WTC theory.

[Mike Irwin]

Don Gault,

Just saw your message about the sprinkler system.

It's apparent that you don't understand how the sprinkler systems on tall buildings work.

The sprinkler systems most of us are familiar with, ones that are installed in relatively low rise buildings like apartment buildings, some homes, and schools, generally work well when supplied by water taken from regular service mains.

The line pressure is normally more than enough to provide water in sufficient quantities to suppress a fire.

However, gravity eventually wins over line pressure, and you simply can't force water to go any higher without pumps. But supplying constant pump pressure to a sprinkler system in a 110-story building isn't feasible, either. You'd need to have multiple pumping stations. And what if there's a massive power failure, as there was a few weeks ago?

So, the most logical method of providing fire suppression cover is pumping water into static tanks. Yes, you need to do the relay pumping, but you don't have to do it to fill the static tanks as they are drawn down.

And since you're already pumping potable water up into holding tanks (that's the water that's used to flush toilets, provide water in drinking fountains, etc.), the approach in the past has normally been to simply pump water into large holding tanks for the sprinkler system, as well.

(Here's a secret... Ever been in a high rise apartment building or hotel that has a swimming pool on an upper floor? Guess what the pool is part of in many cases... The sprinkler system! It's one of the holding tanks.)

Once you have water in the holding tanks, gravity does the rest -- the water flows through standpipes to individual sprinkler heads as it's called for.

Now, imagine a plane loaded with 24,000 gallons of jet fuel kerosene crashes into the building.

I'm sure you remember the images... The planes go in one side of the building, and on the opposite side LOTS of stuff comes flying straight through the wall and down into the streets.

Remember, too, that those aircraft will impact not just a single floor, but several floors at the same time (they're taller than one floor is high), and one, if not both, planes hit at angles that transected several floors.

Immediately you have a massive breach of the pipes that supply the fire sprinklers in the areas where the jets hit, and likely in a swath right through the building to the other side. Standpipes AND individual trunk lines, on which the sprinkler heads are mounted, are destroyed, causing massive ruptures. Some likely would survive, but given that a disaster of this type was never anticipated when the building was designed, the sprinkler system is generally a large unit -- it's not branched or isolated.

The jet fuel also ignites fires over huge expanses of the floor, which means that those sprinkler heads that do survive are going to activate. They'll suppress the fire in those small areas, to some degree, but what good is that if all around that area an out-of-control fire is raging, and the sprinklers in those areas are destroyed?

So we have a unique situation. The sprinkler system was never designed to deal with such a massive fire, and it was never anticipated that the system would be catastrophically breached in so many places, rendering it largely ineffective.

And there's only a limited amount of water in the static tanks, and a large part of that is running out of the broken pipes and doing nothing to suppress the fires that are now raging across several floors.

Quite frankly, given the situation faced on September 11, I don't think any type of fire suppression system would have survived the catastrophic impact of a fully loaded jet liner going at 500 MPH.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Not to mention, you put a fire out by removing the fuel (ie soaking everything) or cooling the fire below combustion temperatures or removing the oxygen (ie smothering). That would take a great deal of water in this situation.

 

[Destructo6]

As previously mentioned, regular old water isn't the best for putting out jet fuel fires. Probably the best stuff is AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) that can smother the fire by flowing over it and thereby depriving it of O2.

If you want to see jet fuel fought with water, mainly, check out the fire aboard the USS Forrestal. The experienced fire crews were killed early on and the less-experienced hose teams, although fighting valliantly, were hosing off the AFFF with water.

but you can only tell that if you wear these special glasses (you get them at Walgreens I believe)

Those were the "Blue Blockers". Notice they're not for sale anywhere these days?

 

[Don Galt]

I'm glad someone on this thread was bright enough to recognize that you have to put tanks of water on the top of buildings like this, rather than relying on water pressure.

But when the system is destroyed, the water would just flow out of the tanks. Maybe it wasn't large enough to handle the size of the damage-- but someone saidt he system had been *disabled* by the jets, and that's abusrd... the water would just flow out of the "disabled" pipes onto the fire.

Its amazing how intolerant so many people here are... completely unwilling to consider that this might be something other than what it appears to be.

Course, I'm sure y'all are certain Randy Weaver was a white supremecist who was guilty of sellng a sawed off shotgun and had it coming, and that the Branch Dividians were child molestors with dozens of illegal machine guns and had it coming.

So, is who is in office the sole determiner of whether the government is honest or not? OR are you willing to concede that Bush might be just as much a criminal as Clinton?

I guess its no use pointing out the long history of Gun control from Bush 1 and 2.... only Clinton can pass gun bans, right?

 

[Standing Wolf]

It was a bunch of mean-spirited Republican Texas, I bet, since after all, they're the ones behind the A.I.D.S. epidemic, and they're causing cancer from coast to coast, and raising taxes on the unemployable, and...

Oh. Whew! There for a moment, I thought I was a leftist!

 

[P95Carry]

This will remain a contentious subject for much time to come but there are seemingly some anachronisms ....... so I'll throw this in the pot as yet another appraisal floating around ..... no judgement made - simply more angle and perspective, that's all.

Whilst I am a degree engineer, I am NOT specifically a structural engineer or civil engineer. My background and work over the years though covers broad aspects of most sciences and so my opinion is based on this...... and is I stress just that, an opinion. These days, anything much that goes against ''popular belief'' tends to be labelled ''tin-foil'' as if only out to show conspiracy etc ....... people must however ask themselves honestly in many respects ''what makes sense'', and what does not.

I have visited this site .... http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/ ....... and gone thru in some detail and as impartially as I can. I also downloading the video clips on offer plus saving all the pictures.

The site is of course biased ........ naturally - it is out to prove one thing and disprove another. I tried hard not to be swayed by this but instead judge from the facts as presented, apart from which much over and above this site's information has been seen over the last two years also. Several points made deserve another look or interpretation.

1) Much has been made of combustion and temperatures. One side maintains the conflagration was more than adequate to melt steel. The other camp is most decidely disputing this. Now, it is a fact that broadly, a lot of very dark smoke can be indicative of incomplete combustion, smoke after all being in essence a mixture of gases most of which are combustible - in the presence of oxygen. Let us remember however that many of the materials to be found in modern buildings are in fact inherently very productive of black smoke even when burning freely. Styrene foams are a good example. So, the temperatures were probably very high.

''Flash over'', the nightmare phenomenon firefighters face is something to remember here. Slow initial burning of many man-made materials produces dense smoke (a killer in itself) and whilst that process continues for a short time, perhaps two to three minutes, the temperature rises steadily until ''flash over'' occurs .... this being the secondary ''re-ignition'' if you like of this dense smoke/gas, resulting in a fireball type of effect. Temperatures can and do reach high levels such as the quoted 800ºC or even higher.

Now ..... we must remember also that the fire initially was due to a large amount of accelerant .... namely aviation fuel - a lot of it. Add to this the breaching of the building's outer integrity on both sides ......... and we do have potential for copious supplies of oxygen and even a ''chimney'' effect as air is sucked in to feed a greedy fire. A blacksmith will blow forced air onto coke and provide a high enough temperature with which to heat and then forge his iron, usually to a cherry red towards orange. At this point the iron is ductile enough to be worked. This however is an ideal state and it is doubtful such could have occurred in the Trade Center fire - at least not on a broad scale sufficient to produce wide scale plastic deformation of the steel structures and thence the collapse we saw.

So, what are we saying here? I think it is possible that in localized zones, some, and only some, steel may have reached a point of significant plasticity but, bearing in mind the structure with internal box columns, then even if truss floor beams were able to distort, it is more than unlikely that any floor collapses would have been dangerous to the overall structure. Certainly not enough to initiate any ''dominoe'' effect as claimed.


2) The actual collapse. Now here we have a much more apparently cut and dried situation in my opinion.... having already decided now that fire was not in itself anywhere near adequate to initiate a collapse on the scale and in the manner seen, we are left with having to consider alternatives. I cannot believe by any stretch of the imagination that these structures could BOTH have suffered terminal collapse the way it appeared.

Did they fall over? No they did not, they collapsed almost vertically. Even the South Tower where the top 30 or so floors start to topple translates into a seemingly explosive destruction at a lower level such that the top section no longer topples but follows the rest down, due to loss of support from below. As this occurs we see evidence of profound lateral dust clouds moving at substantial velocity. Reports were many that stated that the clouds of dust and debris travelled FAST, even overtaking some erstwhile and unfortunate escapees. Too fast in my view for a pure collapse due to gravity alone....... a relatively much slower event and also one which would possibly have ''stalled'' at a high level.

A structure such as these is of course as strong as the weakest link but, even with the symmetry of construction, a ''natural'' collapse would eventually have probably led to a bias to one side and thus an eventual topple to one side - or at least a bias. The odds against this near vertical collapse are large. If however we look at the techniques of demolition which usually occur in confined spaces in built up areas ....... the whole skill involved is the placement of charges and the timing of same in order to collapse a structure both inwards and on itself.

In many instances, charges are shot first at the base, consecutive floors above then being fired so as to achieve the ideal, though depending on the structural techniques employed in a specific building the opposite may be considered also.

Perhaps the single most damning factor that strikes me is the conversion of many thousands of tons of concrete to dust, and at that, a fast moving cloud of dust that covered a very wide area. Pure gravity induced collapse could not I feel do this - there would be many large sized pieces of concrete to be found after the event. It was reckoned that almost all non steel elements were in fact converted to approx 100 micron dust particles...... compared this with earthquake collapses of even quite tall structures .... there we see huge slabs of concrete, even if rebar is showing.... one reason occasionally a few people survive in spaces formed.

Why was steel disposed of so quickly - sold on often thru export to scrap dealers far and wide. There is even I believe a report of the appearance of one piece of steel which suggested the use of a shaped charge. What is a ''shaped charge''? It is a charge of explosive that is placed against a structure and partially ''contained'' by having a backing of something like copper angle - a sort of focussing device. This can cut thru very thick steel accurately.

Many pictures and reports referred to ''jets'' ...... small puffs of smoke or dust exiting from then intact areas and below the upper collapse. How can these occur thru natural collapse?? I can think of no explanation thus far. They could however be very familiar to demolition experts, as consecutive charges at different levels are fired in a timed sequence.

One big question bothers me. How could it be that not one but BOTH towers collapse on themselves in very similar fashion, and so fast and with such apparent energy? Had they been masonry construction then this would have made a considerable difference - then, the ''house of cards'' deal would be much more expected. I keep looking at pictures showing early collapse stages. Ever evident is the vast amount of lateral and rapid travel of copious quantities of ''smoke'' - probably concrete dust - and this, way before the lower two thirds to three quarters has ''collapsed''

Is this really feasable with a natural collapse event? I really doubt it. Of course I wonder what may have been within the structures that could have acted explosively...... mundane items not normally given a second's thought. I can think of none sufficient to produce this degree of energetic loss of integrity, none at all.

The velocity of detonation of most high explosive is in the region of 5 km/sec to 8 km/sec. The latter mostly detonatators used to initiate charges ... the former perhaps more typical of stuff like 80% blasting gelatine etc. Energy like this is more than enough to render concrete to a particulate state if in sufficient quantity.

--------------------------------

To sum up........ and even take off the ''tin-foil'' hat!! Ask yourself, does it ALL make sense and add up?? Visit the site for which I gave the URL. If you answer ''well no, not quite'' ...... take that a stage further and see what your own explanation might be. Forget the politico/logistic angles and just consider the pure physics of the event, much of which can employ little more than average common sense. There is no need to even think in terms of ''who dunnit'' ...... or whether the powers that be have explained things adequately ....... quite simply, review it as the event it was and decide if it all makes perfect sense.

This commentary is not to represent an indictment of any organization or level accusations - it is merely a look at an event that seems to contain matters that simply do not add up. Look and think, outside of the box - often a worthwhile excercize.

 

[Don Galt]

I'm an engineer and an ex-physicist... ex because I went into software development.

I cannot come up with a scenario that fits the common story-- the buildings relied on their external framework for much of their support, and this external framework, in both cases, was dispraportionately damaged on one side. Both buildings should have toppled as they fell.

I can't speak to whether its likely the fire weakened the metal trusses or not, so just assuming that's what happened, its unlikely that either building would fall straight down, as the external framework was unequally damaged, and the internal floor collapse would have been unlikely to happen in two places (two sides of the building) at the same time.

If it had happened once, I'd not be suspicious, but two times with the towers, and apparently a third time with another building. Its really odd.

If saying the odds of this happening are very low given the laws of physics makes me paranoid, then so be it.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE
Questions & Answers

Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective†regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever.

The editors of implosionworld.com have created this page to answer a few of the most frequently asked questions that fall within our area of knowledge and expertise. But first we’d like to be clear in stating that any conversation relating to “implosions†and what causes structures to fail is undertaken with reverence and respect to those who perished as a result of this event. As many of our frequent web visitors are aware, Implosionworld.com’s offices are located close to New York City, and several of our employees were personally touched by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of those lost and injured, and our intent here is to help foster a constructive base of knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling false rumors related to the attack.


DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE�
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out†in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?
Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?
To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

Implosionworld.com WTC FAQ

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The buildings collapsed not from the damage of the aircraft but from the fuel fire. The fire was essential distributed to all areas of the effected floors, so the damage was fairly evenly distributed.

The reason it collapsed instead of toppled is due to the way the individual floors were connected to the outside frame. The floor was designed to carry a given weight. Once the first floor failed due to the fire and the weight of the aircraft parts, the next floor down was automatically overloaded and failed. This continued all the way down.

If the effected floors had been able to withstand the weight of the aircraft and weakening from the fire, yet the damaged outside load bearing supports had failed, the building would have toppled.

OR as described in Sergeant Bob's post added while I was typing. BTW, that is an outstanding website.

 

[Don Galt]

Makes no sense.

In order for them not to topple, the timing of collapse would have had to be within milliseconds... soemthing you're not going to get.

Furthermore, the external frame carried most of the weight and was not evenly damaged.

Believe what you want to believe, just don't pretend it makes sense from a scientific point of view.

 

[gun-fucious]

considering that all the rubble was sorted down to the wrist watch and melted pistol level

dotcha think someone might have found some evidence of explosive damage?

:banghead: :banghead:

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Makes perfect sense doesn't it? I saw a show on History Channel or something on building demolition. It takes alot of preparation! They can't just go in and place a bunch of explosives, push the plunger and BOOM , down comes the building. They have to do alot of drilling, stripping away of interior walls (to expose beams and girders) and partially cut through the beams they need to demolish. Then they have to run wires from all those explosives to a central location. The amount of time required to accomplish these feats would be extensive, as well as impossible to do without someone noticing something strange was going on. Considering there were what, 50,000 people in those buildings daily, you would think one of them would be astute enough to realize something was amiss!

I know some people hate Bush so much that they want to pin this on him, but he has enough real faults they could pick on without making themselves look like total kooks.

 

[jimpeel]

invisible pink unicorns

If they're invisible, how do you know they're pink? Ah HA! So YOU were the one! Your slip of the tongue has given you away and revealed you for what you are -- an invisible pink unicorn rancher trying to get free publicity for your new and tasty meat product. Don't try to deny it! You have given yourself away and PETA will soon be at your door demonstrating on behalf of these poor exploited animals! You Bastard! You grd gtz agh ahhhh meds ... taking ... effect. Nice meds. Good meds. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Mike Irwin]

"but someone saidt he system had been *disabled* by the jets"

That can probably be argued as a part of a semantical discussion, but I don't think saying that the fire sprinkler system was largely disabled is an inappropriate way of stating it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to postulate that the initial strike destroyed as many as 50% or more of the sprinkler heads on the floors primarily affected by the strike.

Even worse would be catastrophic ruptures in the sprinkler system piping. This probably would have deprived many of the remaining sprinkler heads of water.

If the system is gushing water from where it's not supposed to be, and it's not being spread about in a manner that will suppress the fire, then it's not really doing jack squat. Just because the water is flowing you can't make the assumption that it's flowing in a way that will be effective.

And no, the people who designed the sprinkler system have stated as much, that they never designed a suppression system to handle the simultaneous ignition of roughly 24,000 gallons of aviation kerosene.


"Its amazing how intolerant so many people here are... completely unwilling to consider that this might be something other than what it appears to be."

I'm certain that people here are more than willing to entertain LOGICAL theories on why what happened did happen, Don.

