I got passed a really good essay today, written by a bunch of engineer teachers, all with PHds and what not, on why they can't believe that the towers fell like they did. They made some interesting points:
1. The temperature of the fire in the tower could only have reached 650 degrees, yet steel only melts at 2800 degrees.
2. The fuel in the aeroplanes would have burnt out after 10 minutes.
3. There have only been 3 incidents, ever, ever, ever of buildings falling straight down, without it have been an implosion. Those three were the 2 towers plus WTC7.
4. WTC7 fell in exactly the same way as the Twin Towers, despite have been neither hit by a plane, or having had any substantial fires.
Any comments, other than the 'you're talking shit!' kind?
No one is claiming that steel "melted". The claim is that the steal weakened, and temperatures do not have to be 2800 degrees F to weaken steel. Furthermore, the 650 degree number you quote is ridiculously low. NIST estimates put the temperature in some areas closer to 1800 degrees.
So? No one disagrees with that (except 10 minutes is the estimate, not the maximum), but obviously fires were raging in the building for much longer than 10 minutes. A match can't stay lit for more than 60 seconds, but that doesn't mean it can't ignite a fire that lasts for days.
And there have only been 2 buildings, ever, ever, ever where packed jetliners have crashed into them. Why would you seek precedent from the unprecedented?
The actual conditions of WTC7 following the collapse of the towers is largely unknown, as is the cause of its collapse.
EDIT: One other thing on this. Your above statement is not true. WTC7 did not fall "in exactly the same way". Each building that collapsed that day collapsed in a unique fashion. Research it.
ya from my understanding...steel just getting hot (really hot, like sustained fire after an impact), can be tempered.. so a snapping of the steel would cause it to drop not fall.
ya from my understanding...steel just getting hot (really hot, like sustained fire after an impact), can be tempered.. so a snapping of the steel would cause it to drop not fall.
i didn't hear anyone say the steel snapped. do you actually know what it means to TEMPER steel? tempering softens it. it brings down the level of hardness. this is why a hammer is tempered; so it doesn't shatter.
i didn't hear anyone say the steel snapped. do you actually know what it means to TEMPER steel? tempering softens it. it brings down the level of hardness. this is why a hammer is tempered; so it doesn't shatter.
i thought when steel gets hot...''it gets easier to manipulate''? when you temper steel or glass your making it harder??
so when the steel gets extremely hot..and can be adjusted.. this is tempering? or adjusting...simpler word..
i thought when steel gets hot...''it gets easier to manipulate''? when you temper steel or glass your making it harder??
so when the steel gets extremely hot..and can be adjusted.. this is tempering? or adjusting...simpler word..
check your dictionary good day
when you make a hammer; you'll harden the steel; then temper it so it doesn't shatter. tempering takes out the brittleness if you will.
steel doesn't have to get extreemely hot to bend it. nor to expand it. one of my companies makes rollers. we cool the inserts and heat the end of the tube to expand it. the insert is placed in the end and when the tube cools; the pieces are as strong as if they were welded together. our competitors inertia weld the 2 pieces together and they have failures. the high temperatures change the molecular composition of the steel itself.
my point is that there's a lot involved and if your not a metalurgist; you won't understand certain properties.
But why chance it? Furthermore, why not plant the WMDs in a hole 3 months ago? If these people are so evil genius to orchestrate or manipulate 9/11, I fail to see why they wouldn't do the same with Iraq.
b/c they never needed to before. look at the 80's-early 90's...we would be told someone was a threat, then later when that couldn't be proven it would turn to 'well we still took a bad man out of power adn liberated all these ppl!' no one cared that they couldn't prove panama was this great threat to our safety like daddy bush and cheney told us...instead of explaining it they just changed to what was changed about saddam...he was a bad man and we liberated his ppl...
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
b/c they never needed to before. look at the 80's-early 90's...we would be told someone was a threat, then later when that couldn't be proven it would turn to 'well we still took a bad man out of power adn liberated all these ppl!' no one cared that they couldn't prove panama was this great threat to our safety like daddy bush and cheney told us...instead of explaining it they just changed to what was changed about saddam...he was a bad man and we liberated his ppl...
