Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us Event
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CV355" data-source="post: 16253499" data-attributes="member: 181885"><p>True. Virtually all material factors are affected by heat absorption. The problem is, heat energy transfers similar to a fluid, especially when a fluid/fluids are the conveying medium for convection or conduction. Point being, it's localized, and air gaps are horribly inefficient at thermal transfer. Beams weakened by the impact and resulting heat would certainly collapse under the weight of the stories above. Also, it's not like the 747 was the only fuel- anything flammable became fuel. </p><p></p><p>Here are the parts I've never seen a good answer for:</p><p>1) Freefall speed on both towers and WTC7 from "thermal weakening"</p><p>2) Visible detonations identical to squib blasts for thermite charges</p><p>3) Molten material seen pouring from windows in a completely orthogonal fashion, far distant from the impact location</p><p>4) Reported explosions that were not acoustically similar to structural failure</p><p></p><p>Even if it was an anomaly, doing it twice and failing in a near identical nature is where most of my skepticism comes in.</p><p></p><p>I was on WTC1 on 5/11/01. Somewhere, I have developed pictures of the trip to NYC, and you can see the distance between WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. I will never believe the official story, that WTC7 collapsed at free-fall from resulting structural damage from WTC1/WTC2. I do believe it was a terrorist attack, but there are just too many inconsistencies and physics questions that aren't addressed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CV355, post: 16253499, member: 181885"] True. Virtually all material factors are affected by heat absorption. The problem is, heat energy transfers similar to a fluid, especially when a fluid/fluids are the conveying medium for convection or conduction. Point being, it's localized, and air gaps are horribly inefficient at thermal transfer. Beams weakened by the impact and resulting heat would certainly collapse under the weight of the stories above. Also, it's not like the 747 was the only fuel- anything flammable became fuel. Here are the parts I've never seen a good answer for: 1) Freefall speed on both towers and WTC7 from "thermal weakening" 2) Visible detonations identical to squib blasts for thermite charges 3) Molten material seen pouring from windows in a completely orthogonal fashion, far distant from the impact location 4) Reported explosions that were not acoustically similar to structural failure Even if it was an anomaly, doing it twice and failing in a near identical nature is where most of my skepticism comes in. I was on WTC1 on 5/11/01. Somewhere, I have developed pictures of the trip to NYC, and you can see the distance between WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. I will never believe the official story, that WTC7 collapsed at free-fall from resulting structural damage from WTC1/WTC2. I do believe it was a terrorist attack, but there are just too many inconsistencies and physics questions that aren't addressed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us Event
Top