Did all the Bush supporter skip Physics class in High School ??

Question

Sheeple People who refuse to accept the fact that the Bush administration Orchestrated the Terror Attacks of 911 are just plain ignorant. It's impossible for Jet fuel or Kerosene to melt iron...LOOK AT THE PERIODIC TABLE OF ELEMENTS. Also if the floors collapsed causing a chain reaction it would have taken well over 90 seconds for the buildings to come down. They came down at free fall speed....9 seconds. There is no logical argument here. Explosives were pre-planted in the building. Case closed! Why are so many people having a hard time accepting this?

Answer 1

Marion Kminek – Mother of Mari-Rae Sopper, Women's gymnastics coach at the University of California at Santa Barbara, former Navy JAG and corporate attorney. Passenger American Flight 77.

Essay 9/7/06: "On September 11, 2001, our daughter had her life cut short at the age of 35. ...

As we approach the fifth anniversary of her death, more and more unanswered questions have surfaced regarding the events of 9/11. Here are just a few of the questions that bother me most: ...

The Secret Service is trained to act quickly and decisively to protect the president — why did they let him remain in a public place for more than seven minutes when our country was under attack?

According to radar data, American Airlines (AA) 77 was flying at 400 mph at 9:35 a.m. and passed over the Pentagon at 7,000 feet. The plane then made a very difficult high-speed descending turn in a downward spiral, dropping 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. How could the terrorists have done this difficult turn when their flight instructors have stated they were incompetent as pilots of even a small plane?

Pictures of the Pentagon after the impact show an entry hole much too small for a 757 to have crashed into the building. How can that be? ...

Just prior to 9/11, there was unusual stock activity related to short-selling and put options, which are both high-risk bets that a stock’s value will depreciate. ... During the same period of time, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest World Trade Center (WTC) tenants. Who were these investors and how did they know to make these particular investments? [See also Paul Zarembka.]

In the 100-year history of steel high-rises, there was never one that collapsed due to fires until 9/11, when three collapsed: WTC 1, 2, [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories] and 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories]. Particularly mysterious was building 7, which was not struck by an aircraft, but rather by debris from the nearby Twin Towers. ... It was as if they were being demolished by explosives. Were they? ...

How long do the American public and families of 9/11 victims have to wait before these questions and many more are answered? Will we ever know the real truth? Remember: in the U.S.A., it is our right to question the government." http://www.independent.com

Answer 2

I'm a conservative - and I didn't skip any physic's classes.

Actually, I took a lot of physic's classes, I am an engineer.

You are correct, JP kerosene will not melt iron (or structural steel) under normal conditions. However, if you had studied even basic metallurgy, you would know that structural steel losses 50% of its strength at approximately 1100 degrees F. The periodic table has little to do with this fact. This is why the steel is insulated during and after initial construction - to protect it from the heat should a fire break out. This insulation was obviously damaged when the first plane slammed through the entire width of the building (watch the video).

As far as physics goes, study up a little on the difference between static loading and instantaneous impact. Thirty floors slamming down on a greatly weakened and damaged sub structure, for instance.

Case closed.

Answer 3

Please Nancy, take your meds.

Just watch the History Channel special on the collapse of the WTC. It explains the whole scenario, without any paranoid fantasies.

Read the website below. One thing it mentions is this:
"...The failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

You keep harping about how jet fuel cannot melt iron. This website reminds people of the difference between temperature and the amount of heat generated. If you have a one log fire, it is about the same temperature as a two log fire, but the amount of heat generated is much greater.

The fire WEAKENED the steel in the WTC. Nothing conspiratorial about that. If the steel's strength were at 100% a collapse could not have taken place.

Why did the building collapse as it did? Read below:

"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour."

So Nancy, I guess this is a slightly sad chapter in your life. Your crusade to expose this "conspiracy" has been ground to a halt by the cold reality of hard science.

Nancy, these questions epitomize the mental laziness of Liberals. They're always after the cheap and easy route to glory without taking the time to honestly study a subject.

However, cheer up. Why don't you accuse the government of hiding the existence of aliens from outer space. This really is true, and you'll get a lot more enjoyment out of that crusade.

(BTW: I'll be looking for Best Answer Award. I know you want to be fair, right?)

Answer 4

I dont know where you took physics.... but under the right circumstances its totally possible for jet fuel to cause enough heat damage to a structure to allow collapse.. and as for the free fall bit.. 32feet per second per second is the formula for that...

