ceylon

I will ignore obvious logical flaws in the implications created by asserting explosives and not the airplanes caused the collapses and will only focus on the "science" this physicist used to prove that it couldn't have happend.

 

 

 

First, there was not a single mention anywhere within his very informal looking paper (considering the context and his supposed status) that metal and steel alike is weakened by increased temperature FAR before it begins to melt.

 

Anyone giving an honest, objective, and informed analysis of these events would realize that the strength of the steel infastructure would not remain unchanged until the exact moment it begun turning into a liquid and would therefore point this out in the paper.

 

In order for the building to collapse the steel did not have to melt, it only had to weaken enough that it could no longer support the massive buildings.

 

Second, any molten steel found onsite more than likely melted after the buildings collapsed. At that time the burning collapsed structure could act as a kiln and greatly increase the temperature of the inceneration.

 

Finally, probably not included in this paper, but in most 911 conspiracy papers the comparison between the Sears Tower being crashed into by a plane during the 50s is made. Hopefully, the difference between the velocities of a prop plane and a 747, fuel capacities, and general "potential" energy is easy to understand between these two very different incidents.

 

Anyone that assersts the energy from the jet fuel was insufficient to create the sustained temperatures necessary to melt the steel or cause it to collapse must be in denial of the iron age, but google could definitely help them out there.

you need to wake up.

if what you are saying was even remotely true then please explain building 7 which was not hit by a plane.

and the prior knowledge that mayor gueliano had plus construction workers and police.

you can't because THEY KNEW.