WTC-7 Was A Controlled Demolition Inside Job

[eots]

so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???

 

[DiveCon]

so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???

if jet fuel cant get that hot, how do you explain the NatGeo documentary?

 

[eots]

so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???

if jet fuel cant get that hot, how do you explain the NatGeo documentary?

flawed science without proper controls and procedures..just like the Purdue simulations that conveniently remove the engines from the simulated plane

 

[JBeukema]

you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not

But your "lead fire investigator" says that he believes, based on everything he has seen, that the trusses were weakened by heat and thus caused the collapse.

The person you use to support your claim of "no evidence of temperatures existing to cause weakening of steel" says that all the evidence and testing that was done SUPPORTS his claim of the trusses being WEAKENED by heat.

How can this be? You keep pointing to him as evidence of there NOT being proof, yet he contradicts your claim in the same breath.

first off the lead investigator calls his findings questionable and pleas for a new investigation...don't forget that part...and he also complains the government was blocking the investigation...secondly it is a simple concept if cutting was used only the sections cut would show forensically the extreme temperatures ...but if it was fire dispersed throughout that caused the collapse these temperatures should be found on most of steel and materials subjected to fire...and it is not

so your 'lava' of molten metal melted cold?

 

[DiveCon]

so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???

if jet fuel cant get that hot, how do you explain the NatGeo documentary?

flawed science without proper controls and procedures..just like the Purdue simulations that conveniently remove the engines from the simulated plane

so, an open pit filled with jet fuel is flawed?
HOW????

and the purdue simulations DID include the engines, stop reading that liar alex jones

 

[JBeukema]

You could dump a million gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) onto WTC-7 and light a match and the building would remain standing if you repeated the process a million times; because hydrocarbon fuels simply do NOT burn hot enough to melt one pound of 2800-degree red-iron steel.

Why does it have to be that the steel needed to MELT for the tower to become structurally unstable and collapse? Does that fit your claims better?

Why do you ignore the fact that steel loses it's strength at much lower temperatures and does not need to MELT.

You guys are hysterical.

because no such temperatures required to melt or weaken steel were found in forensic testing ...whats so hard for you to understand about that

So you recant your claims of molten metal in the basement and the use of 'superthermite'?

 

[JBeukema]

But your "lead fire investigator" says that he believes, based on everything he has seen, that the trusses were weakened by heat and thus caused the collapse.

The person you use to support your claim of "no evidence of temperatures existing to cause weakening of steel" says that all the evidence and testing that was done SUPPORTS his claim of the trusses being WEAKENED by heat.

How can this be? You keep pointing to him as evidence of there NOT being proof, yet he contradicts your claim in the same breath.

first off the lead investigator calls his findings questionable and pleas for a new investigation...don't forget that part...and he also complains the government was blocking the investigation...secondly it is a simple concept if cutting was used only the sections cut would show forensically the extreme temperatures ...but if it was fire dispersed throughout that caused the collapse these temperatures should be found on most of steel and materials subjected to fire...and it is not

He calls for a new investigation because he thinks the collapse was caused by the TRUSSES failing, not the columns as NIST states. His calling for a new investigation has nothing to do with the fact that there were explosives/thermite involved.

Quit trying to use his statements to make it sound like he wants a new investigation because he thinks there were explosives/thermite used.

You're being dishonest now.

that's par for the course with eots

 

[Liability]

so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???

How DO you read with your eyes closed and your mind shut?

Try to pay attention for once.

I do not know the mechanism that caused the fire to burn so much hotter than would be expected. But it is apparent to anybody willing to consider the EVIDENCE that the fire DID burn hotter than expected. The article I posted come complete with pretty pictures, in fact.

You can say, "well, if we can't explain how the fire burned that hot, so it must not have burned that hot" all you wish, but it only makes you look like even more of an imbecile. For whether we know WHY it did so or not, we do have pretty clear proof that it DID burn that much hotter.

And once we know (and we do) that the fire DID burn much hotter than the circumstances seem to indicate would be expected, then the remaining question is: could that greatly increased heat have caused trusse, etc to WEAKEN (not "melt") to the point that they were unable to prevent the collapse?

The answer is "yes."

You have NO evidence for your fanciful superthermite notions.

But SCIENCE proves that the fire DID burn much hotter than we would normally predict under those circumstances.

 

[eots]

so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???

How DO you read with your eyes closed and your mind shut?

Try to pay attention for once.

I do not know the mechanism that caused the fire to burn so much hotter than would be expected. But it is apparent to anybody willing to consider the EVIDENCE that the fire DID burn hotter than expected. The article I posted come complete with pretty pictures, in fact.

You can say, "well, if we can't explain how the fire burned that hot, so it must not have burned that hot" all you wish, but it only makes you look like even more of an imbecile. For whether we know WHY it did so or not, we do have pretty clear proof that it DID burn that much hotter.

And once we know (and we do) that the fire DID burn much hotter than the circumstances seem to indicate would be expected, then the remaining question is: could that greatly increased heat have caused trusse, etc to WEAKEN (not "melt") to the point that they were unable to prevent the collapse?

