For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

a reply to: MrBig2430


When, where and by whom was it proved?

a reply to: Salander

I bet your questions will be answered. All the while you run off from any questions directed at you.

How are those AE 9/11 Truth fizzle no flash bombs working out for ya.

a reply to: LightSpeedDriver

Then quote a post of mine and why it’s wrong. The government is rightly held to scrutiny, but the con artists and charlatans of the truth movement that exploit 9/11 for notoriety and profit get a pass? All because the truth movement produces fantasy for their target audience? Conspiracists that basks in their ignorance, and glorify pseudoscience?

Please do reply, I welcome honest debate.

Want to talk about nukes at the WTC?
Self destructing buildings?
The thermite fraud of Jones, thermite paint, and thermite ceiling tiles?
AE 9/11 Truth, Richard Gauge, and fizzle no flash explosives?
Or how about Dr Wood debunking WTC conspiracies while claiming the power of a hurricane was used in a process she labeled Dustification?

What do you think is more probably than fire initiated inward bowing and buckling of the vertical columns leading to collapse?

a reply to: madenusa

Really, posting the pictures of columns cut using thermal lances by workers during clean up.

One, cite the date the pictures you posted were take.

Two, cite who actually took the pictures.

Three, you are claiming linear shape charges were used. Why were windows not blown out during, or material ejected on the start of collapse as seen in the video contained in this link? The part where the outer vertical columns are pulled inward with no indication of an explosive shock wave?
the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Four, why was there no audible explosions indicative of a pressure wave with enough force to cut steel?

Five, how did a complex CD system survive the impacts that cut vertical columns, core columns, elevator cables, and fire water mains. And in return survive the fires?


The debunking of you photo as proof of CD......
www.debunking911.com...

Got any more photos posted out of context with no important data like the date the photo was actually taken?

originally posted by: madenusa

I didn’t know a linear charge automatically cuts a column diagonally. Shouldn’t the caption be, a shape change placed diagonally cuts diagonally?

Any way. Thanks for proving the point conspiracists bask in their ignorance.

Its obvious that you don't need to melt the structural steel to put a building down. That doesnt change the fact that melted steel was founded on site – remember: thats a fact. The big question is: how the hell did it get there? Jet fuel is uncapable of get the temperature needed to melt the steel. What did? Curtains? Really?

I don't know. Maybe you can argue that the electrical or air system of the building is that melted thing, but there was melted something and wasnt the jet fuel with the structural steel.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: madenusa

I didn’t know a linear charge automatically cuts a column diagonally. Shouldn’t the caption be, a shape change placed diagonally cuts diagonally?

Any way. Thanks for proving the point conspiracists bask in their ignorance.

George Bush Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union January 29, 1991
"What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a "new world order",where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind -- peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law."...

If the TV declares something to be true, then we are heretics to believe otherwise.

originally posted by: Peserc
Its obvious that you don't need to melt the structural steel to put a building down. That doesnt change the fact that melted steel was founded on site – remember: thats a fact. The big question is: how the hell did it get there? Jet fuel is uncapable of get the temperature needed to melt the steel. What did? Curtains? Really?

I don't know. Maybe you can argue that the electrical or air system of the building is that melted thing, but there was melted something and wasnt the jet fuel with the structural steel.

Well im not sure of your point for a couple of reasons. First coal doesnt get hot enough to melt steal. Yet we create something called a blast furnace and can melt steal. How does a blast furnace work? Well it pumps air at the bottom this causes the oxygen to rise creating an endothermic reaction wheres the bottom is hundreds of degrees hotter then the top. This feeds the flow of morre oxygen into the furnace. Then there is the chemical reactions which occur that further increases temp.

Now in a building above the tenth floor there is a constant breeze the higher you go the faster air moves past the building. Break outwindows and you will make a blast furnace in the floors above. So saying jet fuel doesnt get hot enough is stupid especially since your adding aluminum the aircraft itself. This alone would increase the temperature. Not counting plastics wood in the building it made a great chemical fire.

I suspect the building designs themselves help feed the fires they removed all internal walls choosing to use external walls for support. That is the basic design of a blast furnace open interior heavy brick nd steel on the outside to retain heat.
.

a reply to: dragonridr

The jet fuel exploded and was consumed by fire - external to the building.

Just watch the videos to see the truth.

Therefore ... your summation is incorrect.

Additionally, a building is not a blast furnace ... not even close ... and ... there was no coal to burn.

