(October 13, 2013 at 5:57 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: I can't be arsed to watch video about this, but I'd like to know why molten metal under the rubble is suspicious. A collapsing high rise doesn't fall and settle like a gentle dropped stack of pancakes.
It's suspicious because burning jet fuel can't melt steel. It's off by ~800 degrees F. from doing that.
Quote: Also, 'a hot knife through butter' can explain much.
I'm not too sure what you mean.. is the "knife" the plane and the "butter" the building? The impact certainly wouldn't melt steel. I think the velocity required for that would be astronomical.
Quote:Another thing I find odd is how explosives could be set, unnoticed and in the ideal location(s), to ensure collapse. Did the WTC buildings have interstitial decks?(Maintenance access inbetween individual 'stories'?) Meh. The simplest answer is still the best...jets.
I also don't know how they would've set the charges. The only thing that definitely gets to me (after a day of thinking about it..) is that WTC 7 collapsed... and in such a "clean" manner as well. The somewhat straightfoward collapse of the tower next to it hardly touched WTC 7, yet it cleanly collapsed in 7 seconds. It doesn't make any rational sense.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