I will however admit that the collapse did very much look like what a controled detonation might have, except for one fact.. if you were going to do a controled demolition you would have done it from the base up normally .. not the top down.. I'm not saying one way or the other if it was or was not a conspiracy.. But I will grant that that it is possible.. there is certainly historical precident for such a thing (pre WWII Reichstag Bldg which was a key factor bring hitler to power.. he orchistrated it and blamed it on the Commies LOL) And I do know enough anout explosives to know it would be possible to bring a building down that way with them.. but it wouldnt be the most efficient method (I was part of the Army corps of enginees once.. people think they build stuff(which they sometimes do) but what they are really good at is blowing **** up LOL.. Pretty much any kid with a highschool diploma can build a bridge... its takes an engineer to blow one up LOL

Oh and BTW Jetfuel/kerosene and Steel ... arent even on the periodid table of elements.. none of those are elements(I know you said iron which is "Fe "but Iron wasnt used Steel was Iron wouldnt have even been able to build the towers.. its too soft.. it would have collapsed under its own weight...)..

Answer 5

Have you ever seen a copy of the periodic table of the elements? Boiling points are not listed, nor are jet fuel or kerosene. Also, the twin towers were not made of IRON, they were made of STEEL. The steel did not have to melt. It only had to bend enough for the towers to collapse.

After an intensive three-year investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology published an account that has been largely accepted in the engineering community. The official collapse mechanism refers only to the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires, which are taken to have caused sufficient structural damage to occasion the collapses.

Answer 6

Well, let's see....I'm a High School Math teacher, an Engineer, and a Firefighter.

Care to explain how the periodic table of the elements is going to explain the caloric content of kerosene and/or jet fuel? Or the melting point of structural steel coated with retardant that has been blown off? Or how that Table is going to cover the heat content present in the fuel load that the kerosene is setting fire to? Do you understand what "flashover" is? Do you understand ANYTHING beyond the simplist of explanations? 'Cause I'm wondering just where on the Periodic table you're finding the elements "Kerosene" , "Plastic", "Paper", and "Steel" - Believe it or not, we don't use pure Iron when we build.

Now be honest, have you ever even LOOKED at the Periodic Table? Do you know ANYTHING about chemistry, much less materials science or building construction?

Hmmm. You know, I think I'll take the research I've done and that of a number of structural engineers and firefighters.

Unprotected steel - to say nothing of steel that just had the equivalent energy of a tactical nuke go off next to it - begins to lose it's structural integrity at about 1,000 degrees. Your average HOUSE fire gets that hot. There are CONTENTS in the building that catch fire and add to the fuel-load. The heat doesn't all just disappear, the radiant, convective, and conductive heat is more than enough to cause the steel to soften quickly, and collapse, even in a small commercial building, to say nothing of one with 30 stories of weight on top of it.

Now then, lass, listen closely.

If you have a structure and you take out a sizeable percentage of the main support members of that structure, then soften the rest of them and still have many thousands of tons of weight upon that failing support, it WILL collapse without any help needed. In fact it's likely to collapse WITHOUT the steel softening.

Now when you add the impact shock of 30 stories of weight landing on the support beams below, they ARE going to fail. And they are going to continue to fail as the impacting weight increases and accelerates due to gravity.

Study some engineering, building construction, fire behavior, and materials science before the next time you type and embarass yourself.

Orion

Answer 7

Chemecals didn't melt iron and steel. The temperature did. Think about it. Also the forces impacting the trade center were more than just the simple forces of gravity. I minored in physics in college, and you are looking at the simplisitc physics. There are more forces at work than you think.

I find it hard to believe that you can't understand how a group of militant islamist who tried to bring down the trade center, who have an obsessive hatred of this country, and were very patient to let their plan come together could not be behind 9/11.

Answer 8

You must be joking. Don't you think some of the people working there would have noticed crews planting explosives all around the building for months prior to 9/11? Where did the put all the cables hocking these explosives up? This was no Hollywood movie you know, it really happened!

Answer 9

Of course you realize that it is not only the supporters of the President who believe the government had no hand in the terror attacks of 9/11. That said, please stop reciting disproved evidence from a worthless documentary made by incompetent know nothings. For every so called expert saying this could not have happened, there are 5,000 saying that it did. The heat did not have to be high enough to melt the steel, it only had to weaken it and let gravity do the rest.

Please do the world a favor and never procreate.

Thanks.

Answer 10

No. Did the anti-Bush supporters skip high school altogether?

Look at the 911 terrorists: Not an Iraqi in the bunch.

Surely you do not think that our President is both crafty enough to pull off the biggest scam on the American people and stupid enough to not use Iraqis?

That isn't physics. It's just math.