Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage
How much of that fuel was consumed during the initial explosion? By the looks of the impact...had to be most of it, no? That was a big fireball...
Don't really feel like rehashing 21 years of stuff...it's not like I haven't posted about this before. I'm sure one of our resident autists can pull up every one of my posts on the topic, like they always do at the drop of a hat.
|
No reason to rehash your points. I listened to a few of the conspiracy theorists who even had engineers pointing out things that they thought were questionable. I was about as impressed with the engineers knowledge as I would be of a career postman telling us how to read economic indicators. Never did any of them mention the heat they thought the fire could attain or the effects variable heat ranges have on steel.
Most of my working life has been around metal working, while mostly machining, I have done enough welding, and hot forming to know the effects of heat and stress on steel. Improperly stress relieved steel can start moving around with as little as 500F heated through and starts softening rapidly at 1000F+. I mention the rivets as they are the weakest link in the framing.
You also cannot thoroughly inspect beams without destroying them, also non destructive metal testing measures in 1973 aren't what they are today.
Those planes had flown 10% of their journeys when they hit the towers,
they were damn near full of fuel. No doubt a lot went up and out, but a lot drenched the inside of the building.
