Skip to main content

Reply to "9/11 - The Anniversary, The Legacy"

quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Yes. I know that some people have suggested that the heat from the resulting fire could not possibly have reached the temperature required to actually melt the steel.

However, it would not be necessary for the steel to melt.

The only thing necessary is for the heat to sufficiently compromise the structural integrity of the frame. It doesn't require it to actually reach the melting point.


So how does one account for the still molten steel in the basement of the towers ... 4 days after the event. The "mainstream" academicians have avoided it; but the conspiracy theorist have discussed it at length.



Mainstream academicians according to whom? The conspiracy theorists? * Did you ask any mainstream academicians? *

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. I'm not. But when I referred to the non-necessity of the steel melting, I was referring only to the structural steel in the vicinity of the initial point of impact.

Who knows what types of secondary events (compatible with popular consensus) could have occurred after that point in time? I can imagine any number of factors that might possibly account for the phenomenon you mention beginning with

quote:

It would be like a domino effect. With each successive floor adding to the stress which was brought to bear on the remaining structure beneath. It would be like a shock wave rippling downward gathering strength as it progressed.


But I'm only speculating.

I just don't think Bush and Co. are that bright. They're ideologues who took advantage of events as they occurred.

My 2 cents.
Last edited {1}
×
×
×
×