JUST WOW!
The time and energy spent on such crap boggles the mind.
So this was??? Different steel, different wind patterns and a Peterbilt not a Mack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30collapse.html
Stuff melts when heated.
JUST WOW!
The time and energy spent on such crap boggles the mind.
So this was??? Different steel, different wind patterns and a Peterbilt not a Mack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/30collapse.html
Stuff melts when heated.
Last edited by bob_3000; May 25, 2022 at 07:42 PM.
The crap is what you are repeating without paying attention to what I say. "Jet fuel/ kerosene fire is not sufficient to melt or even weaken the thick steel structure of WTC".. Not sufficient to melt the 1,370 feet one piece structural steel of the World Trade Center, not the few feet of steel bridge>
Waiting for your next never ending crap.
Interesting. I see attribution only for the last, quoted statement. There was a Lynn Margulis at Amherst, though she was a professor of evolutionary biology and never claimed expertise in structural engineering or material science. Your quote came from the book ‘Lynn Margulis: The Life and Legacy of a Scientific Rebel’ by Dorion Sagan, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012.
At least in the sections I read, she also provided no attribution or basis for her statements. Hard to know what to make of it all…
unsubscribed to this thread, I am tired of reading conspiracy theory about the towers.
If you don't understand engineering and Physics or have a background in REAL engineering (ie the years of actual training and education it takes) DON"T pretend to spout off facts about engineering and physics. Even Physicist cannot fully understand all the minuet details of engineered structures (which is a very large and complex system) without specific training.
There is a lot going on, and it looks like magic to most people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks