Comments Posted By Eric Wilds
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments


Troll feeder says "I’m just so used to materials taking on the temperature of their surroundings that I simply assumed that steel hanging out in a 1000 deg F fire for an hour would approach that temperature itself."

Sorry, but you keep digging a hole. The temperature of the steel was tested by NIST and only 2 percent reached temperatures over 250 degrees. Moreover, there is no reason to conclude that the fires in the towers reached 1100 degrees, much less that steel components that are protected with fireproofing.

Comment Posted By Eric Wilds On 25.08.2007 @ 21:37

"Estimates of the interior temperature generated by the fires in the WTC vary, but are nearly all above 1000 deg F. Which leads to steel strengths below 49% of yield. Which is a problem for a steel structure designed assuming stresses equal to as much as 66% of yield."

This confuses the temperature of the fire with the temperature of the steel. Just because the fire reached temperatures around 1000 deg. doesn't suggest the steel also reached that temperature. It's a totally separate issue, but this kind of deception -- pretending that the temperature of the fire is the same as the temperature of the steel -- is typical of the government shills.

Comment Posted By Eric Wilds On 22.08.2007 @ 20:12

I watched the documentary and it was not an impartial look at 9/11, but a deliberate attempt to resuscitate the government's story, which continues to come apart at the seams. First, the format of the documentary was specious: it mentioned a "conspiracy theory" and then the "expert." But what is an "expert?" An "expert" is just someone who supports the government story and doesn't countenance any other alternative explanation. The "expert" rebuttal was often frightfully silly.

For instance Davin Coburn made the preposterous statement that in 2001 cell phone technology would work at 50,000 feet. His evidence? Nil.

David Coburn also suggested that Mineta's testimony might have been a reference to United 93, even though Mineta's own testimony makes it clear the flight in question is the one approaching the Pentagon.

But that wasn't enough. In regards to what caused the circular hole in the C ring at the Pentagon, the official story is now that it was a vortex of hot swirling dust pushed forward by the plane. First it was the nose cone, but that was implausible since that it made of aluminum. So Popular Mechanics then told us it was the landing gear. That story worked for awhile but the gear was found before the C ring impact, so now they've concocted a new explanation.

An "expert" is simply someone who defends the official explanation, not someone who objectively looks at the the evidence and makes a conclusion. That is why all the defenders of government propaganda would have said that it nose cone punched a hole in the C-ring. But later would've told you it was the landing gear. Now it's a swirling field of hot dust and debris. But if the official explanation keeps changing, why should we assume the government's story at all?

Comment Posted By Eric Wilds On 21.08.2007 @ 16:50

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page