Quote:
Originally Posted by scratch  Its sad to think that there are idiots around that actually believe this. I was off work that day when I was driving my son to school and heard about the first attack. At first it was thought that it was some kind of terrible accident. I went home and turned the TV on and watched in horror as the second plane hit the second tower. Everybody knew our country was under attack then.
I can't understand why some people are so stupid to think that this is some kind of conspiracy to force our country to go to war so somebody could make a profit. "Fire doesn't melt steel" is what Rosie McDonnell said. Well how does she think steel is made in the first place? She never heard of welding or the high temperature of thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning for a couple of hours? People like her and Charlie Sheen are insane in my opinion. |
Scratch,
without going into a ton of facts and supportive data, I would like to address one point of your argument.
I highlighted the part that needs addressing.
First, You must quote Rosie Odonnell correctly.. what she said was the "temp of jet fuel" was not HOT enough to melt steel.. This is a fact. Jet fuel on commercial airliners does NOT burn hotter then 1100 degrees F.
Even if mixed with various furniture, paper etc etc, it will STILL NOT burn hotter than 1100 degrees. In addition, experts from the goverment have already backed up her claim by saying that the majority of fuel available to burn, incinerated within the first 10 mins of the impact as demonstrated by the huge fireball exiting the building on impact.
Now, to the point, it wasnt ROSIES POINT, she was merely stating claims made by various scientists and experts who have investigated 911.
The temp required to melt the steel in the WTC had to exceed 3500 degrees in order to just make it soft, it would have required sustained heat for over 12 hours in the same location in order to melt steel into liquid.
Now, these arent statements made by loons, its just science.
The fuel on comercial airliners is DESIGNED to keep the heat down...keeping it down during crashes saves lives..this is why its designed to burn at less than 1100 degrees.
Now, if you accept the theory that the fuel couldnt burn hot enough to melt 4 foot thick steel, then how did the building come down?
This is the question she is asking everyone to consider. There are many experts worldwide who doubt the 911 explanation based upon pure SCIENCE, not politics.
There is a ton of information available for review from experts from MIT and the scientific community.
You have to understand science and the properties of steel, titanium and aluminum to fully comprehend the arguments being presented.
If you could convince anyone that 1100 degrees was hot enough to melt steel into iron ore (which is the case in the WTC) then you would be the first to demonstrate that 911 defied science.
Steel beams were reduced into globs of iron ore, and thats just plain impossible to occur without the introduction of another element in the heat.
Again, this is science, and without the knowledge of steel properties, to argue with you would be useless.
We all have an opinion on this matter. On the surface, the BUSH administrations explainations seem plausible, on the scietific side, in all three attacks ( flight 93, WTC and Pentagon) the FACTS just dont add up.
Who was responsible? Who knows.
Is easier to just accept what we are told by our goverment and the media.
If "we" as citizens dont question what happened, then we have to accept whatever is given to us. ALl the experts want "us" as people to do is ask questions. Check out the tests, look at the facts and evidence.
The opposing side (the republicans) want to just label anyone looking into 911 events as kooks.
WKMAC posted something of real value recently that rings of a similar nature.
Operation Northwoods is a de-classified operation that was almost carried our by our goverment back in the early 60's, and the nature of this operation was similar to 911.
The point of this operation was to convince the american public that we were under "imminent attack" and we would have needed to attack CUBA because of the staged attacks on U.S. interests. These staged attacks would be carried out by our military and CIA operatives.
This only highlights that it is
NOT out of the question for our goverment to be involved with "self" attacks.
This all being said, the fact that Rosie merely stated a scientific fact doesnt make her a kook, it in fact, makes her informed.
p.s. Rosie in her personal life is a kook, but thats just my opinion and that alone does not disqualify her from having an intelligent opinion on 911.
Re: 9/11 redux 
