|
|
|
|
WTC Conspirators are Confused
The repetitious suggestions from some that it was impossible that the WTC Towers were brought down by the planes that
crashed into them, and that secondary explosions were necessary are pretty annoying. Specifically, the repetitious
suggestions from pseudo-scientists that are hardly respected in their field and are eager to put their name on any
conspiracy theory in hopes of receiving some notoriety. Well folks, here it is the truth about why the claims from
these conspirators are wrong!
I will focus on the three most repetitious arguments and point out why they are just plain wrong. Let's start with
the "no building has ever collapsed from a fire" argument. The argument is used to suggest that the reason buildings
don't collapse from fires is that the temperatures from the fire are not sufficient to effect steel. The problem with
this argument is that the comparisons are made with fires that were propelled by entirely different substances with far
less chemical energy! Some of the specific examples are fires in office buildings that were not fueled by anything other
than typical office supplies. Further, these buildings are exclaimed to have been on fire for far longer than the WTC
and they still didn't collapse. The reason is that fires that burn paper, plastic, and typical low yield substances
such as what is found in offices will not reach nearly the temperatures of that of jet fuel. The reason no other
building has collapsed from fire is because no other building had the jet fuel propelling the fire.
Next, let's talk about the "the Sears Tower got hit by a plane in the 1950s and it didn't collapse" argument. The
absurdity of the comparison really is staggering and any real scientist that was objective would not even present
such a comparison as evidence of anything. Why? The plane that crashed into the Sears Tower was a single prop plane
that weighed a fraction of what a 767 weighs, was traveling at about 80mph as opposed to nearly 400 mph, and carried
only a fraction of the fuel of the 767. The comparison is the same as comparing a Mazda miata to a tanker truck.
Finally, "the temperature of a jet fuel fire isn't high enough to melt steel" is the most often used claim by
conspirators. What is sad is that the people making the claim range from pseudo-scientists that provide extensive
equations that prove that a jet fuel fire can only sustain around 1000 to 1500 degree temperatures while steel melts at around
2700, to people that don't even know what melting point means but know how to repeat what they have heard, think
Rosie O'Donnell. This argument is so pathetic and once again a real scientist with an objective view wouldn't
even attempt to use it. First, metal weakens far before it melts, however you won't see any equations demonstrating
the strength of steel drop off rate with increase in temperature from these conspirators. The steel in the WTC Towers
didn't have to melt for the buildings to collapse; they just had to weaken just enough to not be able to hold the
weight of the building. Further, any molten steel found at the site was post collapse. Once the buildings, which
were still blazing collapsed into a pile of rumble, it insulated the fire and acted as a kiln. The conspirators
should explain how they think the stone aged occurred if they deny these claims.
If you aren't sure what to believe than do the following: find a piece of metal about a foot long that you can't bend.
Find yourself a pair of insulated gloves, heat the metal in a fire and then wearing the gloves try to bend it again,
you will feel like superman!
|
|
|
|
