9/11 Debate

[flyboy77]

Not really debunked [member=20]kruddler[/member] just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

Yeah right.
80 plus floors were not even impacted by the plane.....

That's really poor for a scientist.

By the by, even the NIST report concurs that a minimum 90% of the fuel load was expended outside the building ie in the explosion during impact.

What energy source then brought the building down in next to free fall speed?

Heard of the law of conservation of momentum?

That's not even addressing the symmetry of descent, the vapour point of jet fuel and the melting temperature of treated steel......