ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
Very interesting OP, WTC Dust. And welcome back.
While I agree with your point no. 1 in terms of what ultimately caused the buildings to fail (in the manner they did), you seem to be ignoring the extensive testimony about the heat under the rubble pile and the accounts of molten steel and molten metals. Are you claiming this didn't occur? If you're not claiming this, how do you account for this intense heat in the rubble pile?
While I agree with your point no. 1 in terms of what ultimately caused the buildings to fail (in the manner they did), you seem to be ignoring the extensive testimony about the heat under the rubble pile and the accounts of molten steel and molten metals. Are you claiming this didn't occur? If you're not claiming this, how do you account for this intense heat in the rubble pile?
Whatever destroyed the WTC it:
1. was not an extremely hot process, and
2. produced. fumes that were resistant to fire fighting efforts and occasionally heavy rain for at least 100 days.
Anyone who suggested a mechanism of WTC destruction had to fulfill these criteria, or they were wrong. Which is why I knew Steven Jones was wrong as soon as I read about his thermite theory, and why I'm not convinced that Judy Wood is wrong (because her mechanism doesn't require heat). She has not yet explained the long lasting nature of the WTC fumes, but I can't fault her for that, because neither have I. My work continues.
Last edited: