The temperature of the fires has been delt with extensively in other threads. Look them up. The bottom line is that FEMA tested the actual steel that was present at the fire site. They showed that the fire was oxygen deprived and that it was no higher then 500 degrees. The NIST reports corroborate this...However, they go on to burn jet fuel (which is similar to Kerosene btw) in an air injected furnace in order to show that you can get higher temperatures. In the end, the 1200 degree mark was used in their report despite the contradiction in the actual test results.
Even this intellectual dishonesty wasn't enough to actually weaken the steel however. NIST performed tests which showed that after six hours they could only acheive a sag of 1-2 inches in the steel beams. Thus they modeled the collapse on the computer and artificially inserted a 47 inch sag into the model. This finally caused the brackets that held the beams in place to give way.
The next line in the NIST report is interesting. "Global collapse ensued."
Really? Why? How? One would think that there would be quite a bit of resistance if all of the floors were pancaking ontop of one another? In fact, one would think that it would be impossible for the fall the buildings to fall down in 10 seconds?
It is impossible. The NIST report does nothing to explain how the buildings went down.
Does this mean that Bush rigged them to blow in order to finally acheive his illuminati dream of world domination? Of course not. It only means that we really don't know what happened yet. And it is really important that we understand this. How would you like to be the firefighter that goes into the next steel building that starts burning and not have some assurance that this thing is somehow going to give away?
Hopefully, fire engineers would be able to look at a well done report so that they could look for signs of this happening again?
All of this leads me to draw a parellel with the topic in this thread. The NIST reports asks people to believe in impossible things. Other government reports do similar things. For instance, the Warren Commission would have you believe that a bullet can make a 90 and 158 degree turn in midair and proceed to cause seven wounds on two different people. Again, equally impossible.
If you look at what the apologists are saying in regards to both of these events, you'll note they use the word "unprecedented" alot. In their lexicon, what they really mean to say is miracle. Violating the laws of physics isn't just unprecedented, it is miraculous. People, in this country in particular, are taught to believe in miracles from a young age. Thus, I would say it is easy to understand why so many people would insist on believing in these impossible things.
Thus we come to point of this thread. What happens when science shows your miracles to be impossible? What happens when science gives the real explanation for the phenomenon? What happens when this explanation contradicts what the majority of people believe? And finally, do you think it is good for a society to have a majority of people so willing to believe in impossible things?
upnorthkyosa
ps - if anyone wishes to debate the facts of 9/11, dig up a thread and read it, then post your stuff if you have anything to add, and if I have time we can discuss it there. We've already had one warning to stay on topic in this one...
