BornN2BS wrote:

houlepn@attglobal.net wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Why do you think that the WTC fires *must* have been much
cooler that typical residential fires are?

This was misquoted as I never posted such a statement and is another
lame attempt to discredit me.

The subordinate clause in the sentence form "Why do you think
that ---" is never a direct quotation. I am pointing out that you
can not seem to bring yourself to admit the plain fact that a
fire of the magnitude that was observed could easily have reached
a temperature in excess of 600C. This is enough to cause steel
to loose half its load bearing strength. It is also a temperature that
is commonly reached in ordinary residential fires -- a point you
didn't question when I brought it up.

Your last quasi-determinate claim to this effect was that
the temperature required to melt steel is Y and the fire was
burning at X and X is less than Y. It is hard to see how this
is anything but an attempt to evade the issue. Can't you
admit that X was probably in excess of 600C and Z, the
relevant temperature at which steel significantly weakens
(not melts!) is in that same range?

For future reference I don't use the *
symbol as a modifier, or to place emphasis on a word in a given
sentence. I do find it most interesting that you chose this misquoted
material to question whether or not I am a human.

I did not even pretend to quote you. I apologize if my
paraphrase of your rather secretive thought process was
inadequate. You are welcome to clarify your thesis.

You seem to infer that little fuel has actually penetrated
inside of the building. This is hard to believe given the
extensive breach at the entry point and the forward
momentum of the fuel tanks.

The momentum was clearly more lateral than forward.

"More lateral than forward" still points inside the building.

The damage to the
WTC was clearly lessened by the bad angle at which it was hit. Are you
trying to say that more fuel was doused into the building because of
the bad angle?

I did not make any comparison. You say that the fireball
is proof positive that most of the fuel did not make it into
the building. But there is also an exit fireball that is almost
as big as the entry fireball. My claim is only that enough
fuel made it into the building to spread the fire quickly on
a wide area.

As to the "bad angle" it does not limit damage although
it might result in the damage being more concentrated.
The kinetic energy had to be fully dissipated in both
cases. The plane did not bounce off, did it?

I don't follow you here. The footage of the first tower
being struck would indicate a much better result as far as damage to
the first tower. Yet the second tower fell far quicker, which I am sure
can easily be explained away with a mirror and a little smoke.

As you already noticed, the planes did not hit in a similar
fashion. Additionally, it is estimated that the second plane
hit at a 100 mph higher speed than the first one.

See:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

The kinetic energy released in the second impact would have
been from 40% to 57% greater.

Also, the second impact occurred 15 floors further down.
There was thus twice as much weight bearing down on the
damaged structure.

But the biggest flaw in your interpretation of the footages
is manifest in those very images. Didn't you notice
that the fireball at the exit point is almost as big as the
fireball at the entry point? Clearly much fuel must have
made it through. Could it have gone through without also
dousing the walls, furnitures, etc?

Sure, burning for about 3 or 4 minutes and that would be the extent of
it.

Now you forget again the furniture and other combustible
content. Office fires can rage for hours but if, per impossibile,
all was burned up in minutes, can you imagine the amount
of heat released? *Then* steel would have melted.

Since it doesn't fit your
story, I'm not the least bit surprised.

What does not fit my story? I said nothing about jet
fuel except that none of it is required for the fire to reach
temperatures in excess of 650C -- burning paper and
furniture are enough -- and that it contributed to the fire
being spread fast on a wide area. This is something nobody
disputes.

There are plenty of people who will dispute that a garden variety fire
could bring down a tower of the WTC.

Who's disputing that? Experts agree that garden variety fires
wouldn't have caused the collapse of the WTC. That is
because garden variety fires start in wastebaskets or such
and then spread slowly from office to office. As new areas
ignite, burned up areas cool down and the heat that steel
gets from hot areas gets dissipated along the beams towards
cold areas.

The WTC fire was not like that. The fire started on a wide area
and on several floors all at once. Some hot areas were mostly
surrounded by hot areas. There was nowhere for the heat
from these areas to dissipate into. Temperature in the
beams was allowed to rise enough to weaken and distort
them.

Furthermore -- the fire isn't the sole factor. The structure was
already weakened from the damage caused by the impact
of large airliners hitting at 400-600 mph. Did you forget that
already?

This post was a recollections of your memories of the live coverage
of the events of 9/11. You claim that no main news network reported
a jet (did you watch them all at once?) and that most only talked
about a small plane or Cessna before the second jet hit. You
advance this a an indications of a conspiracy the bulk of the media
were a part off. This claim is bizarre.

Yes I did watch all of them at once, as a matter of fact. They were all
breaking for commercial with unusual frequency. Call my claims bizarre
if you want to. The fact remains that such a tragedy could occur in New
York City and be mis-reported for almost 30 minutes. Most Americans
were caught off guard or not paying attention.

But is it possible you memories are fuzzy?

Not at all. I was upset immediately and fully aware of the significance
of what I had just witnessed. It made me sick to my stomach knowing the
media and the perpetrators were in bed together.

Your recollection of the coverage :

"CNN and FOX News were  repeating the same sketchy account
of this mystery Cessna"

The only mention of a Cessna in the CNN transcipt of the live
coverage on that day:

"This all began at about 8:48 this morning. Again, what we know
in case you are just joining us, a small plane, not a Cessna-type
or five or six seater, but instead, perhaps a passenger flight ran
into the north side of the World Trade Center."

The transcripts have been modified. So have the timelines. The events
outlined in my original post is exactly the way 9/11 was presented to
America by the mass media.

Then I suppose there must be some wide discrepancy between
those staged broadcasts that were recorded in thousands of
private homes where VCRs were running at that time and the
now doctored transcripts.

Has any of the conspiracy theorists come forward with
a proof of such discrepancy or even claimed to have noticed one
besides you? (Although you yourself claim no proof but your
questionable memory.)

If you were not watching the live broadcasts, I'm afraid you're left
with some tough decisions. I don't have anything to gain by making
false claims about how 9/11 was reported.

9/11 was already the age of the Internet. People discussed these
events on Usenet as they were unfolding. Searching messages
posted on Usenet on 9/11/2001 with the following search strings,
I get the corresponding numbers of hits:

fox plane hit jet: 10 results
cnn plane hit jet: 113
nbc plane hit jet: 5
abc plane hit jet: 14
cbs plane hit jet: 2
Total: 144 jet mentions on 9/11/2001

Most of these are indirect reports that a
passenger or commercial jet(s) hit the WTC.

fox plane hit cessna: 0 results
cnn plane hit cessna: 2
nbc plane hit cessna: 1
abc plane hit cessna: 0
cbs plane hit cessna: 0
Total: 3 cessna mentions on 9/11/2001

None of these three mentions of a Cessna is
a report that one hit the WTC.

Many posts turned up that are authored by people
who still are regular contributors to Usenet. You
might want to contact them to compare their recollections
of the events or inquire if their posts in the Google archive
might also have been tampered with.