Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
My point is that the "conspiracy theories" are the result of official government ineptness, duplicity, insincerity, and or, criminality....not...in spite of them. They aroused suspicions, because their "handling" of the investigation....smells.
|
You may be freighted to learn that I agree, well all but the ‘handling of the investigation....smells’ part. The government does botch investigations, they are fallible, this investigation should have started from day one, not waited, and it should be closer to being finished by now, if not finished. This still does not mean there was a cover up, just a slow government. A bureaucracy is slow to act on everything, but just because they are slow does not mean they are covering something up. Official reports take a great deal of time; they have to be reviewed time and time again. Look at the Kennedy assassination, they lost his brain, how the hell some one looses that escapes me, but I still don’t think there was a conspiracy, just a dumb intern
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
The problem with your theory, IMIO (in my ignorant opinion....) is that you have no way to measure how much of the energy that was generated from the fall of heavy debris from the upper reaches of the tall WTC 1 & 2 towers, was dissipated upon impact with the near ground surfaces, i.e., low buildings, multiple concrete decks and sub-surface structural levels that surrounded the towers' one acre footprints. Energy was also absorbed from upper floor debris, due to "pancaking" of floor upon floor....with floors undamaged by fire or impact from either "attacking airliner", offering the most energy absorbing resistance, since they were studier....harder to pancake.
|
Again your lack of physics, all the pan caking does not remove energy it only transforms the kinetic energy into a different form, in this case deformation, and heat (and a bit of sound, but that’s actually deformation), a great deal will go into heat, because there is no other place for it to go.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
WTC 7 was less than half the height of the twin towers and was comprised of much lighter core steel support members. It is documented that there were hot fires burning in it's contained, seperate debris field, for some weeks after 9/11. It is documented that competent, credible witnesses observed "vaporization" of structural steel from that building. It is documented that WTC 7 is the only steel framed building in history to collapse from fire damage and heavy but localized structural damage. The combined circumstances of the WTC 7 collapse, coupled with the persistent, post collapse, hot fires in it's footprint, and throughout the 16 acre WTC site, the reports of glowing and molten steel encountered in the debris, are enough to arose suspicion in an allegedly ignorant individual, such as I appear to be.
|
Again the lack of scientific knowledge in this field. A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. And that is exactly what we have here, please read:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html
As for the source of the sulfur, there are plenty of sources inside of an office building.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
When you add the clumsy BS on the U.S. State Dept. <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html">web page</a>...intended to rehabilitate WTC leaseholder Silverstein's video documented and unambiguous <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2059787&highlight=silverstein+pull#post2059787">statement of three years earlier....</a>
|
His statement meets the very definition of ambiguous, not unambiguous, by Saying ‘it’ his statement is ambiguous, he could be referring to anything, the building, the firefighting effort, his fly could be down
. He was referring to the firefighting effort, it was not worth it to continue, and it was hopeless. They watched it burn and eventually it collapsed, the video you show, splices the time so just after he said pull it, the building falls, blatantly misleading people.
Again I ask you to please read
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Call me ignorant...but something is going on that smacks of an official attempt to conceal the truth...the facts...about the WTC 7 collapse, from the American people.
Here are descriptions of the heat and the aftermath of energy absorbing impact of falling WTC debris: (Note the date....9 weeks after 9/11)
<b>Three "molten metal" references:</b>
|
Sorry this is anecdotal evidence, and we all know that the media spices things up to get ratings. Reporters know nothing about the structures and thus there report should hold no weight. For all intensive purposes there will be molten metal in any fire, what kind of metal is the important thing, it could have been copper (wires), lead (batteries), aluminum (everything), tin, nickel etc. As I already showed, the ‘evaporated steel’ is just the result of steel being heated in a sulfur rich environment that caused it to melt at a lower point than steel normally would.