For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Dwoodward85

I agree about his attitude, this guy had some issues with slicing off a dudes nose at a party showing off recently.

Thay said he was drunk

Aside from all that, yes its absolutely possible to heat metal up to under 2000 F and bend it like plastic. Try a campfire and some rebar, it will take time without a forge or higher fuel source, but the temp is whats important.

Nice job - attacking someone's character and agreeing with him. His words may have offended your delicate sensibilities but really calling names is for children and most children know better.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

The facade may have been aluminum - but that is irrelevant to the question addressed by the video.

Please don't stray from the topic.

I don't see how that's off-topic. If someone makes an argument regarding molten steel, whether for or against - it's completely relevant to point out that the molten metal did not have to be steel in the first place, and point out the far greater likelihood of it being molten aluminum.

Pointing out the faulty premise, which is on-topic in any argument.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: FyreByrd
I can melt steel with a paper match.

I don't see why 10,000 gallons of jet fuel couldn't heat steel to the temperature where it would deform and lose its structural integrity in an office building with elevator shafts providing a passable chimney.

Almost all the kerosene fuel was consumed in the initial fireball outside the building. There is a picture of a woman standing ih the hole the plane made looks like the fire is out there,Paper carpet and desks don't melt or weaken steel-was a low temp black smoke fire firefighters said they could put out. How do you turn 32 acres of 4in thick concrete into dust? surely not with kerosene.

That is not at all how that works.

The video maker is the moron.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FyreByrd

I've seen something like this before.

While steel does melt at a much higher temp that what burning jet fuel can produce, the steel does not have to be melted to become structurally-compromised.

Good video.

So what about all the steel that was not compromised by heat.

#2 fell in 56 minutes! #1 fell in 85 minutes!

1975 WTC #1 fire burned for 3 hours on the 11th floor while spreading to many floors. This fire was more intense (hotter), and suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

I think another member mentioned that the structure was not held together through welded joints. It was bolted together. Given enough force from the impact, the fires and the collapse, those bolts were nothing more than sheer pins that broke easily.

In other words, the pancake effect.

originally posted by: blackaspirin

Conversely, what is the 'controlled demolition' explanation for why the 2nd tower to be hit collapsed first? The demolition team forgot which building they were supposed to blow up first, and hit the wrong button?

Because #2 was further away from #7.

Personnel in #7 OEM bunker put the finishing touches on the explosive systems in the Twin Towers, which one would you bring down first; the dangerously close #1 Tower or the safely distant #2 Tower?

Then exited #7 to prepare for the next demolition of the #1 Tower and #7 from a secondary location (The new command center location that they had setup for the simulated terrorist attack operation).

Fraud.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FyreByrd

I've seen something like this before.

While steel does melt at a much higher temp that what burning jet fuel can produce, the steel does not have to be melted to become structurally-compromised.

Good video.

So what about all the steel that was not compromised by heat.

#2 fell in 56 minutes! #1 fell in 85 minutes!

1975 WTC #1 fire burned for 3 hours on the 11th floor while spreading to many floors. This fire was more intense (hotter), and suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

I think another member mentioned that the structure was not held together through welded joints. It was bolted together. Given enough force from the impact, the fires and the collapse, those bolts were nothing more than sheer pins that broke easily.

In other words, the pancake effect.

So the tower's construction and massive weight was trusted by bolts since day one?

Why didn't Tower #1 collapse in the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours at a way lower level (many floors around floor 11), which had a lot more weight above than 9/11.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Because #2 was further away from #7.

Personnel in #7 OEM bunker put the finishing touches on the explosive systems in the Twin Towers, which one would you bring down first; the dangerously close #1 Tower or the safely distant #2 Tower?

Then exited #7 to prepare for the next demolition of the #1 Tower and #7 from a secondary location (The new command center location that they had setup for the simulated terrorist attack operation).

Fraud.

I guess it's unfortunate for you that basic physics (greater mass above a weakened point) explains it without resorting to assuming secret 'explosive systems' and a multitude of people who would need to be involved.

The basic physics explanation is already supported by the available evidence. Theories about secret teams of people and secret explosive methods are not.

Occam's Razor.

In other words, the pancake effect.

They did not pancake, open your eyes and you will see that..

a reply to: lordcomac

of course, it was all shipped to China long before anyone could sample anything and get any real answers.

No Numb nutz - all the debris was sent to Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island

Here it was sorted and examined. Destroyed fire engines and police cars in one pile

Steel from the towers was put into its own pile - engineers examined it and selected out what pieces wanted
for analysis

Small debris was examined for personal effects and human remains

www.youtube.com...

Notice steel sprayed painted to be held for analysis

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Because #2 was further away from #7.

Personnel in #7 OEM bunker put the finishing touches on the explosive systems in the Twin Towers, which one would you bring down first; the dangerously close #1 Tower or the safely distant #2 Tower?

Then exited #7 to prepare for the next demolition of the #1 Tower and #7 from a secondary location (The new command center location that they had setup for the simulated terrorist attack operation).

Fraud.

Theories about secret teams of people and secret explosive methods are not.

Prove it.

and since nobody will touch on the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours, with 80+ floors above, super weight above.
Should have came down super quick, especially with all those weak bolts that held the towers together, that snap so easily.

originally posted by: PsychicCroMag

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: FyreByrd
I can melt steel with a paper match.

