Originally Posted by
Inu
Wow...Ckblk..you expect this to convince me...first of all how did they know the temperature it burned at, there was no tempeture readings taken that day or and debis properly analised... and its fucking popular mechanics, how do you know they wernt "persueded" to give that information. there is alot more but I know i wont convince you.
Now, you see, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we call a devotee. They are so sure they are right that it is impossible to convince them. If I was to give this man irrefutable proof, not that I have with this article, he would still deny it.
A. You're right, there were no temperature readings taken. They gave a range of temperatures, and the upper range that jet fuel burns at would weaken the steel sufficiently (reducing it's effectiveness at 50%). This is something you conspiracy theorists have said is
IMPOSSIBLE.
B. And Popular Mechanics is peer reviewed. This means that if an expert reads something in it that is false, the article author gets owned. Now, if you don't have any refutations to the points in the article, we'll have to consider them correct, won't we? They did, after all, consult real experts, and not people who used wikipedia and google to find information.
C. I'm fairly open minded. I don't claim to know what happened there. But this is what the
facts have shown so far. If you have nothing further, then this is the truth as far as I know.