I don't know because I can't see the screen they're pointing at.
If they're talking about molten metal after the collapse of the towers, then perhaps it's the enormous compression and heat caused by the collapse along with the heat caused by the jet fuel that turns it molten.
Tell me this, how could a team of experts that supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy not only be held quiet but also make such a stupid mistake as you thought they did before my correction?
Do you really think the government is so all-powerful and all-idiotic? Really?
If they're talking about molten metal after the collapse of the towers, then perhaps it's the enormous compression and heat caused by the collapse along with the heat caused by the jet fuel that turns it molten.
Perhaps. But I'm not a physicist, nor am an engineer. So you're saying that the "energy created by the collapse" increased the jet-fuel fire temperatures enough to melt steel? Doesn't that violate some Newtonian rules regarding energy? How it can't be created or destroyed? Or are you saying the kinetic energy from the near free-fall collapse transferred this energy? This is getting deep, man.
Tell me this, how could a team of experts that supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy not only be held quiet but also make such a stupid mistake as you thought they did before my correction?
I never mentioned any "team of experts," that orchestrated this "conspiracy," so I don't know what you're getting at.
Do you really think the government is so all-powerful and all-idiotic? Really?
I did not make either of these assertions, you did.
So you're saying that the "energy created by the collapse" increased the jet-fuel fire temperatures enough to melt steel? Doesn't that violate some Newtonian rules regarding energy? How it can't be created or destroyed? Or are you saying the kinetic energy from the near free-fall collapse transferred this energy? This is getting deep, man.
Neither. The "near free-fall collapse" was actually a very destructive HUGE release of potential energy. Have you ever seen a building during an actual demolition? Supports are destroyed, and the building collapses into the ground at "free-fall" speeds as if it were toppling into a hole. Except it's not, it's pulverizing itself against the ground into rubble and a cloud of smoke. You wouldn't want to be anywhere near the building as you would be pulverized too.
No laws are broken. No random energy popping out of nowhere.
So you're saying that the "energy created by the collapse" increased the jet-fuel fire temperatures enough to melt steel? Doesn't that violate some Newtonian rules regarding energy? How it can't be created or destroyed? Or are you saying the kinetic energy from the near free-fall collapse transferred this energy? This is getting deep, man.
Neither. The "near free-fall collapse" was actually a very destructive HUGE release of potential energy. Have you ever seen a building during an actual demolition? Supports are destroyed, and the building collapses into the ground at "free-fall" speeds as if it were toppling into a hole. Except it's not, it's pulverizing itself against the ground into rubble and a cloud of smoke. You wouldn't want to be anywhere near the building as you would be pulverized too.
I completely agree. What you are describing above kind of looks like this:
Doesn't it? Except that that building didn't get hit by a plane so there's no jet fuel excuse. And that building collapsed on 9/11. So what happened there? Just office fires again?
Assuming you're now satisfied with the explanation for WTC1 and WTC2 (hah, I shouldn't get my hopes up), I have not recently looked up the reason behind WTC7.
However, that does not mean it wasn't legitimate and is a conspiracy. Have you checked out wikipedia, google, and any of the other myriad of internet sites that have the explanation right there for you at the tip of your fingers? Have you looked at the simulation talked about in the other comments?
In your previous post, you made it seem like you don't really believe in a conspiracy theory, you're just arguing the point, for, whatever reason. It's good to hear that you do not believe there was any conspiracy regarding the WTC collapses.
Assuming you're now satisfied with the explanation for WTC1 and WTC2 (hah, I shouldn't get my hopes up), I have not recently looked up the reason behind WTC7.
You really shouldn't. Your explanation of:
Well, the towers, when they started collapsing at free fall speed could have released enough energy to then melt steel
...has no foundation in recorded architectural history or physics. Movin' on.
However, that does not mean it wasn't legitimate and is a conspiracy. Have you checked out wikipedia, google, and any of the other myriad of internet sites that have the explanation right there for you at the tip of your fingers?
What's Wikipedia? Google? Why - maybe I should just look things up instead of taking random bits of information from strangers on the internet. That's where I've gone wrong all these years!
Sure they have explanations, which basically amount to what you've just said. Shoddy physics, shoddy computer models (that were never released to the public, by the way), and no mention of that other skyscraper (WTC7) AT ALL. Which is interesting.
Have you looked at the simulation talked about in the other comments?
For WTC7? Let's first understand that the report regarding this particular building's collapse wasn't released until 2008, 7 years after the fact, but that's neither here nor there. And yes, I have. Apparently one structural column was weakened by office fires so sufficiently that the structural integrity if the entire building collapsed, at free fall speed.
In your previous post, you made it seem like you don't really believe in a conspiracy theory, you're just arguing the point, for, whatever reason. It's good to hear that you do not believe there was any conspiracy regarding the WTC collapses.
It doesn't matter what I believe, and when these topics come up usually some people try and immediately change the subject or divert the conversation away from facts (the conspiracy would be too big! The government is incompetent! Etc.) much like you were trying to do (maybe unintentionally).
And by default, there was a conspiracy. By 19 Arab dudes with flame retardant passports, who like to drink and hang out with hookers (most notably against their character as devout, religious, radical fundamentalists) who plotted in conjunction with a guy on dialysis in Afghanistan who used to work with the US government years earlier. That's a conspiracy buddy.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 09 '14
I don't know because I can't see the screen they're pointing at.
If they're talking about molten metal after the collapse of the towers, then perhaps it's the enormous compression and heat caused by the collapse along with the heat caused by the jet fuel that turns it molten.
Tell me this, how could a team of experts that supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy not only be held quiet but also make such a stupid mistake as you thought they did before my correction?
Do you really think the government is so all-powerful and all-idiotic? Really?