Everyone must watch this video..

honeto wrote: 1-and that is my point. To determine all of that. Why there was haste in melting all of that. That is what these experts are asking.

Determine all of what?  We know why the plane crashed into the building.  Why on earth would we bother reconstructing it, even if we could?  And please, what do you mean by "haste"?  According to Wikipedia, the debris continued to burn for three months, and cleanup wasn't officially complete until the end of May, 2002.  If this had happened in the middle of your city, don't you think that would have been plenty long enough?

You used the words "melting", that is something you and I would believe the jet fuel would do, right. Not so the experts, who say the temperature with all that fuel burning would not even bend the metal let alone melting. See, you thought you knew that. It is for this reason it is necessary that we let the experts investigate what really happened. What was used that did the melting! Do you know?

"Melting" may not be technically correct, but steel loses much of its strength at high temperatures and certainly would (and obviously did) bend and warp under load.

2- That is my point, how did the firefighters knew that the building is going to go down.

According to the firefighters themselves, they knew because they could hear the building frame creaking and groaning under the stress.  What is your theory?  Did they all get text messages on their smart phones saying "clear out - we're detonating the charges now!"? 

According to experts in that field, there has never been a case where fire along brought down a high rise tower. Can you find a case of a modern building like this one that came down in a result of a fire?

No, I can't find a similar case.  Can you?  How many buildings of similar size have been struck by a Boeing 767 fully loaded with jet fuel?

In order to see their credentials, you asked, it is all in that video! In fact that is the most compelling part.

I asked you for your best example of an expert who supports your theory.  I'm not going to research forty different "experts", and I'm not going to pick one myself because you'll tell me he is a bad example.

http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/towers-collapse/

Edited by abuayisha - 03 October 2012 at 9:06am

Ron,
I thought of you as a person of reason and of one who sticks to facts and truth. I am disappointed. You somehow give me impression that you know more than the facts out there, do you? or simply you just have a belief and nothing can change it, neither facts nor even science.

1- Why was all the steel sent overseas to melt as it was picked up? Why was it not stored (even in an open land somewhere) because it was material from a crime scene. Why it was not treated as such?
You fail to give a satisfying answer to a valid question, and I hate to see your belief shaken that yes it is true that the protocol was not followed in this case and why? Your response is not as strong as your opposition to the question is.
About melting steel, it is pure science. All you have to do is to see when steel is soft, and at what temperature it can bend or melt. For some odd reason your theory does not match with science. That is the kind of issue the scientists in this video discuss, you refuse to know that fact or answer. Rather you take the naive approach, where it suits you.
Firefighters in this video talk also about explosions before building crumbled to the ground. So it is important to listen to all the conversation, and not cut it where is goes against your belief. Why are people afraid of the truth?

You mentioned you cannot find a similar case in response to my question. You added, "how many buildings are struck by a plane". There shows your lack of paying attention because you fear it will shake your belief. I never mentioned that building 7 was ever struck by a plane. My question was, in case of fire, how may times a building has fallen to the ground like this one? Oops!

You have not provided me credentials of experts, but I have, in that video you can see who is who pretty clear.
Hasan





Edited by honeto - 05 October 2012 at 12:58pm

schmikbob wrote: I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so willing to believe these wacko theories.� Very little research is all that is required to refute this stuff but people are so unwilling to do even that very little bit of work.� Maybe a little intrigue is what people are looking for.

Why did building 7 came down like a perfect demolition just because of fire is not a wacko theory but a valid question. To not listen to logical question of why something happened, you can call it whatever name you please!

To question if steel can melt with jet fuel alone is not a wacko theory but a valid question of science. Do you have the answer for that? or do you believe no one should question your belief?
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 05 October 2012 at 1:26pm