thats what fascist regimes always count on, that the reality is just too outrageous to buy at the level of what is considered normal citizenry... its the 'lie big' paradigm! Anyhow, you would be bored to death if you where to wait for any building to collapse because of fire! Engineers know that rolled metal has something that is called a 'benign mode of failure'! that is things bend before they fail! that takes energy and time! Haven't seen other building fires that burned much longer? And now the worlds first 3 highrises that fail just like controlled demolitions do! And with so many benefits for the regime; but of course I understand, there are so many that depend on economic structures (corporations) that are involved and extract their wellbeing during hard times from the war that was sold! Who really is interested to understand how all this works should watch the 3 hour documentary 'How Bankers control America' for example on youtube... On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 3:39 AM, Peter Todd wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 10:48:07PM -0400, Rich wrote: > > WOW!! And I though only Rosie O'Donnell and her pack of political > eccentrics > > were the only ones who exceeded the present knowledge of thermodynamics. > > And the whole point of that http://www.debunking911.com/ was a nice > insanely detailed step by step debunking of all of that stuff... > > Actually I thought their debunking of the molten metal hotspots left > well after the collapse was really interesting. Basically, not only can > iron burn in oxygen, which is how cutting torches work after all, but in > the right conditions iron can burn in *air* and be self-sustaining. The > conditions being a lot of rods with enough surface area, yet being well > insulated enough to keep in heat, and a source of air. As the iron > oxidizes, forming iron oxide it literally sucks in more air as the > oxygen is used up by being bound to the iron. The reaction is exothermic > of course, and if the heat loss is low enough it's self-sustaining until > the supply of iron runs out. Since there is no CO(2) that needs to > escape, the ventilation requierments are a fair bit less stringent than > a typical fire. The debunking site doesn't mention it specificly IIRC, > but I guess you'd just have to let the remaining nitrogen content > diffuse outwards, or make-up oxygen diffuse inwards depending on your > point of view. > > Iron can't bind to nitrogen correct? > > > > One must quite desperately want to protect ones trust in politicians > and > > > the > > > military industrial complex to overrule so many hints that something > was > > > big > > > time wrong on 911! > > > And I'm not talking about foreign terrorists... > > > > > > I am surprised when otherwise pretty intelligent people start > believing in > > > so many firsts... > > > Like the worlds first 3 steal frame buildings collapsing 'controlled > > > demolition style' leaving hot spots of molten metal at their base, > which > > > doesn't even happen in cases of controlled demolition! And then they > say > > > that magic jet fuel did it... I mean really they should do their math, > > > even > > > if all of the energy contained in the provided fuel could have somehow > > > been > > > aspired to create temperatures hot enough to melt steel, how much of > the > > > steel required to bring down these towers could have been affected? > > > I recommend to those that can fathom deep skull and bones like > > > conspiracies > > > to google ore Youtube 'Nuclear WTC' ! > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > >> Hash: SHA1 > > >> > > >> On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 08:01:51PM -0300, Enki wrote: > > >> > On 4 Apr 2008 at 17:24, piclist@ian.org wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > As for the collapse not due to being structually damaged by the > > >> > > planes > > >> and > > >> > > then set on fire, I don't know what else would have caused it. > > >> Earthquake? > > >> > > Gravity waves? Again, it seems pretty simple to me. Big impact, > > >> explosion, > > >> > > and intense fire caused a collapse. > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > It's because you are not an Engineer. > > >> > > >> http://www.debunking911.com/ is the best site I've seen debunking 911 > > >> conspiracy theories. Their front page photo is of a highly tilted > south > > >> tower coming down... > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist