If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in
: Alan Minyard wrote in : On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:31:30 -0500, kirill wrote: just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions of Pentagon missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse: http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715 Michael To anyone who is even slightly familiar with the construction of the towers the symmetry of the collapse was quite predictable, given the damage they sustained. These conspio-whacko theories are simply ridiculous. I agree, but the secrecy, misinformation and almost complete absence of any thorough fullscale investigation into the attacks and the physics behind collapse of the buildings to me is disturbing, and seems precisely why conspiricy theories are allowed to flourish. After reading through much of the updates on the current NIST investigation I need to retract part of that statement. A new technical progress report based on substantial scrutiny of the disaster is out in a short while, it will surely address many of the conspiracy allegations with new and much more solid data. http://wtc.nist.gov/ Regards... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
Mark and Kim Smith wrote in : Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building were built before they start coming up with these dumb theories. Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion when the airplane impacted? Regards... No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen. Al Minyard |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote in
: On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: Mark and Kim Smith wrote in : Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building were built before they start coming up with these dumb theories. Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion when the airplane impacted? Regards... No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen. Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not most, of the fuel burned up on the outside? Regards... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before and none has ever caused any collapse. None have ever been hit by an aircraft of that size, with that much fuel on board before. Pete |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote: To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before and none has ever caused any collapse. Nothing like this, especially with a start of a few thousand pounds of a major accelerant *plus* major physical damage to the building as the fire started. The closest we've seen was the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building, and that was an order of magnitude less serious to begin with. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ... To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before and none has ever caused any collapse. None of the those fires involved major damage to the structure before the fire and had several flloors burning simultaneoulsy. The WTC could have survided either the impact or the fire, what it couldnt handle was both. Keith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:37:33 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
(B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571 : From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen. Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not most, of the fuel burned up on the outside? Regards... That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have been generated if all the fuel burned at once. Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time. Well, according to sources I've read most of the fuel burnt up or evaporated in less than a minute. A few minutes at most. To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before and none has ever caused any collapse. Regards... Incorrect, their have been several collapses in high-rise fires, and remember that these buildings were struck by jumbo jets. That has never happened to a high-rise before. Al Minyard |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message ... (B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571 @mb-m15.aol.com: From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen. Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not most, of the fuel burned up on the outside? Regards... That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have been generated if all the fuel burned at once. Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time. Well, according to sources I've read most of the fuel burnt up or evaporated in less than a minute. A few minutes at most. To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before and none has ever caused any collapse. And how many of those fires were caused by the violent introduction of thousands of gallons of flaming jet fuel? And while you're looking that up, please tell us how many of the other building fires were in buildings built like the Twin Towers? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
turbo video | Peter Holm | Aerobatics | 13 | September 29th 04 11:31 PM |
Aviation Video: Another F-16 bites the dust | Iwan Bogels | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | September 21st 04 07:02 AM |
In-Flight Video | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 11 | May 16th 04 06:11 AM |
twin tail questions | Kevin Horton | Home Built | 12 | January 2nd 04 03:21 PM |
SR-71 Video | Dave Jones | Military Aviation | 0 | November 10th 03 08:00 PM |