Tuesday, February 2, 2010

9/11: Science and Conspiracy (NAT GEO)

Jebus crimeney. This was just freakin STUPID. While I admit there are questions that are logical that have not been answered to my satisfaction, seriously these are the best "point vs. counter-point" they could come up with? The idea that ANYONE gives "Loose Change" anything other than WTF, was this made by a 16 year old look is asking for ridicule. (OK he was like 20, and probably rode a short bus) Can we please have someone other than Popular Mechanics do an in depth actual analysis? PM left to many unanswered questions, but at least they looked at real ideas and used real testing. This was "theory vs. theory" with NO actual substance. I think I am now dumber from watching it, I need to blow up my TV. FYI Structural Steel does NOT need 2700* F to falter:
Although steel does not burn, it loses strength in a fire, which can lead to a structural failure. Above 500 °F, steel starts to lose its structural integrity, and at 600 °F, steel loses 75 percent of its strength, according to International Paint. Interchar and other Chartek fireproofing materials swell to provide a tough and stable insulating layer over the steel to protect it.
The average house burns at 1100* to 1400*
Real stats don't add up to their conspiracy theories. I am more than a little curious about the fall rate and directions (beyond "Pancake Collapse"), Building 7, and some of the Flight 93 rational.
Damn the Japanese physicist are in on it too.

Rant off,

No comments: