mjkst27 Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 molten metal please click here Industry uses refractory-lined, enclosed furnaces intentionally supplied with the correct air-fuel mix, not to mention sufficient soak time, in order to turn steel into just a softened form, let alone its molten form. Ever been in a steel mill of any kind? The 77th floor of Tower 1 on 9/11/01 was intense, but nothing like an electric arc furnace. Please check yourself. on that note, good night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieBear Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 I am a proponent of Occam's Razor. The simplest explaination works. Exactly. To believe otherwise, you have to believe the owner of the WTC allowed government agents (Halliburton?) to plant explosives. So why did George sit there for seven minutes with that dumb look on his face? If it was planned he could have done better than that. On the Pentagon thing with the missing wings, I talked to a guy who saw the plane go overhead right before it hit. He is a firefighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfield 8 Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 **http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=9462 audio file; combustion engineer, Jim Hoffman. speech aired on radio on how the demolition of the World Trade Center. was accomplished. Excerpts: " The notion that Intense fire could have melted the buildings is ludicrous. The temperature at which steel melts is 1535 degrees Celsius. The highest temperature that can be attained by a hydrocarbon fire in the atmosphere without pressurization is 825 degrees Celsius .That is even if you have a blue flame. an orange flame, as was the case here is several hundred degrees cooler .None of the features of even 700 degree fire were present. White smoke, breaking windows. ..Construction companies do extensive tests of steel stress in fires - the highest temperature they ever recorded was 600 degrees Celsius....These buildings fell in a continuous wave explosion in 15 seconds at the rate of 50 feet per second, vertically , against the point of maximum resistance, rather than sideways, where there is no resistance. This is typical of a controlled explosion., The building is being ripped apart at exactly the same rate of speed as an object falling through the air - which is impossible, if it were to fall on the energy of the collapse alone. Shouldn't a thousand vertical feet of intact steel structure that was strong enough to survive cross winds of 120 miles an hour have slowed it down by 100% ? 1000% ? Some force other than the force of the falling debris had to be ripping the building apart...." After the collapse, all the steel assemblies appeared conveniently no more than 30 feet in length, ripped apart at the welds, - thoroughly, throughout the buildings - which is only possible in a high-tech controlled demolition. ... Where did the energy come from to convert these buildings to dust in mid-air ? ....The dust clouds were five times the size of the buildings - 90,000 tons of concrete were pulverized in the air, before they hit the ground ...there is only one way to explain that, and that is through the input of vast amounts of G energy .through thermodynamic expansion. the total energy required to accomplish this destruction is 1.5 gigowat hours, which is already abut 15 times the gravitational force of the building.....Conclusion: It is physically impossible for the buildings to have collapsed without the added force of explosives. Temperatures were 900 degrees too cool to cause the melting of the steel structure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian4 Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 N'otherone it is the right of you and Bearman and others to support the Idiot Prince but you have an obligation to say why?? In reality in Europe and in Canada and in South America and Asia he is detested. Sooo explain to me why the Smirking Chimp is a leader no equivaction now tell us why Bush lite is the man??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieBear Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 N'otherone it is the right of you and Bearman and others to support the Idiot Prince but you have an obligation to say why?? In reality in Europe and in Canada and in South America and Asia he is detested. Sooo explain to me why the Smirking Chimp is a leader no equivaction now tell us why Bush lite is the man??? I detest him too. I just don't think he and his friends planned 9/11, it was just dumb luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traderfromhell Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 I am a proponent of Occam's Razor. The simplest explaination works. Exactly. To believe otherwise, you have to believe the owner of the WTC allowed government agents (Halliburton?) to plant explosives. So why did George sit there for seven minutes with that dumb look on his face? If it was planned he could have done better than that. On the Pentagon thing with the missing wings, I talked to a guy who saw the plane go overhead right before it hit. He is a firefighter. A dumb look for 7 minutes? He's had that dumb look for a hell of a lot longer than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown Suguaro Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 Anotherone, I stayed out of the twin towers debate, but I think all debate and information is good. Our nation needs to do a lot more debate on a lot of issues. Who better to debate them than the intelligent people at the Stool. Growing up on the farm, one thing us kids had to try was to blow up a car "like in the movies". Well, it can't be done, and we doused it with gas to start the experiment and left the gas cap off. Just a Whooomp when the gas lit and that was it. But what really did get our attention was how hot the thing burned and for how long. What can it be in a car that burns that hot and that long - the metal was getting white hot. And we knew all about torches and welders so we knew what we were seeing. Pretty impressive. I have since seen numerous cars and RV's on fire, and the amount of heat is impressive. An RV melts to the point that you can't even tell it was an RV. Totally consumed. I suspect Yobob has seen some of those. The twin towers were burning for about an hour. There is no doubt in my mind, based on my experiences, that those beams were hot enough to buckle with all that weight from the floors above. That siesmograph reading, think the row of bowling balls thing where when the bowling ball hits one end of the line, the other end takes off. When the upper floors hit the lower floors it was like hitting a nail with a hammer. My 2 cents B.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown Suguaro Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 Karen Blue, Thank you for your response. B.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 EUR/USD cycle fit, using a 5-day cycle plus linear term for approximation of sum of longer cycles, is still heading down. Plus, the downward trendline of price points themselves is still intact, despite yesterday's and today's stall, with bounce as high as 1.2170. My interpretation: Short term trend still down (Uncle Buck up) until it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 EUR/USD last quote at 1.2131 I set a sell stop at 1.2115. If I get stopped in, buy stop loss at 1.21138. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 27, 2004 Report Share Posted July 27, 2004 Market trading at 1.2155 now. Still no trade on. Raised sell stop to 1.2140. If stopped in, stop out buy at 1.2168. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.