You're comparing apples and oranges. The US didn't occupy Panama -- they didn't have to. Furthermore, the CIA's claims against Noreaga were basically correct, even though manipulated of course.
If all we had done was topple Saddam and then left, the situations would be comparable. But we're occupying that nation with the purpose of forcing a true democracy on it and US kids are dying in the process. That's where the backlash is coming from.
If WMDs had been found in Iraq, and if any substantial evidence of terrorist links had been found, the situation would be largely different. Support would still exist en masse for this effort and perhaps would be even higher than it was pre-war.
There would be distinct benefits to planting such evidence of WMD and terrorist links. If this administration has no qualms about staging a terrorist attack, I fail to see why the same behavior would not have applied in Iraq.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The US didn't occupy Panama -- they didn't have to. Furthermore, the CIA's claims against Noreaga were basically correct, even though manipulated of course.
If all we had done was topple Saddam and then left, the situations would be comparable. But we're occupying that nation with the purpose of forcing a true democracy on it and US kids are dying in the process. That's where the backlash is coming from.
If WMDs had been found in Iraq, and if any substantial evidence of terrorist links had been found, the situation would be largely different. Support would still exist en masse for this effort and perhaps would be even higher than it was pre-war.
There would be distinct benefits to planting such evidence of WMD and terrorist links. If this administration has no qualms about staging a terrorist attack, I fail to see why the same behavior would not have applied in Iraq.
it's also not comparable b/c in panama we already had puppets in place ready to take power. plus panama doesn't have natural resources to tap and protect
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
it's also not comparable b/c in panama we already had puppets in place ready to take power. plus panama doesn't have natural resources to tap and protect
Yep. And Panama also had no active insurgency funded by foreign entities and nations.
Comments
i'm pretty sure the 1st one fell east...
ya from my understanding...steel just getting hot (really hot, like sustained fire after an impact), can be tempered.. so a snapping of the steel would cause it to drop not fall.
i didn't hear anyone say the steel snapped. do you actually know what it means to TEMPER steel? tempering softens it. it brings down the level of hardness. this is why a hammer is tempered; so it doesn't shatter.
i thought when steel gets hot...''it gets easier to manipulate''? when you temper steel or glass your making it harder??
so when the steel gets extremely hot..and can be adjusted.. this is tempering? or adjusting...simpler word..
check your dictionary
when you make a hammer; you'll harden the steel; then temper it so it doesn't shatter. tempering takes out the brittleness if you will.
steel doesn't have to get extreemely hot to bend it. nor to expand it. one of my companies makes rollers. we cool the inserts and heat the end of the tube to expand it. the insert is placed in the end and when the tube cools; the pieces are as strong as if they were welded together. our competitors inertia weld the 2 pieces together and they have failures. the high temperatures change the molecular composition of the steel itself.
my point is that there's a lot involved and if your not a metalurgist; you won't understand certain properties.
b/c they never needed to before. look at the 80's-early 90's...we would be told someone was a threat, then later when that couldn't be proven it would turn to 'well we still took a bad man out of power adn liberated all these ppl!' no one cared that they couldn't prove panama was this great threat to our safety like daddy bush and cheney told us...instead of explaining it they just changed to what was changed about saddam...he was a bad man and we liberated his ppl...
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
You're comparing apples and oranges. The US didn't occupy Panama -- they didn't have to. Furthermore, the CIA's claims against Noreaga were basically correct, even though manipulated of course.
If all we had done was topple Saddam and then left, the situations would be comparable. But we're occupying that nation with the purpose of forcing a true democracy on it and US kids are dying in the process. That's where the backlash is coming from.
If WMDs had been found in Iraq, and if any substantial evidence of terrorist links had been found, the situation would be largely different. Support would still exist en masse for this effort and perhaps would be even higher than it was pre-war.
There would be distinct benefits to planting such evidence of WMD and terrorist links. If this administration has no qualms about staging a terrorist attack, I fail to see why the same behavior would not have applied in Iraq.
it's also not comparable b/c in panama we already had puppets in place ready to take power. plus panama doesn't have natural resources to tap and protect
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Yep. And Panama also had no active insurgency funded by foreign entities and nations.