Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The idea of the thermite came about after reports kept coming from ground zero of molten steel. Thermite could explain that level of heat.
|
But thermite has no reason to be there, it could not be used as the method of destruction, and there are other reasons that it could be that hot, and the exact temp of the aftermath is unknown, no one measured it, there was glowing metal, not motel metal and the type of metal is not known.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Faster than freefall speeds? Through magic, maybe. Relatively cool fires and crash damage towards the top of the building aren't going to bring down two of the best built buildings in history in under an hour and slightly over an hour.
|
Well again you say these are well built but they weren't, they were poorly build, they were designed to be built quickly, but had no redundancies, and the steel trusses are a major design flaw, especially when the fire proofing is stripped away.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
That aside for a moment, here's the biggest problem: you can't back this up without divolgung who you really are, and I'm not going to ask you to do that. I can say that I spoke to Porfessor Hawkings about the problem, and he blames alines, but it's meaningless without producing the person. The only real way to do this is to invite Professor Oppenheimer on to TFP so I can take him on head on. If I, a lowly psych major, can actually hold my own against someone of that calibur, it might be time to admit something fishy is going on.
|
I know, and its pointless to mention who we know, if I get his permission I will, but my point was we all know people, and there are allot of people while think there is a conspiracy, a large number of people, however, the more scientific knowledge you have, the less likely they are think it is a conspiracy, very few physicist think it was a conspiracy, but some still do,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
In which post did you show me undeniable evidence that airline fuel fires can bring down the WTC South tower in under an hour? I must have missed it. As I've stated several times, I have no idea about the thermite, but I do know how quickly that building fell and that it makes no sense.
|
Well that’s not quite what I said, I said that explosives were not used; you can see the outer support slowly giving way, in the pictures of this web page, all along the left side. And you can see that the bowing gets worse over time, until it eventually collapses. Now this webpage has some weird views on the cause of the terrorist acts, but pay attention to the parts about the buckling, and the pictures of the buckling.
http://www.representativepress.org/B...xplosives.html
it makes no sense that the outer walls would slowly bend and buckle, then explosives would be set off, why would it show signs of immanent collapse, then be destroyed by explosives.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ch'i
If he's reluctant on his name, just ask him for his category, speciality, and duties in the project. His age as well. That's all I'd need. A name would be preferable, however.
Which school do you attend/at which school does this man teach?
|
Oh yeah, forgot about you...
The school is tiny and by giving any one of these, he is easily identifiable, and so am i by my other post on this board.
As for his duties, specialties, and category, I’ll ask him next time I see him.