But so far, the linked threads crying conspiracy haven't presented any logical theories, only wild supposition.

Are we to give creedence to a website saying that because Hillary Clinton has fat calves and thighs that she's actually a rhinoceros just because someone links it?

The rebuttal links, to shows that have aired, have had in-depth interviews with civil and structural engineers, demolitions experts, architects, builders, and even the man who conceived of the design for the towers.

Are they, speaking in concert, to be dismissed as "having been gotten to by the vast speculative conspiracy" simply because Mr. Kamiski posts wild rantings?

We're talking about (like Pearl Harbor) a conspiracy that would involve hundreds, if not THOUSANDS, of people.

Yet, just as with Pearl Harbor, there's nothing other than speculation and interpretation to suggest that there was a vast overriding conspiracy driving the events of the day.

Conspiracies and secrets are perhaps the most fragile of all of man's creations.

If someone can be co-opted into participating in a conspiracy, they can also be co-opted out of participation.

Yet nothing credible has been unearthed to date.

There's an old saying that's very similar in nature to Ockham's Razor...

If you hear hoofbeats, look for a horse first. Don't immediately assume it's a zebra.

As for whether or not politicans are honest, that's an entirely different discussion.

We're not talking about relatively petty dishonesty, we're talking about what some are claiming as governmental complicity in the murder of over 3,000 men, women, and children as the end result of a pervasive conspiratorial act.

Remember Watergate?

There were fewer than 50 players who knew fully what was going on.

Yet two schlubs from the Washington Post, and a third from the New York Times, pulled strings in such a manner that an American President was toppled.

What these conspiracy theorists are asking us to do is to believe that they have all of the answers, and that, essentially, every police investigator, every government agent, and every investigative journalist in this nation has been either co-opted or is so grossly incompetent as to be unable to uncover the vast conspiracy that Mr. Kamiski claims to have stumbled into.

Sure.

I'm going to buy that.

When someone has something BELIEVABLE to bring forward, bring it forward.

Don't try to blow smoke up my ??? and tell me that it's fact, and that you're the only one who gets it because everyone else is "co-opted by the evil forces of the government."

 

[answerguy]

I'm supposed to beleive that it was a combination of the planes and explosives that brought the building down? And that no one saw the miles of wire necessary to set off the explosives? Or the men planting the explosives? What were the planes needed for anyways?

 

[Mike Irwin]

You don't think the fire in the WTC was hot enough to melt, or at least significantly soften, steel once it got roaring?

A simple residential house fire with no true venting can generate temperatures in EXCESS of ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED DEGREES FARENHEIT.

With the "forge" effect that would be going on with huge holes punched in two sides of the building it's not at all beyond imagination that the fire could have reached temperatures more than hot enough to cause significant rigidity failure in the structural steel.

As I noted above, I've been on site at more than one fire where steel beams pocketed into brick or steel walls have expanded during a fire with enough force to "blow" masonry chunks upwards 100 feet away from the site of the fire.



Now, as for the "toppling effect" that says that the building should have fallen over on its side instead of coming straight down...

Interviews with numerous architects and engineers have stated that it's not at all unusual for this to happen given the relatively short height of the sections of the building affected.

However, if you actually watch the tapes closely, you'll see that I believe the top section of tower two actually did start to collapse laterally, instead of straight down, and then it self corrected.




It seems that some are trying to correlate the contolled demolition of a building from the BASE with what happened at the WTC. You can't do that.

As John DiLouiazo (sp?) of Controlled Demolition said in one of the specials TLC ran on their business of destructing buildings, you're not trying to fell the building by kicking its head in, you're trying to do it by kicking its legs out from under it.

One of the best explanations I've seen for just why the buildings pancaked, instead of toppling sideways, is because they were designed to resist ENORMOUS wind pressures pushing on them laterally. The idea was to create a building that would flex laterally but be able to resist sustained winds of upwards 150 MPH for over 30 minutes.

The buildings were, in essence, over-engineered to avoid a sideways collapse, but were less so designed to prevent a pancake collapse.

Oh, and in case you don't believe that a top-down pancake collapse is possible?

