Comments by "Old Guy Gaming Network" (@CRAZYHORSE19682003) on "1945 Empire State Building B-25 Crash" video.

@ronniew3229 Here is some interesting things about steel. It has a melting point of 2800 degrees. However if you heat it to 1000 degrees it loses 50% of its strength. If you heat it to 1500 degrees it loses 90% of its strength. The fire retardant foam in the impact zone was knocked off leaving parts of the steel exposed to thermal creep. The steel still covered by the rife retardant foam were effectively insulated and retained the heat the steel absorbed.
4
@kevindarkstar The most LOGICAL explanation for that is molten aluminum. In it's molten state Aluminum has some strange properties when reacting with water. An exothermic reaction that releases pure hydrogen, oxygen, and massive amounts of heat. What did we see immediately after the buildings collapsed? The FDNY spraying the debris pile with water. Ground zero was in essence a chemical furnace and was inadvertently being fueled by the FDNY through constant spraying with water. Another interesting thing Molten aluminum does when exposed to water, it can explode violently with great force. Another good example of this phenomena was the USS Stark, it was hit by two exocet missiles, starting a fire that caused the aluminum superstructure to catch fire. The damage control teams pumped over 40 tons of water into the compartment and all it did was make the fires burn hotter and faster. They almost capsized the ship, it wasn't until they changed to special foam and chemical retardants that they put the fires out.
3
@gregallen4272 A B-25 had a much lighter construction than a 767. The MAXIMUM takeoff weight of a B-25 was 35,000 pounds and it had a cruising speed of 230 miles per hour. It had a fuel capacity of 670 gallons. The 767 that hit the WTC had a max take off weight of 412,000 pounds and had a fuel capacity of 24,140 gallons and it his the WTC at speeds of 400 miles per hour. The Aircraft that hit the WTC generated over 65x the force as the B-25 that hit the empire state building.
3
campbellscollision You are incorrect, from the moment the FAA declared a hijacking 2 F-15's were in the air in less than 7 minutes out of Otis AFB in Massachusetts. They made it down to New York by going super sonic and made it there within a few minutes after the second plane hit. I would suggest that you listen to the ATC recordings from that day, it is CLEAR that they were not trained in how to deal with something like 9/11, the confusion and crazy rumors that were being spread that day effectively paralyzed the FAA for quite some time.
3
@WasFakestCenturyAesthetics Sorry, science and physics don't give a shit about someones personal beliefs. Do I believe we are being told the entire truth about 9/11, of course not. That does not change the FACTS that the WTC towers 1 and 2 were hit by aircraft and collapsed from the damage. Here is a paper written my MIT civil engineers that explain how the WTC failed. http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf
3
@WasFakestCenturyAesthetics No it is conspiratards who literally have no grasp of basic science or physics. It is what allows these absurd 9/11 theories to survive, conspiratards are too stupid to understand how silly they are.
2
@nunyabizness199 I saw it for a few seconds before it hit. I was driving into DC from VA. I can say for certain it was a commercial aircraft, it wasn't a missile, it wasn't a Skywarrior, or any of the other moronic conspiracy theories.
1
@WasFakestCenturyAesthetics Actually it is the exact opposite. I was an eyewitness to the attack on the Pentagon so I KNOW a commercial aircraft hit the Pentagon. When all these silly conspiracy theories started coming out, I KNEW the ones about the Pentagon were bullshit so I took the time to research the individual claims made by guys like Richard Gage and one by one I discovered they did not hold up to scientific cross examination. I also base my conclusions on the works done by MIT Civil Engineers and a series of papers written by them about the collapse. In these papers they explain why the buildings collapsed. I will also point out that a team from the American Society Of Civil Engineers had a team examine the steel from the WTC. They found ZERO evidence of a controlled demolition. Protec on of the leading demolition companies in the world was contracted to clean up ground zero. They found ZERO evidence of a controlled demolition. So if Civil engineers and demolition experts who were on scene and examined the debris could not find any evidence of a controlled demolition, I think I am going to take their opinion over internet experts.
1
@chrisg7336 If you would bother to do any research yourself you would discover there have been plenty of reports and papers written on WTC-7. While it is true that it was not hit by an aircraft it wasn't the ONLY building destroyed by debris from the collapse of Towers 1&2. In fact WTC 3, 5, 6, 7, the Verizon Building, the Bankers Trust building, a Church were all destroyed or so heavily damaged from falling debris that they had to be torn down. I bet you are unaware that WTC-7 was built around an existing building, the Con/ED power substation meaning it did not have a full foundation and support system like almost EVERY other building designed. I bet you are unaware that the ENTIRE vertical load above the 8th floor was supported by only THREE columns. I bet you are unaware that the loss of a SINGLE column would start a progressive collapse that could not be avoided. I bet you are unaware that debris from the tower gouged out a 22 story hole in the corner of WTC-7 and compromised the internal support structure. I bet you are unaware that a prominent bulge formed in the SW corner of the building almost immediately after being struck by debris from the towers, a bulge indicating that WTC-7 was heavily compromised and in immediate danger of collapse. I bet you are also unaware that the heavily damaged WTC-7 had unchecked fires raging in the building for 7 hours before the final collapse. Yeah I am willing to bet you are totally unaware or deliberately ignoring it so you can keep parroting 9/11 nonsense you read off a conspiracy web site.
1
David Petri There was molten METAL found at the bottom of the rubble. It was never tested so its composition is unknown, saying it was steel is pure speculation especially since there were massive quantities of metal like copper and aluminum that have a much lower melting point. I suspect it was molten aluminum because if you do the research into how molten aluminum reacts to water you will understand why the temperatures at ground zero were so high for weeks. The NYFD was fueling what we could call a chemical furnace with water. The more water the poured onto ground zero the hotter it would get.
1
Lats Niebling I am assuming you are talking about the Dr. Neils Harritt paper on Thermite found in the WTC debris. I would suggest you do a little research, that paper was debunked for all the junk science in it. The "Thermite" turned out to be paint primer and rust lol.
1
@WasFakestCenturyAesthetics LOL Science and math don't need an official story in order to be valid. My believe comes from papers written by civil engineers at MIT. Papers written and published in Structural engineering magazines. It also comes from researching the claims made by conspiracy theorists and finding out they do not stand up to scientific cross examination.
1