P

a reply to: neutronflux

Shape charges cant cut a beam like that. You would have to cut into the beam first. To cut say 33 in steal beam a blast on one side wont cut it. You need 2 charges to act like scissors. To cut this beam you would need a thermal lance to cut into the beam to place 2 charges inside and two outside. Now i might be naive but i have a feeling if someone went into the building using thermal torches and planting explosives the people working there would have noticed. Not to mention the wires that would be running through the building

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: dragonridr

The jet fuel exploded and was consumed by fire - external to the building.

Just watch the videos to see the truth.

Therefore ... your summation is incorrect.

Additionally, a building is not a blast furnace ... not even close ... and ... there was no coal to burn.

P

Really what happens when you burn wood? And fuel doesnt explode it goes somewhere. What causes a blast is oxidation of a fuel source gas doesnt burn you can put out a match in a bucket of gas it is the vapor that burns, not the liquid. The blast was vapor burning off not fuel magically disapearing. I think this is why many people get fooled they dont understand science.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: dragonridr

The jet fuel exploded and was consumed by fire - external to the building.

Just watch the videos to see the truth.

Therefore ... your summation is incorrect.

Additionally, a building is not a blast furnace ... not even close ... and ... there was no coal to burn.

P

books.google.com... _d6&sig=DfXBl-cUTxoI7Q5Xj6MNnn54agM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibnZf44IPYAhUJ7oMKHQd4Cg0Q6AEIOzAG#v=onepage&q=did%20the%20world%20trade%20buildings%20act%2 0like%20a%20blast%20furnace&f=false

This link tells you how the buildings acted like a blast furnace.

a reply to: dragonridr

my question is simple: there are tons of evidences showing melted something. What metal was that? And from what?


I'm not saying that the building didnt colapsed because of the jet fuel, i'm saying that there was something molten and theres no official explanation about that.

How much fuel (including all the fuels you listed) would you need to create a fire that reached the temperature necessary to molten some orange metal?

The jet fuel kept burning for 10 minutes. Would the temperature continue to go up without it?


ETA: you are arguing about semantics, the fact that the vapor is the thing that burns doesnt mean anything, and i know the science behind fire. And there is a oficial explanation, and was debunked a long time ago (molten aluminum mixed with organic material)

a reply to: Peserc

Im going to be honest never followed the 9/11 stuff because of the lack of science i saw in debates. But as far as liquid metal my first guess is most of it was the aluminum frame of the plane. Not only would liquid aluminum increase the heat as vapors miv with oxygen. Aluminum reactions create a lot of heat. And i could see that easily causing some steel to melt. I remeber they were talking about the heat in the ruble a week after its collapse that verifies we had a chemical reaction.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neutronflux

Shape charges cant cut a beam like that. You would have to cut into the beam first. To cut say 33 in steal beam a blast on one side wont cut it. You need 2 charges to act like scissors. To cut this beam you would need a thermal lance to cut into the beam to place 2 charges inside and two outside. Now i might be naive but i have a feeling if someone went into the building using thermal torches and planting explosives the people working there would have noticed. Not to mention the wires that would be running through the building

I said the columns showed were cut after the collapse during clean of the WTC by workers using thermal lances. The pictures posted is one of oldest truth movement propaganda pieces that has been repeatedly debunked,

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Peserc

Im going to be honest never followed the 9/11 stuff because of the lack of science i saw in debates. But as far as liquid metal my first guess is most of it was the aluminum frame of the plane. Not only would liquid aluminum increase the heat as vapors miv with oxygen. Aluminum reactions create a lot of heat. And i could see that easily causing some steel to melt. I remeber they were talking about the heat in the ruble a week after its collapse that verifies we had a chemical reaction.

The truth movement is a joke in that they create false arguments by hiding facts, using photos out of context, pseudoscience, and fraudulent studies.

Take the towers fell at the rate of free fall. That one fundamental cry of the truth movement is not even close to reality. The towers falling through the greatest path of resistance, i. e. the vertical columns, is also a lie.

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

BY CHRIS MOHR
www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

a reply to: Peserc

False argument. Cite from the NIST reports to show that NIST ever claimed WTC 1, 2, and 3 failed because of melted beams.

At 1000 Celsius, steel is not “melted”. But at 1000 Celsius, steel loses 60 percent of its strength. Then add in thermal stress from uneven heating in a building that lost vertical and core columns.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


When, where and by whom was it proved?

Why do you ask yet again?

Did you think your trolling would work?

Better to point out for all to see that you avoid assimilating new information to prove my point.

Continue on, sir. You are a perfect example of just how and why truthers are laughed at. You reject reason to the point of embracing narratives that only an imbecile could believe in. Like nukes and no planes.

You, sir, are one funny dude.