The answer is "yes."

You have NO evidence for your fanciful superthermite notions.

But SCIENCE proves that the fire DID burn much hotter than we would normally predict under those circumstances.

the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire

 

[DiveCon]

so what was the source heat in excess of jet fuel or office material ???

How DO you read with your eyes closed and your mind shut?

Try to pay attention for once.

I do not know the mechanism that caused the fire to burn so much hotter than would be expected. But it is apparent to anybody willing to consider the EVIDENCE that the fire DID burn hotter than expected. The article I posted come complete with pretty pictures, in fact.

You can say, "well, if we can't explain how the fire burned that hot, so it must not have burned that hot" all you wish, but it only makes you look like even more of an imbecile. For whether we know WHY it did so or not, we do have pretty clear proof that it DID burn that much hotter.

And once we know (and we do) that the fire DID burn much hotter than the circumstances seem to indicate would be expected, then the remaining question is: could that greatly increased heat have caused trusse, etc to WEAKEN (not "melt") to the point that they were unable to prevent the collapse?

The answer is "yes."

You have NO evidence for your fanciful superthermite notions.

But SCIENCE proves that the fire DID burn much hotter than we would normally predict under those circumstances.

the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire

except the only ones to ever claim any steel melted is you troofer morons
the only claim i have seen is the steel lost its structural integrity, and not melted

 

[eots]

if jet fuel cant get that hot, how do you explain the NatGeo documentary?

flawed science without proper controls and procedures..just like the Purdue simulations that conveniently remove the engines from the simulated plane

so, an open pit filled with jet fuel is flawed?
HOW????

and the purdue simulations DID include the engines, stop reading that liar alex jones

no engines on the pentagon strike simulation ..on the wtc simulation the engines return watch it for yourself...and taking an unrated steel beam a fraction of the size using 700 gallons of contained fuel for starters..get serious it was a couple of guys with a fork lift a big pool of jet fuel and a little piece of metal..

 

[DiveCon]

flawed science without proper controls and procedures..just like the Purdue simulations that conveniently remove the engines from the simulated plane

so, an open pit filled with jet fuel is flawed?
HOW????

and the purdue simulations DID include the engines, stop reading that liar alex jones

no engines on the pentagon strike simulation ..on the wtc simulation the engines return watch it for yourself...and taking an unrated steel beam a fraction of the size using 700 gallons of contained fuel for starters..get serious it was a couple of guys with a fork lift a big pool of jet fuel and a little piece of metal..

which was compensated for
did you think they would actually build the WTC over to test it?

 

[eots]

the words scale testing are lost on you...

 

[DiveCon]

the words scale testing are lost on you...

no, they arent
thats exactly what NatGeo had done and you dismissed it

 

[eots]

the words scale testing are lost on you...

no, they arent
thats exactly what NatGeo had done and you dismissed it

why do you do this...it was nothing close to a scale floor test as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST ..it proves a argument that no one is making..and also ignores the fact that that evidence (and the collapse itself is not evidence )does not show tempatures anywhere near that required to cause failure

 

[DiveCon]

the words scale testing are lost on you...

no, they arent
thats exactly what NatGeo had done and you dismissed it

why do you do this...it was nothing close to a scale floor test as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST ..it proves a argument that no one is making..and also ignores the fact that that evidence (and the collapse itself is not evidence )does not show tempatures anywhere near that required to cause failure

except the facts disagree with you
the temps were in excess of what would be needed to cause the steel to lose at least 50% of its structural integrity
the floor trusses sagged and pulled away from both the outer shell and the inner core
and then they started to drop
once that started to happen the already weakened core columns were not strong enough to hold the building up

 

[eots]

no, they arent
thats exactly what NatGeo had done and you dismissed it

why do you do this...it was nothing close to a scale floor test as requested by the lead fire investigator at NIST ..it proves a argument that no one is making..and also ignores the fact that that evidence (and the collapse itself is not evidence )does not show tempatures anywhere near that required to cause failure

except the facts disagree with you
the temps were in excess of what would be needed to cause the steel to lose at least 50% of its structural integrity
the floor trusses sagged and pulled away from both the outer shell and the inner core
and then they started to drop
once that started to happen the already weakened core columns were not strong enough to hold the building up

these are not facts.. they are unproven ..theory..questionable..these are the words of the man whose theory ..you call fact

 

[JBeukema]

the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire

you have zero evidence that fire temperatures were sufficient to weaken steel...there is however evidence to suggest it did not

So it was hot enough to melt steel... but not hot enough to soften it or compromise its ability to carry a load?


Self-refutation is an ugly thing

 

[JBeukema]

the words scale testing are lost on you...

If the beam and load are to scale, the temperature at which it is effected is scale independent



dumbass

 

[Gamolon]

the evidence that it did melt steel.. is the evidence of something more than fire

You nor anyone else has yet to answer my question.

Was it STEEL or ALUMINUM?

Using your "forensic data" argument which you ALWAYS present because you need to be sure, how do you know it wasn't ALUMINUM? Why molten STEEL?