LOUDER
Uploader Comments (rozeboosje)
All Comments (126)
-
@ysflightman In conclusion, I find the Al Quaida theory to be flawed. So flawed that the FBI has not charged Osama Bin Laden with the crime. Though he may be blamed for it, there is no conclusive evidence suggesting that he had ANY involvement.
The majority claim the theory as, I dare say, gospel. Discussing the governments stance on the subject and many people, including atheists, begin to argue like creationists.
-
Interesting. But oxygen and fuel are first mixed in the engine. The engine of course being comprised of titanium, hardened aluminum, and hardened steel. It is specifically designed to withstand high temperatures to produce thrust to propel the airplane. It does not burn either of the elements listed, nor do they lose any integrity.
Concering the "soft" steel beems, that you mention, they were tested during the construction of the buildings to withstand 2000* burns.
-
To continue... The damage caused by the collision of two airliners in New York led to the destruction of three buildings in a manner that many have described as "controlled." The third Tower to fall suffered moderate fire damage on multiple floors above the 8th. It burned for 8 hours without any attempt to suppress the fire. It came down in 6.5 seconds in a neatly compacted and disposable site. Questionable.
All of them came down similarly and symmetrically.
-
@ysflightman What is your belief on what happened on 911?
Four airplanes were hijacked and were slammed into buildings and Pennsylvania. No effort was made into downing EITHER plane knowing that one had collided with Tower 2. The alleged hijackers were trained to fly single-engined Cessnas (many instructors wouldn't let them fly again because they couldn't control the craft(s) in level flight) but managed to successfully commandeer 4 airliners and achieve 75% of their mission.
-
@ysflightman Yes, but is it possible that it, with other factors, rose to higher temps? Hell yes.
To finish, the building was on fire. The burning matter was trapped on those floors directly affected and fire didn't escape (except the lit jet fuel which you accepted burnt quickly) to the lower floors, benefitting the building(s). Now, as fire burns, the smoke generated escapes taking with it the mass of the burning matter. Which has the effect of cooling the fire and reducing mass.
-
@ysflightman Do you really think the Jet Fuel was the only thing burning? tHe only factor?
The fuel began a multi-floor office fire. Burning people, the airplane, fax machines, carpet, computers desks, chairs, and the ubiquitous potted plant. But concrete reinforced steel and drywall doesn't burn.
Did the Jet fuel burn quickly? Yes, but is it possible that it, with other factors, rose to higher temps? Hell yes.
Not necessarily. When fire burns it renders solid material into gas.
-
@katey1dog An example of Jet fuel burning at extremely high temps. In a fighter's after-buring section of the engines exhaust, raw fuel is dumped directly into the air exiting the engine, and ignited solely on the heat of the air. On it's own, the fuel burns at temperatures over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, hence the reason the nozzles in the afterburning section are ceramic, as most advanced metal alloys would soften to the point of structual failure. Now think about those 'soft' steel I-beams.
-
@katey1dog Yes, actually it is. "You are in agreeance." Do you really think the Jet Fuel was the only thing burning? tHe only factor? The jet fuel, the building's contents burning, the structural damage, and other factors had to do with the collapse of the towers. Did the Jet fuel burn quickly? Yes, but is it possible that it, with other factors, rose to higher temps? Hell yes. What is your belief on what happened on 911? You keep dodging that question. Some conspiracy theories right?
-
Agreeance? Is that even a word? Listen, the point is simple. FIRE is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Jet Fuel, being 3/5 kerosene, is a cool burning hydrocarbon which expended very quickly when the airplanes impacted. Is it enough to down two of the worlds LARGEST skyscrapers? I doubt it. Because FIRE is the ruling causal factor for the destruction of 3 buildings. Especially knowing that no other tall building prior to or since 9/11 have collapsed by fire similarly.
-
@katey1dog I meant they aren't enough, excuse me, typo, so, your 'agreeance' is a load of crap. Listen, point is, you act as though you believe 911 was an inside job, if you really believe this, or something similar, do the world a favor, go to a nut-house, and get a clue.
i guess justice is only for rich people.
FutileFreakX 3 years ago
Quite
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Because thats right where we are headed if we keep on with this "control"
jahnabahna 3 years ago
Thank you so much for commenting, especially because you say you are a Christian. I know there are plenty of Christians like you, but it's a pity that a bigoted minority amongst you manage to drown out the tolerant voices in the majority with their incessant noise. But I heard you loud and clear, and once again: thank you.
rozeboosje 3 years ago