Here we go. We are starting to see Spendy's deception more clearly.
Insulation can concentrate heat in a room, rather than letting it penetrate into the walls. Oven insulation does exactly this, concentrating the heat in the open space inside the oven, rather than the oven walls. In the Towers, the heat remained in the rooms, and went out the windows, rather than going into the walls, and weakening the structure.
Silverman explains this stupid misinterpretation of his comment, as I recall, he was talking about getting the firemen out of there. Great idea, they wouldn't be dead if he had.
Regardless, if you want to make the claim of controlled demolition, why not support it? Some actual evidence? Start with the claim that the US government was involved just for grins.
The information supporting this is in websites that talk about following the money.
Spendy, you are on your last legs regarding this topic. Believe what you will, but any credibility you have is going up in Twin Tower smoke.
The Towers were filled with asbestos.
Burning fuel burns only at a max of 1200 degrees F.
You need special configurations to get blow-torch effects out of the burning fuel.
Tons of concrete insulation ward off heat convection.
Little heat as shown in the pictures above.
The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.
None of that above statements is accurate. It only shows Baddecker's ignorance. Insulation concentrates heat, rather than reducing it. Ovens and such are...insulated. Lots of wind blowing into that fire means lots of oxygen. Burning fuel burns only at a max of 1200 degrees F.
You need special configurations to get blow-torch effects out of the burning fuel.
Tons of concrete insulation ward off heat convection.
Little heat as shown in the pictures above.
The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.
And we can easily calculate the joules of energy released by these planes' fuel burning, and see if it is sufficient to weaken the tower structure (Hint: I already did this in the other thread. So I can just copy and paste, duh).
One can easily measure the amount of latent energy in fuel. This isn't easy to do in burning fuel. Why not? Because some of the energy escapes unburned in thick clouds of black smoke, as was the case in the Towers. Two words for you:
Controlled Demolition
All three buildings were simply "pulled" as Larry Silverstein said. It was all planned moths before the "attack" on US soil, attack by it's own government.
Buildings "pulled?" Really? Why don't you go try to pull a building? I'll loan you a rope.Controlled Demolition
All three buildings were simply "pulled" as Larry Silverstein said. It was all planned moths before the "attack" on US soil, attack by it's own government.
Silverman explains this stupid misinterpretation of his comment, as I recall, he was talking about getting the firemen out of there. Great idea, they wouldn't be dead if he had.
Regardless, if you want to make the claim of controlled demolition, why not support it? Some actual evidence? Start with the claim that the US government was involved just for grins.
The information supporting this is in websites that talk about following the money.
Spendy, you are on your last legs regarding this topic. Believe what you will, but any credibility you have is going up in Twin Tower smoke.