Given that the towers didn't seem to come down due to a sudden violent explosion (apart from the initial fuel explosion as the jets entered), but from an internal collapse, I don't see much merit in that theory.Jovial Monk wrote:http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/worl ... al-blasts/"From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions."
May have contributed but the temperatures alone would have fatally weakened the steel beams where the aircraft hit. Not necessary for the metal to melt.
Fire sprinklers brought down the twin towers
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
- boxy
- Posts: 6748
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: Fire sprinklers brought down the twin towers
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."
Re: Fire sprinklers brought down the twin towers
With steel members weakened by heat, stuff like molten aluminium hitting water could have initiated small explosions that triggered the collapse.
Not saying it did, but better that than stupid conspiracy theories.
Not saying it did, but better that than stupid conspiracy theories.
-
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 8:56 pm
Re: Fire sprinklers brought down the twin towers
Seems reasonable enough to me. I aint no engineer but at east it explains to some degree why the towers collapsed.Jovial Monk wrote:With steel members weakened by heat, stuff like molten aluminium hitting water could have initiated small explosions that triggered the collapse.
Not saying it did, but better that than stupid conspiracy theories.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 51 guests