About 10 years ago in, I believe, New Jersey, a 5 or 7-story building was being erected using the "slab jacking method," in which columns are erected, and the floor slab jacked up the column, set into place with special retaining rings, and another layer built on top of it.

Proven technology, used quite a bit.

Only this time one of the retaining rings failed as a slab was being jacked into place. The slab fell, with the result being a pancake collapse of the entire building from the top down. I belive 11 men were killed in that collapse.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Believe what you want to believe, just don't pretend it makes sense from a scientific point of view.

Who is pretending? I believe it makes sense from a scientific point of view.

We can pretend to get real scientific and say that as viewed with the theory of General Relativity, time flowed slower at the top of the tower as compared to the base of the tower. This additional time was used by suicide hacksawers to run around weakening the structure to ensure the tower would collapse instead of topple.

Besides, bin Laden wanted the towers to topple. Lots more damage and dead people that way. Why go to all of this trouble to make them pancake?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Oh come now, Sgt. Bob.

It's obvious that those people at Implosion.com have been...

co-opted...

by those who are perpetrating this vast conspiracy.

I'd bet that they've been briefed by the President himself.


All of this really reminds me of one of my former coworkers.

He truly believes, with all his heart, that the world economy is run by a council of 13 Jews, headed by the Rothschild family, and has been since the 14th century.

If you ask him why none of this has come out to general public knowledge, his answer is that anyone who actually learns of this is either co-opted or killed.

I kid you not, he believes that World Wars I and II were started by the Rothschilds and the council of 13 Jews a way of getting rid of a large number of people in Europe who accidentally learned of the conspiracy, and that those people were largely killed off in the first year of the wars, but that the wars had to continue for several more years, with millions more deaths, so no one would become suspicious.

If this guy wasn't such a talented programmer I have no doubt that he'd be in a ing nuthatch.

 

[.45FMJoe]

Well perhaps he should stick to coding and leave the real stuff to the experts, no? Oh, in one of my engineering classes, we watched a video on the construction of the towers. Mike is right about how they had to be built to withstand such high winds for even longer than 30 minutes.

The irony in the video is the head engineer talking about the ridgidity of the exoskeleton. He said, with a smile on his face, the towers were designed to withstand the impact of 6 Boeing 737s. Well, they did withstand the impact no problems, it was the fires that screwed them.

 

[Preacherman]

Are we to give creedence to a website saying that because Hillary Clinton has fat calves and thighs that she's actually a rhinoceros just because someone links it?

Hmmm... Mike, you might be on to something here!

 

[Sergeant Bob]

He truly believes, with all his heart, that the world economy is run by a council of 13 Jews, headed by the Rothschild family, and has been since the 14th century.

That's just crazy! Everyone knows the Freemason's control the world!

If you ask him why none of this has come out to general public knowledge, his answer is that anyone who actually learns of this is either co-opted or killed.

So-o-o-o-o, what's he still doing here?

If this guy wasn't such a talented programmer I have no doubt that he'd be in a ing nuthatch.

He's not an ex-physicist is he?

 

[Orthonym]

Steel burns.

My pore ol' pickup truck, sitting out there in the driveway, is burning as I type. It has holes, it has crumbly reddish-brown places, it's just awful! It's that evil old oxygen, that's what it is! If we react all that nasty oxygen out of the air, so as to make the atmosphere 100% nitrogen, why, then, nothing would ever burn!

 

[kentucky bucky]

It would be funny if there weren't so many NUT CASES in this country that will believe this hog wash.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"six 737s..."

If you take a look at the technical specifications, you'll see the vast difference between a 737 and the 767s that crashed into the WTC towers, you'll get a good idea of where the differences are...

The 767s are, in comparison to the 737, huge aircraft.

A 737s maximum takeoff weight, according to Boeing, is just shy of 175,000 pounds.

A 767s is well over DOUBLE that at 450,000 pounds.

A 737 carries 6,875 gallons of fuel.

A 767 carries almost 24,000 gallons of fuel.

Dimensionally the 767 is also quite a bit larger, as well.

Given those basic differences, it's not hard to understand why the damage was so much more catastrophic than had ever been envisioned by the original designers.

 

[answerguy]

Oh, and in case you don't believe that a top-down pancake collapse is possible?

One more piece of evidence that it can happen is because it did happen.