DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
30 comments:
So what is burning in the skyscraper shown? Paper? Carpet? Not thousands of gallons of jet fuel?
And partial collapse of interior steel wall colums 11 floors of them.
If you think it's not as hot in that fire as on 9-11 your crazy.
jet fuel burns at 1500f, steel melts at 2750f. do the math
When a load bearing floor of concrete falls on the floor below it becomes a major problem , reports that the beams were fatigued from fire may very well be true after an impact and jet fuel.
6:41 AM are you that obtuse and stupid????
Did you see the big ball of fire after the plane hit the second tower???? Did you see the big ball of fire go out???
THAT WAS THE JET FUEL BEING BURNED UP you dumb ass... secondly, jet fuel and office paper and furniture by themselves or together will never burn as hot as over 2000 degrees as to melt steel...
Oh and I guess, it is possible that if 2 747 jets hit 2 towers and brought down 3, then why the hell was the pentagon not obliterated or vaporized???? Yet had a sized hole about the size of a missile... Lets not forget the counter measure the pentagon has but was not working or turned on that day...
I bet you still believe the Virginia shooting was real then right???
LEARN BEFORE YOU run your mouth dumb ass!!!!
Yup keep telling yourselves that commenters. Denial is not just a river, lol. Do a search for engineers and architects against 9/11. The building was designed with a reinforced steel shell designed for terror attack. Wake up people
The truth in fact should compare apples to apples.....did a 767 jetliner weighing more than 450,000 lbs, with a jet fuel load of 10,000 gallons, crash into the Spain skyscraper, at an impact speed of 450 plus mph.
"The building was designed with a reinforced steel shell designed for terror attack: ,,,,at an earlier age then the jets that hit them. Construction started in 1967 of the Twin Towers and the 767 in 1980s. What cannot happen today can easily happen tomorrow with new technology. Circumstances change
No..... But let's play your game. Did you know that fire can only get so hot period?
What about the 15 floors of structural damage ?????? Tin hatter.
The Pentagon did partially collapse fool in the area it was hit.
I think you know-it-alls who say there is no way the steel could be compromised by the inferno and the jet hitting the building should build a building of steel, fly the plane into it yourself, and see what happens..I wonder if the building compromise or fall. Yet you say this was not possible, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is. I would be interested in seeing the scientific study of your findings.
Please, people, watch http://www.ae911truth.org/38-home-posts/78-education.html and then tell me. Architects, engineers and others with a lifetime of experience don't believe the official government narrative that the planes could take down the buildings. Why do you?
Read again....the building in question was never damaged by the planes or other collapse. It only burned. How did it fall?
All the scientific studies suggest that the buildings would not fail from fire.
All these people talking about the planes. At what point do you remember the third building that was never hit. This building that wasn't hit was the second building with a vault inside. It also has a direct corridor to one of the towers with what???? Another vault. Both vaults house gold and other treasures of ours and from there countries. These vaults were empty when the rubble cleared. It takes days and days with truck after truck to empty these vaults. You know they didn't empty the vaults before the attacks..... Why would they? Nobody knew these attacks were coming. Right?
It did not fall from fire alone..a 747 flew directly into it. And 10:47am, I do believe in conspiracy, but when a 747 slams into a building how could the building NOT be compromised? I will say that I was amazed at HOW they fell..straight down rather than toppling over. That is bazaar, but to think that the building would remain intact is ridiculous
10:47 ....hmmm....perhaps "common sense" vs. "naysayers who conger up lunacy"
I worked for a Civil Engineer at a time when I was considering building my own home. We were discussing whether I should us a steel or a wooden main beam and he said fire was a consideration as the steel beam would be a bigger problem. The wood beam would support the structure until it burned enough to break, but the steel beam would begin to bend much sooner. The arguments based on the MELTING point of steel miss the point that the steel does not have to melt to cause the collapse.
In the Pentagon there was a round hole and no visible damage where the wings would have been (including some windows) and no visible debris from a plane. However on the twin towers we see the Wile E. Coyote style outline of a plane. A plane made of aluminum and a building made of 4" steel framed outside. It was a day of many amazing events in aviation crash history.
It's been 14 years since that horrible day. I never believed those that said this couldn't have happened they way our government was reporting. BUT now after many reports and reports from very credible people and my own simple questions to people I knew would have the answers, I've come to the conclusion that our government simply lied from the beginning.
It's hard for me to believe and voice this, but facts are facts. Not with the Secret 28 Pages being discussed and revealed, there is no other way to come to this conclusion.
4" steel? You idiot. The window frames maybe. The steel on that building had well over 14" flanges and 18" of webbing.
Your correct. However I doubt you'd wrap your steel with fireproofing lime these buildings are.
Again..... The point is that one building was never touched by a plane or debri. It simply burned. This wasn't a pre fab building with cheap Chinese thin steel. This was American made steel that was good in size. Better steel than the building pictured above that didn't fail.
The amount anything can take is always minimized. For instance ladders say 300 lbs max. But a 500 lb man can get on them. You maybe correct however but I doubt it. Even though the impacts were deigned in the 60 'S dosent mean they couldn't handle more.
What are the odds of 2 buildings coming straight down?
The arguments based on the MELTING point of steel miss the point that the steel does not have to melt to cause the collapse.
September 14, 2015 at 11:40 AM
there were pools of molten steel at ground zero. the concrete pulverized in mid-air. no skyscraper before or after 911 has collapsed due to fire. a plane flew into the empire state building and it didn't collapse.
a reporter stated building 7 had collapsed and it was in plain view behind her still standing. nothing suspicious at all is there?
Anonymous said...
What are the odds of 2 buildings coming straight down?
September 14, 2015 at 2:22 PM
There were THREE buildings that came straight down.
There are criminals in power that will break a few eggs to get an omelet. Take your heads out of the sand people and watch "Loose Change" on YouTube. No speculation, just a plethora of documentation and first hand eye witness accounts from several people who are now dead go figure
Post a Comment