Thread: Debunking the 9/11 *Anti-No-Plane-Theory* Myths
View Single Post
Old 05-02-2008, 03:37 PM   #21 (permalink)
Grace
Congressional Representative
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,640
Country:
Points: 8,201, Level: 61
Points: 8,201, Level: 61 Points: 8,201, Level: 61 Points: 8,201, Level: 61
Level up: 17%, 249 Points needed
Level up: 17% Level up: 17% Level up: 17%
Activity: 61%
Activity: 61% Activity: 61% Activity: 61%
Grace is offline 		Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlicornsPrayer View Post
I take it, that Grace's 'authorities' didn't mention that the fuel pipes had been damaged (ruptured) during the plane collision? And that the fuel from the 3 different locations fuel generators were located was sparked by the water sprayers kicking on when the smaller fires had started?

In otherwords...Smaller fires setting of sprinkler system, that water hitting exposed/damaged wiring from the planes, then the sparks hitting the fuel that was running out of the damaged fuel lines going to the fuel run backup electric generators...

The heat then generated further weakend the supports that were holding up each floor...And the weight of each floor caved into the next floor, creating more weight, which just kept increasing expendentially...As they say. LOL!

I take it AP's "authorities" over looked the FACT that steel as thick as the steel used to build the WTC's CANT melt, or weaken in even 2000 degree's. And thats over 300 degree's hotter than jet fuel burns. In fact the steel was tested in temperatures hotter then the heat Jet fuel burns at, FOR SEVERAL HOURS. The WTC buildings were the first EVER to fall from "fire". EVER. Keep your head in the sand though, if it makes you feel better.

Another thing to note, the building that got hit by the second plane fell first, even though the first crash had much more of a direct hit, and longer time for the fuel to burn. Hmmm
Last edited by Grace; 05-02-2008 at 03:42 PM.
Sponsored Links