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 2007-09-11 00:11:52
PatMeebles said:
DEATH2ALL said:
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.


Actually, what you said is completely asinine, because burning fuel moving doesn't make a collapse less likely. It spreads the fire. You think that when burning fuel moves, the fire stays with it while leaving the building completely untouched? In case you hadn't noticed, office buildings tend to have a lot of wood, paper, and other combustibles. And considering the planes each had more than enough fuel for 6 hours of flying, there was plenty of fuel to go around.

And while the comparison was somewhat silly, you should still know that I have a point when I say that scientists can't always account for every scenario when designing something.


The only thing you just said that makes any sense at all, is that office buildings tend to have a lot of paper & other combustibles. Most office buildings and in this case skyscrapers, don't have any wood. They're built with steel & concrete as the structural components. Any inner walls are built with drywall & alluminum studs & serve no structural support purpose.
Do you agree that the collapse started at the point of impact? If so, the more fuel burning in that area, the greater the chance of a collapse due to fire weakening steel. More heat = weaker steel. It aint brain surgury, it's simple physics. Who cares if the fire spread, it doesn't back up the "pancake theory", it goes against it. In the NIST Report, the tests done by NIST & UL to recreate the same scenario, (fire weakening steel- using the same materials), showed that sufficient heat was not possible. So then they have to say that the structural steel used in the buildings was "flawed", even though it was approved by UL. This is a joke.
As far as this.... "You think that when burning fuel moves, the fire stays with it while leaving the building completely untouched?" Um.... No. When did I say that? What does that have to do with anything, if the collapse began @ the point of impact?
[default homepage] [print][7:51:59pm Mar 28,2024
load time 0.01126 secs/10 queries]
[search][refresh page]