Ass Hat
Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls
  
  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food
  
  New Thread
  New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
End Ass Hat
login

New site? Maybe some day.
Username:
SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Message:


UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u  add: url  image  video(?)
: post by DEATH2ALL at 2007-09-10 21:30:44
PatMeebles said:
Also, when the planes hit the WTC, do you really think the liquid fuel just stayed in one place? The fuel went down vents and utility shafts, setting everything around in on fire, therefore making more fire and a higher temperature.

Also, technically the WTC did take the impact of the plane. It did stand for a while before finally collapsing due to a loss in structural integrity. The titanic was designed to withstand an iceberg. Designers make mistakes, too (or are unable to deal with all the factors, like an UNcontained fire).


Nobody said the fuel stayed in 1 place. But actually had it stayed in 1 place it would support your theory 100%. The "collapses" started at the point of impact. You're going against the facts you're trying to support.

To compare the Titanic to the WTC is like comparing a TV to a microwave.
[default homepage] [print][4:34:42am Apr 24,2024
load time 0.00705 secs/10 queries]
[search][refresh page]