Do you believe the official 911 story?

[eots]

Like your molten steel garbage?

THERE WERE NO TEMPERATURES HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL. That is a fact.

I could not have been molten steel no matter what EYEWITNESSES say. Especially when your claim hits a brick wall like there not being temps hot enough.

You keep preaching your bullshit even though it's been proven to be impossible.

NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT

No ... like most of your CTBS that is just CTBS.
The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above
WTC Disaster Study

your link provides no information of what forensic testing reveled as the the maximum temperatures obtained..

 

[eots]

Like your molten steel garbage?

THERE WERE NO TEMPERATURES HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL. That is a fact.

I could not have been molten steel no matter what EYEWITNESSES say. Especially when your claim hits a brick wall like there not being temps hot enough.

You keep preaching your bullshit even though it's been proven to be impossible.

NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT

so thermite is out ...must be space beams....

or thermite is in and any metals showing evidence of these temperatures was destroyed to cover up something unexplainable like heat beyond what is possible in a fire...much easier to explain forensic evidence showing lower than predicted temperatures and just claim the must of existed than exlpain forensic evidence of temperatures much higher

 

[Gamolon]

NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT

so thermite is out ...must be space beams....

or thermite is in and any metals showing evidence of these temperatures was destroyed to cover up something unexplainable like heat beyond what is possible in a fire...much easier to explain forensic evidence showing lower than predicted temperatures and just claim the must of existed than exlpain forensic evidence of temperatures much higher

Oh but they have eots.

The "eroded" steel? The "Swiss cheese" steel? The "paper thin" steel?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Temperatures were estimated to be no higher than 1800 F.

 

[eots]

so thermite is out ...must be space beams....

or thermite is in and any metals showing evidence of these temperatures was destroyed to cover up something unexplainable like heat beyond what is possible in a fire...much easier to explain forensic evidence showing lower than predicted temperatures and just claim the must of existed than exlpain forensic evidence of temperatures much higher

oh but they have eots.

The "eroded" steel? The "swiss cheese" steel? The "paper thin" steel?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

temperatures were estimated to be no higher than 1800 f.

anyone can make an estimate...an estimate is not forensic evidence of those temperatures and citing unexplained phenomena to explain away forensic evidence contrary to this estimate is no explanation at all

 

[SAYIT]

NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT

No ... like most of your CTBS that is just CTBS.
The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above
WTC Disaster Study

your link provides no information of what forensic testing reveled as the the maximum temperatures obtained..

Huh? You posted (without link) "NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT."
I reminded you that you are lying again and posted the truth with a link.
The max temps obtained have no bearing on whether the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.
You are once again in full spin mode.

 

[eots]

No ... like most of your CTBS that is just CTBS.
The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above
WTC Disaster Study

your link provides no information of what forensic testing reveled as the the maximum temperatures obtained..

Huh? You posted (without link) "NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT."

how does my statement change the fact that your link has no information on the temperatures recorded ?

I reminded you that you are lying again and posted the truth with a link.
The max temps obtained have no bearing on whether the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.
You are once again in full spin mode

.

the temperature has no bearing on how hot the fires where ...really ?...lol...then please explain what does

 

[Gamolon]

or thermite is in and any metals showing evidence of these temperatures was destroyed to cover up something unexplainable like heat beyond what is possible in a fire...much easier to explain forensic evidence showing lower than predicted temperatures and just claim the must of existed than exlpain forensic evidence of temperatures much higher

oh but they have eots.

The "eroded" steel? The "swiss cheese" steel? The "paper thin" steel?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

temperatures were estimated to be no higher than 1800 f.

anyone can make an estimate...an estimate is not forensic evidence of those temperatures and citing unexplained phenomena to explain away forensic evidence contrary to this estimate is no explanation at all

LMAO!

They did analysis on the steel, found something that doesn't fit your asinine beliefs, so you wave it away.

Typical.

Why don't you apply that same thinking to your own evidence. Oh that's right. Because you'd look like a fool.

Too late. You already do.

 

[Gamolon]

No ... like most of your CTBS that is just CTBS.
The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above
WTC Disaster Study

your link provides no information of what forensic testing reveled as the the maximum temperatures obtained..

Huh? You posted (without link) "NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT."
I reminded you that you are lying again and posted the truth with a link.
The max temps obtained have no bearing on whether the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.
You are once again in full spin mode.

He's a dope!

That's way he's back on ignore.

 

[SAYIT]

or thermite is in and any metals showing evidence of these temperatures was destroyed to cover up something unexplainable like heat beyond what is possible in a fire...much easier to explain forensic evidence showing lower than predicted temperatures and just claim the must of existed than exlpain forensic evidence of temperatures much higher

oh but they have eots.

The "eroded" steel? The "swiss cheese" steel? The "paper thin" steel?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

temperatures were estimated to be no higher than 1800 f.

anyone can make an estimate...an estimate is not forensic evidence of those temperatures and citing unexplained phenomena to explain away forensic evidence contrary to this estimate is no explanation at all

You are forever pulling meaningless crap out of your butt exposing your monumental ignorance and your butt. Forensic science (forensics) is "the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems." Expert opinions, in this case NIST estimated temps, are absolutely admissible in court.

Definition of FORENSIC [source: M/W Dictionary Online]
1: belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate
2: argumentative, rhetorical
3: relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems

 

[SAYIT]

your link provides no information of what forensic testing reveled as the the maximum temperatures obtained..

Huh? You posted (without link) "NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT."
I reminded you that you are lying again and posted the truth with a link.
The max temps obtained have no bearing on whether the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.
You are once again in full spin mode.

He's a dope!

That's way he's back on ignore.

In order to block all the dopes at the CTZ you will need to do Princess Pauli and 9/11 Hand Job as well. What irrefutably establishes (ID)eots as a certified dope is his regular use of lies (such as the one in bold above) ... lies which are easily and regularly refuted with facts and links.
While having his nose smushed into his crap doesn't seem to bother him, I believe there is value in confronting his lies and those of all these CTs. Just sayin'.

 

[SAYIT]

You're still in full spin mode and lying, eots. Reread the exchange:

Quote: Originally Posted by SAYIT
No ... like most of your CTBS that is just CTBS.
The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above
WTC Disaster Study

Quote: eots
your link provides no information of what forensic testing reveled as the the maximum temperatures obtained..

Quote:
Huh? You posted (without link) "NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT."
The max temps obtained have no bearing on whether the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.

your link provides no information of what forensic testing reveled as the the maximum temperatures obtained..

I reminded you that you are lying again and posted the truth with a link.
The max temps obtained have no bearing on whether the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.
You are once again in full spin mode

.

Quote: eots
how does my statement change the fact that your link has no information on the temperatures recorded ?

Who said anything about "recorded temps?" Who the hell records temps at a fire? We are discussing forensic evidence. This is just more of your spinning, Princess, because you've been caught in another lie.

the temperature has no bearing on how hot the fires where ...really ?...lol...then please explain what does

Again you lie. I neither said nor inferred that. You claimed (without link) "NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT." I proved you lied and in typical (ID)eots style you are attempting to cover that lie with more lies.

 

[SAYIT]

your link provides no information of what forensic testing reveled as the the maximum temperatures obtained..

how does my statement change the fact that your link has no information on the temperatures recorded ?

I reminded you that you are lying again and posted the truth with a link.
The max temps obtained have no bearing on whether the fires were hot enough to weaken steel.
You are once again in full spin mode

.

the temperature has no bearing on how hot the fires where ...really ?...lol...then please explain what does

Almost forgot to answer your disingenuous question.
To conclude that weakened steel was the culprit one must prove the fires could have been hot enough to do so. How much hotter than that does not negate the probability that the weakened steel was the culprit. I think you know that but having been caught in another lie you are spinning madly. It's obvious.

 

[candycorn]

After everyone gets done telling me that I'm a tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist, I'll tell you why I don't.

Did you ever explain how the wreckage got on the Pentagon lawn or what knocked down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

 

[daws101]

NIST testing showed there was not temperatures hot enough to WEAKEN steel...that is a FACT

so thermite is out ...must be space beams....

or thermite is in and any metals showing evidence of these temperatures was destroyed to cover up something unexplainable like heat beyond what is possible in a fire...much easier to explain forensic evidence showing lower than predicted temperatures and just claim the must of existed than exlpain forensic evidence of temperatures much higher

eots wake up!.....wake up! you're having that dream again where no evidence of a cover up is proof of a cover up!

 

[eots]

how does my statement change the fact that your link has no information on the temperatures recorded ?

.

the temperature has no bearing on how hot the fires where ...really ?...lol...then please explain what does

Almost forgot to answer your disingenuous question.
To conclude that weakened steel was the culprit one must prove the fires could have been hot enough to do so. How much hotter than that does not negate the probability that the weakened steel was the culprit. I think you know that but having been caught in another lie you are spinning madly. It's obvious.

there is zero forensic evidence of the temperatures required to weaken steel

 

[daws101]

the temperature has no bearing on how hot the fires where ...really ?...lol...then please explain what does

Almost forgot to answer your disingenuous question.
To conclude that weakened steel was the culprit one must prove the fires could have been hot enough to do so. How much hotter than that does not negate the probability that the weakened steel was the culprit. I think you know that but having been caught in another lie you are spinning madly. It's obvious.

there is zero forensic evidence of the temperatures required to weaken steel

bullshit: The critical temperature for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1 % carbon (by mass) is approached, the critical temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C.

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.


What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.
Why the World Trade Center Twin Towers Fell

 

[eots]

Almost forgot to answer your disingenuous question.
To conclude that weakened steel was the culprit one must prove the fires could have been hot enough to do so. How much hotter than that does not negate the probability that the weakened steel was the culprit. I think you know that but having been caught in another lie you are spinning madly. It's obvious.

there is zero forensic evidence of the temperatures required to weaken steel

bullshit: The critical temperature for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1 % carbon (by mass) is approached, the critical temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C.

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.


What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.
Why the World Trade Center Twin Towers Fell

this is not forensic evidence of the temperatures required actually being reached so why do you pretend it is ?

 

[daws101]

there is zero forensic evidence of the temperatures required to weaken steel

bullshit: The critical temperature for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1 % carbon (by mass) is approached, the critical temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C.

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.


What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.
Why the World Trade Center Twin Towers Fell

this is not forensic evidence of the temperatures required actually being reached so why do you pretend it is ?

why do you lie? there were literally tons of twisted and heated steel beams at the wtc ..that shit head... is forensic evidence.
what I think you mean is where are the test results that confirm you fantasy...

 

[eots]

bullshit: The critical temperature for steel starts at 900°C for pure iron, then, as more carbon is added, the temperature falls to a minimum 724°C for eutectic steel (steel with only .83% by weight of carbon in it). As 2.1 % carbon (by mass) is approached, the critical temperature climbs back up, to 1130°C.

In the years since September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in New York City, engineers and other experts have been studying the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. By examining the collapse step-by-step, experts are learning how buildings fail, and discovering ways we can build stronger structures.


What Caused the Twin Towers to Fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.
2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they pancaked. This means that floors crashed down on floors with increasing weight and momentum, crushing each successive floor below. With the weight of the plunging floors building force, the exterior walls buckled.
Why the World Trade Center Twin Towers Fell

this is not forensic evidence of the temperatures required actually being reached so why do you pretend it is ?

why do you lie? there were literally tons of twisted and heated steel beams at the wtc ..that shit head... is forensic evidence.
what I think you mean is where are the test results that confirm you fantasy...

lol...and none of them where forensically tested to see exactly what temperatures they reached and the ones they did test showed temperatures below what was requied for failue

 

[daws101]

this is not forensic evidence of the temperatures required actually being reached so why do you pretend it is ?

why do you lie? there were literally tons of twisted and heated steel beams at the wtc ..that shit head... is forensic evidence.
what I think you mean is where are the test results that confirm you fantasy...

lol...and none of them where forensically tested to see exactly what temperatures they reached and the ones they did test showed temperatures below what was requied for failue

but they did fail and you have no forensic evidence proving anything other than heat and damage caused them to.
making your argument meaningless.