Purdue University Research Confirms Government 9/11 Findings

[USMC the Almighty]

and? What in your opinion were Cheney's orders? If their is a logical explanation in your opinion. Im not asking you to back it up with facts, im just curious?

Mineta's testimony has a lot of holes in it and I don't find it very convincing. His timeline doesn't work out.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Mineta's testimony has a lot of holes in it and I don't find it very convincing. His timeline doesn't work out.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Care to explain a little further?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Care to explain a little further?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

Here's a little bit more on the holes in Mineta's timeline. http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-62417.html

I just watched the testimony and there is nothing in there damaging to the official story at all.

 

[palerider]

1. The melting point of steel is 2,500-2,750 degrees Fahrenheit. For steel to to become malleable requires exposure to temperatures approaching 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Yet, only 3 out of 170 perimeter and core columns retrieved from the site had been exposed to temperatures above 482 degrees Fahrenheit. We're expected to believe that the towers collapsed after the columns from the core and perimeter became too malleable at temperatures over 1,500 degrees LOWER than their malleability point. I don't buy it and neither should you.

Your whole argument is full of holes, but I am just going to address this one. It is true that steel becomes malleable at about 2,000 degrees. Steel, that is, that is sitting on a table being exposed to a heat source such as a flame.

The equation changes, however, if the steel is under pressure. The equation changes a lot if pressure is added to it. Are you arguing that the steel in tall buildings is not under pressure?

 

[Napoleon]

Your whole argument is full of holes...

LOL. Is that so? Might want to inform FEMA and NIST of that since it is their data.

It is true that steel becomes malleable at about 2,000 degrees. Steel, that is, that is sitting on a table being exposed to a heat source such as a flame.

The steel was exposed to a heat source just not one hot enough to cause it's malleability.

The equation changes, however, if the steel is under pressure. The equation changes a lot if pressure is added to it. Are you arguing that the steel in tall buildings is not under pressure?

No, I'm arguing that malleability resulting from flaming jet fuel was not a factor in the collapse. The pressure would also not have been enough to trigger the collapse and none of the official reports argue that it was.

 

[palerider]

LOL. Is that so? Might want to inform FEMA and NIST of that since it is their data.

Government scientists? You want me to quake over what government scientists say? Did they incorporate pressure into their equation or not? Pressure makes all the difference.

The steel was exposed to a heat source just not one hot enough to cause it's malleability.

What was the pressure per square inch on the steel that was exposed to the heat source? If you don't know that, then you have an incomplete equation.

No, I'm arguing that malleability resulting from flaming jet fuel was not a factor in the collapse. The pressure would also not have been enough to trigger the collapse and none of the official reports argue that it was.

If you don't incorporate pressure and heat into the equation, you can't know whether the temperature was enough to make the metal malleable or not. The information you gave was for steel in a static situation. The steel in those buildings was not static by a long shot.