English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I've been told to believe it can.

2006-11-17 04:35:49 · 3 answers · asked by mikeygonebad2007 1 in Science & Mathematics Chemistry

SO.....YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE HIGHLY PUBLICIZED FACT THAT THERE WERE POOLS OF MOLTENT STEEL IN THE FOOT PRINTS OF WTC 1,2 & 7 FOR 5 WEEKS AFTER THE "PANCAKE" COLLAPSE?

YOU'RE JUST ANOTHER DUMBED-DOWN SHEEP MAGGOT.

2006-11-17 05:50:46 · update #1

SO.....YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE THE HIGHLY PUBLICIZED FACT THAT THERE WERE POOLS OF MOLTENT STEEL IN THE FOOT PRINTS OF WTC 1,2 & 7 FOR 5 WEEKS AFTER THE "PANCAKE" COLLAPSE?

YOU'RE JUST ANOTHER DUMBED-DOWN SHEEP MAGGOT.

2006-11-17 05:50:49 · update #2

my original question was about the 757 that vaporized at the pentagram....uh...i mean pentagon.

2006-11-17 05:57:01 · update #3

3 answers

Still trying to prove that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job by the CIA and federal government, eh?

The fuel fire did not vaporize 100 tons of steel and titanium. But by heating the metals, they softened them so much that the structural beams sagged and collapsed. Once the upper floors of the building started to move, there was so much momentum going that it cause the lower floors to fail, too, and just kept going until it hit the ground.

On the other hand, all I have to do is provide enough heat to the metal to cause it to vaporize -- the temperature of the flame itself is not critical here -- just the total amount of heat produced.

2006-11-17 05:24:02 · answer #1 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 1 0

What steel and titanium? The building frames were made from an aluminum alloy with a lower melting point than regular steel.

2006-11-19 22:24:34 · answer #2 · answered by RAR24 4 · 0 0

It can't.

2006-11-17 12:39:00 · answer #3 · answered by spir_i_tual 6 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers