911GATE: Impossible Collapse Mega Proof

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saltarello

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by Saltarello
 

I've made it quite clear that the jet fuel only acted as an accellerant to the office fire.


You mentioned raging office fires. Will give you a clue, do you know what black smoke means coming off a fire right? Just in case I will spill the beans for you: means oxigen starved fire, wich means low temperature fire, wich, in any case, would have not melted structural steel. We dont use blast furnaces to make steel just for the kicks, its the only way to melt or bend structural steel, kerosene (jet fuel) just does not burn hot enough, and most of it was blown away in every direction on impact. But as said, enjoy your "bliss".

Hilariously, but no.

But don't take it from me, take it from people who work in the field (my emphasis):

Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke, such smoke is likely to be more toxic than smoke from a fire involving wood, and would render escape and fire fighting very difficult.
www.hse.gov.uk...


And this must have been some oxygen starved fire:




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


What was always weird to me for some reason was that they both collapsed. And so fast. I would have figured theyd burn for days before collapsing. I'm not really a truther, but no doubt it was weird stuff.
edit on 12-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Realistically, they were two buildings made of steel. How the # could they collapse in less then an hour without a bomb ?


And you think an average bomb would be less effective doing that as opposed to a whole JET filled with jet fuel burning for 50+ minutes?

Or reworded: You think that a Jet slammed into the towers and jet fuel burning for an hour would NOT accomplish that - although a bomb surely would bring the buildings down?


Not to rain on Your parade, but... The jet fuel was gone in 10 minutes. Never has fire alone brought down a high-rise building. Even today. The Towers and Seven were imploded. Deliberately. With controlled demolition.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Roboe. Your post in this thread is the shred of reality this needed... THE FIRES DIDNT MELT STEEL. NO ONE SAID IT DID. THE FIRES WEAKENED THE CROSS BEAMS THAT ARE NOT INCASED IN STEEL...

HEATED UP STEEL IS NOT STRONG.

DO YOU DINGBATS GET IT YET??



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
not nearly enough to gain high enough temperature to melt the steel


Who claims the steel melted?


and create the river of melted iron


What "river of melted iron" are you babbling about?


in order for the towers to collapse as they did, the inner core had to have been destroyed


Why do you claim that?



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


If you know about building design you should know that it would take more than jet fuel to collapse such a building. these arnt small beams, they are massive and would take hours and hours to melt to the point that would compromise the structural integrity of the building. Also the weight falling on top wont collapse a building that is designed to hold that weights up already. It would take the buildings entire structural integrity to be compromised from below as well as above. Buildings are stupidly strong, jet fuel does not burn intense enough melt conrete and steel at a rate that fast.
edit on 02/02/1987 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)
edit on 02/02/1987 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by clintdelicious
reply to post by flexy123
 


If you know about building design you should know that it would take more than jet fuel to collapse such a building. these arnt amll beams, they are massive and would take hours and hours to melt...



They didnt melt... please read the previous posts. The beams heated up, lost alot of their rigid strength (something you can replicate in your garage if you dont believe it) then gave way... you can see the twisted stretched deform metal in the aftermath pictures... cmon people.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Velocismo
 


And building 7 I suppose picked up this heat somehow via the fresh air?
edit on 02/02/1987 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
It's not hard to understand why people believe the OS but come on, think out of the box for 1 minute.
We know jet fuel and everything flammable in that building can not burn hot enough to melt the steel, but let's pretend it was hot enough to weaken it. How then did all of the steel all the way to the bottom melt? Where did it go? The pictures are there of a few pieces of structural steel left remaining after it collapsed but where is the rest of it.

If you've ever seen the construction of a very small building then you know the steel beams encased in concrete could not just disappear. They are massive. So where are they and why did they fall apart even at the base where there was no fire. Also what caused the "oven" that was talked about under the rubble?

Jet fuel? Come on, if you take a gallon of jet fuel and ignite it it is gone in a split second as can be seen in the fireball. The heat source was gone. So office fixtures and building materials melted the steel at the bottom floors allowing a straight down collapse. Whatever



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by budro
It's not hard to understand why people believe the OS but come on, think out of the box for 1 minute.
We know jet fuel and everything flammable in that building can not burn hot enough to melt the steel, but let's pretend it was hot enough to weaken it. How then did all of the steel all the way to the bottom melt? Where did it go? The pictures are there of a few pieces of structural steel left remaining after it collapsed but where is the rest of it.

If you've ever seen the construction of a very small building then you know the steel beams encased in concrete could not just disappear. They are massive. So where are they and why did they fall apart even at the base where there was no fire. Also what caused the "oven" that was talked about under the rubble?

Jet fuel? Come on, if you take a gallon of jet fuel and ignite it it is gone in a split second as can be seen in the fireball. The heat source was gone. So office fixtures and building materials melted the steel at the bottom floors allowing a straight down collapse. Whatever



Hey you there, you making too much sense too, step out the line for a cavity search.


Star for you too
edit on 12-9-2011 by Saltarello because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Darth_Prime



in order for the towers to collapse as they did, the inner core had to have been destroyed


Why do you claim that?



Because it is the way the towers were built,

the inner core was a central system, "If" the pancake collapse were truth, the Inner Core would remain, as the floors would collapse around it, there was nothing falling onto the central core system, it's just the way the towers were built,

In addition, there would have been a moment where the floors above where the plane hit, collapsed onto the floors below, the collapse would be not instantaneous,

and as reiterated, the fire burned for around an hour for both towers before collapse, not nearly enough to damage the required beams enough to cause a full building collapse

Likewise, "If' the steel was heated enough to distort which caused the collapse, why did the building collapse straight down?

if the steel 'Twisted' the building would have fallen toward it's weak structure first,

which in addition doesn't account for the debris and steel beams that were launched from the tower upon collapsing,


it's quite easy to claim your theory is correct, but what accounts for the other such things?

edit on 12-9-2011 by Darth_Prime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Velocismo
 


I never quite understand why this argument is so big to you guys.
Youtube is a website designed to let people share videos for free. If there is a reason why credible video cannot be posted on youtube, please explain to me why? If he had given a google.vid link would it give it more credibility?

but to come in your defense, I wouldnt want to argue against all the expert and first hand testimony either.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Velocismo
 


just like what happened to the windsor tower in spain right?
oh right, it had a raging inferno for over a day, which completely gutted the building. And yet it was still standing.
building 7 had a few isolated fires and collapsed at a rate comparable to free fall.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
My father was also a fireman for almost 30 years, I studied fire science for a bit there and tried joining the department myself. I also was trained in fire safety by the state, and know that heat travels a lot faster than flames do.... but in the case of the towers, it's quite ridiculous to conclude that those fires melted anything structural... even the naked beams.

Jet fuel is basically 4/5 kerosene... let's add C4 to it for the Hell of it.
There are still 70+ floors of untouched, unmelted, unburned steel encased in concrete that.... disintegrated? Turned to dust because of the collapsing structure above it? Then the site had temps of 1000s of degrees MONTHS after the collapses??

And this image, I got to comment on...



Do you really believe a plane made this hole? This hole is smaller than a private jet for one, and for two, how many 747s can cruise 12 inches over the ground smoothly without scuffing the grass and almost land in the basement of a building? Come on, think about the likely and unlikely, then pretend the gov't didn't say anything "officially", what conclusions would you be coming up with then?
edit on 12-9-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 



building 7 had a few isolated fires

Really? Just a few isolated fires? Care to back that up with something other than your word choice?

and collapsed at a rate comparable to free fall

There all "comparable" to free fall!



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
What it appeared happened in the footage of 9-11 was the fire vaporized jet fuel, the vaporized jet fuel and smoke went into the elevator shaft filling it with a nice potentially flammable fuel air mixture. At the same time the fire superheated the fuel smoke mixture in the floors above the fire. The heat causes the concrete and steel to weaken and cause a partial collapse of the floors in the vicinity of the crash. The windows break allowing air to rush inside making it look like the fire went out, but when the explosive range is reached the heat ignited the fuel vapor and smoke. This is called a backdraft. It ignited and burned with explosive violence. When it did this it first blew up the floors above the fire and then the compression wave raced down the elevator shafts putting the jet fuel vapor/smoke mixture in the explosive range. The blast ruined the main support columns allowing the building to collapse according to the most energetically favorable way. A collapse starting in the center and progressing outward and down.

No controlled demolition, just the physics of a fire with a whole lot of volatile fuel added. As to a conspiracy as to US government culpability in the plot i have no doubt it was intentionally allowed to happen.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   
More 911Gate footage....

drone aircraft megaproof


2nd plane strike


Loud Explosions Mega Proof


This is a digital example of what should have been the worst case scenario of the WTC fires in my opinion...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


yeah. 1700 degrees, BY USING A GIANT FAN TO BLOW OXYGEN TO THE FIRE in a burn test. they were testing the effects of very high winds on fires. all the windows were open so the fire had easy access to all the oxygen they were jetting in the _



The only reason the CCTV building fire looks as spectacular as it does, is because it was filmed at night.

and it has nothing to do with flames on almost every single floor all the way up? *cough*

the twin tower fires were much smaller than both those which means more material was burning in those two towers than the wtc had.

most of the jetfuel burned off in about 10 minutes, and jet fuel was the hottest burning substance present. even using a huge duct blower the temperatures didn't get anywhere near the color the metal indicates in the twin towers.


the topmost color orange is a piece of steel at 1371C. that's 2500F. it is a piece of actual steel. hmm...i've seen that color before, and even brighter oranges.


that's the end game for you. clear evidence of temperatures hot enough to melt steel easily. jet fuel can't do it, furnished offices can't do it, and neither can the two combined.

nothing in the OS can account for it. game over *backhand*



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


in the third video you posted at 2:10 you can clearly hear explosives going off on each floor. it's so obvious at this point, those that don't believe it either haven't looked at the evidence, are spreading disinfo, or refuse to believe for a personal reason.
edit on 12-9-2011 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
not nearly enough to gain high enough temperature to melt the steel


Who claims the steel melted?


and create the river of melted iron


What "river of melted iron" are you babbling about?


Babbling about this....
pay attention, you may learn something new.






top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join