I don't see why 10,000 gallons of jet fuel couldn't heat steel to the temperature where it would deform and lose its structural integrity in an office building with elevator shafts providing a passable chimney.

Almost all the kerosene fuel was consumed in the initial fireball outside the building. There is a picture of a woman standing ih the hole the plane made looks like the fire is out there,Paper carpet and desks don't melt or weaken steel-was a low temp black smoke fire firefighters said they could put out. How do you turn 32 acres of 4in thick concrete into dust? surely not with kerosene.

Thousands of gallons of fuel went down elevator shafts and burned on lower floors.
After the kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel argument fails, we find out that the kerosene burned outside of the structure anyway?
It doesn't matter anyway.
If you search the internet, you can find a lot of photos of twisted and deformed steel beams that remained after structure fires fueled by little more than painted wood.

a reply to: xdriver14

Office furnishings do not burn very hot.

Yes they do - most modern furnishings are mode of synthetics aka plastics

Organics (wood paper cloth) burn with 8000-8500 btu/lb

Synthetics are derived from petroleum and burn with 12000 - 16000 btu/lb

That's 50 to 100 % more heat per lb

Floor coverings (carpet) , furniture - the coverings and paddings, computers/printers. etc are all plastics

a reply to: kyleplatinum

I can't find a decent online source that discusses the 1975 fire. For what it's worth (and it's not worth much, being Wikipedia) Wikipedia says the fire broke out on two office floors, where it was tackled and extinguished manually within a short space of time and that the body of the fire was contained within a vertical shaft and couldn't spread.

So yeah, looks like we might be talking about slightly (!) different-sized fires here, and all they have in common is the location.

Steel girders are sprayed with fire proofing to decrease the chance of it failure in extreme heat. The real story is being hidden. If jet fuel or kerosene burnt that hot which it does not) it would be pretty hard to make an engine that didn't self destruct. a reply to: FyreByrd

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Because the 1975 fire was FOUGHT by the FDNY .......

On 911 no firefighting was done, all the risers for sprinklers were smashed by the aircraft impact

Nothing impeded the fire......

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Because #2 was further away from #7.

Personnel in #7 OEM bunker put the finishing touches on the explosive systems in the Twin Towers, which one would you bring down first; the dangerously close #1 Tower or the safely distant #2 Tower?

Then exited #7 to prepare for the next demolition of the #1 Tower and #7 from a secondary location (The new command center location that they had setup for the simulated terrorist attack operation).

Fraud.

Theories about secret teams of people and secret explosive methods are not.

Prove it.

and since nobody will touch on the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours, with 80+ floors above, super weight above.
Should have came down super quick, especially with all those weak bolts that held the towers together, that snap so easily.

The original construction of the buildings included fireproofing on the beams.

. Fireproofingprotected the steel and there was no structural damage to the tower.

WTC-Wiki
There you go.

Oh, because it was asbestos.

Berlau recounts how the effectiveness of asbestos fireproofing was proven during an intense Feb. 13, 1975 fire that burned for more than three hours in the elevator and utility shafts from the ninth to nineteenth floors of the first WTC tower – an area where asbestos fireproofing was still intact at the time. Despite the fire’s intensity – it burned nearly everything, including telephone panels and wiring, and got hot enough to blow out windows – the asbestos fireproofing contained the fire so that it did minimal damage to the rest of the building.

asbestos fireproofing

And to answer the next question, they stopped using asbestos on that tower at the 36th floor, during construction.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Prove it.

I don't need to 'prove' that the theory about a secret team of people, using a secret 'explosives system', is not supported by the available evidence.

You know why? Because you are the one who put it out there as a theory. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. When you have evidence of a secret team, and the 'explosives system', then you may present it.

Until then, you have simply made unwarranted assumptions about what caused the towers to collapse. Everything I used to explain it is already part of the available evidence. Planes did hit the towers, extensive damage was done at the impact points, and fires hot enough to sufficiently cause the steel to fail did occur.

You still have a lot of work to do, since you've introduced unnecessary assumptions about teams of people and secret 'explosives systems'. Your theory, your problem.

Ooops

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Prove it.

I don't need to 'prove' that the theory about a secret team of people, using a secret 'explosives system', is not supported by the available evidence.

You know why? Because you are the one who put it out there as a theory. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. When you have evidence of a secret team, and the 'explosives system', then you may present it.

Until then, you have simply made unwarranted assumptions about what caused the towers to collapse. Everything I used to explain it is already part of the available evidence. Planes did hit the towers, extensive damage was done at the impact points, and fires hot enough to sufficiently cause the steel to fail did occur.

You still have a lot of work to do, since you've introduced unnecessary assumptions about teams of people and secret 'explosives systems'. Your theory, your problem.

Proof is in the footage. You just see it differently.

The relocation of the oem command center for the 9/12 simulated terrorist attack operation.

The original location of the oem center on the 23rd floor of #7, and the just in time completion of the 13 million dollar addition to #7 prior to 9/11.

The acquisition of the entire WTC by Manhattan developer Larry Silverstein just six weeks before 9/11.

First time the WTC had changed hands in thirty years and the first time it had ever come under private control.

Only 56 minutes to fall.

Timeline.

Insurance.

They knew it was coming, and gave it a helping hand.

They've been at it ever since.