My dad is into this stuff so he tells me about it. He thinks USA did plan it. The buildings fell straight down, and the metal was broken or melted or something and it had to be much hotter then the plane was. And I think it could have been proven that there was bombs. I guess I think US planned it.
I guess you're too young to think for yourself and just repeat what your dad says. This is not meant to be an insult, it's just what I think when reading your text.
The heat can be formed by the collision and igniting fuel. Its actually quite simple logic to expect some heat in such a collision. People who say the US government planed it are usually people who want to justify Muslim extremists, people that love conspiracy theories people that just hate the government.
My dad is into this stuff so he tells me about it. He thinks USA did plan it. The buildings fell straight down, and the metal was broken or melted or something and it had to be much hotter then the plane was. And I think it could have been proven that there was bombs. I guess I think US planned it.
Then again none of us know the effects of bureaucracy on the human psyche.
It's jet fuel, it has the capability to power massive metal tubes to fly through the air, I'm quite sure that it's strong enough to burn through metal supports. Now as for that little bit about "they fell right over" no they didn't, it took two hours for the towers to collapse. If they had collapsed right away, there would've been a lot more than 2000+ in casualties.
It's jet fuel, it has the capability to power massive metal tubes to fly through the air, I'm quite sure that it's strong enough to burn through metal supports.
Actually it's not hot enough to melt steal. If you'd read the link I posted (which I stole from Avorne on page 1) a retired fire chief claims to have never seen melted steel in a building fire. But it was enough to weaken the supports by over 50% (some would've been weakened to about 10% strength due to the high heat) which means they lost a lot of structural strength.
Let me rephrase that then, I'm sure that jet fuel can weaken steel to the point where it can no longer support an immense weight that is already imbalanced. Better?
Well, I'm sure one of the theorists would've claimed "Jet fuel dosen't burn hot enough to melt it" and showed you the numbers without explaining that it weakens it.
Well, I'm sure one of the theorists would've claimed "Jet fuel dosen't burn hot enough to melt it" and showed you the numbers without explaining that it weakens it.
Actually, the idea behind it was not that jet fuel weakens it, because that still leaves the debate open for why the tower fell with just one weakened/damage/nearly burnt steel support and not all four. Since there is proof that something burnt the supports - A) The Govt/conspiracy theory subject, or B) the plane, the answer is what came off of the plane. Some scientists said it was a thermite reaction, which is basically iron oxide [main source of steel + iron industry] and aluminum. aluminum is reactive, it snatches the oxide part, and you get tons of heat + aluminum oxide + iron. Since people found aluminum oxide and melted iron from these steel supports, this is highly likely. The heat + the destruction of the impact could have weakened a rod, but also to start a rather hot fire that actually can burn steel.
So screw jet fuel, I think chemistry wins. Of course, as the structure burned, a gigantic tower fell ontop, so don't ask why there wasn't a huge fire in nyc. :P
Then again, that itself is a bit of a guess. Since, then the question is --- why was there a bunch of aluminum lying around?! [Computers and stuff? idk] A... possibly reliable link.
Before 9/11 it was only a few hundred. Now it's a few thousand.
Islamic coco's ran Afghanistan before the West arrived. How can they be only a few hundred? If there was only a few hundred Islamic extremists at a time of extreme poverty and damaged national feelings then Saddam certainly did something right over there.
