is that there are different stories coming from differnt sources. The quote from the NY Daily was contradicted by CNN, but the message is the same: evidence destroyed.
Ustwo, I already addressed the Pop Mech article in another thread. I want to avoid double posting as much as possible.
Seaver, again, I have problems with the math because I get different stories from different sources. I do my best to get my info from reliable sources, but at the end of the day, very frew sources that are normally reliable have their facts straight. If people can provide sources and info, I'd appreciate it.
When I was referring to the perimeter aluminum not being melted, the heat may have been localized, but the smoke and heat from the fire burned out of the large openings made by the planes. If that fire was hot enough to melt the steel core in only a few hours, how was it not hot enough to show any effect on the aluminum, which has a much, much lower melting point?
If the largest amount of heat was at the crash point on the building, why did the top floor collapse first, and why did it collapse at near free fall speed? Was the steel so soft that it offered NO resistence?
Elphaba, yes, usually there are records about fuel and such, but access to that information is basically cut off (at least to me). I don't think 10,000 gallons could have brought down the building, espically in only a few hours.
|