WTC building 7

[eots]

forest are not made of concrete and steel

trees are not the only things that burn up in forest fires

concrete and steel will not burn at those temperatures

I will help you understand------other stuff gets to flash point and combustion
ensues-------the "other stuff" may be MORE exothermic than waxy hydrocarbons
or even a lit cigarette butt.......and on and on and on--------to the magic of a giant
marshmellow roast

Steel does not melt in a hydro carbon fire

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
Hydrocarbon fuels can burn at temperatures up to 1600C.

Like fire protection systems, fires are also considered in two categories. They are classified as either cellulosic or hydrocarbon. In fire protection terms, the difference between the two types of fire is the time it takes for the fire to reach its maximum temperature range. Under test conditions a hydrocarbon fire will reach a temperature of 900°C in 8 minutes, whilst a cellulosic fire will take 60 minutes to reach the same level.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

 

[SAYIT]

Are you claiming that Israel is paying people to spend time on boards defending the standard narrative of 9/11 ?

NOW your catching on. Isreal along with agents in the government for the CIA,NSA,DIA,homeland security and probably a few others are indeed trolling this message board and SEVERAL others everywhere as well. they got them on political message boards everywhere,Not just here.

Not sure if you know this but congress did an investigation into the CIA's activities in the 70's and discovered documents the CIA has plants in the mainstream media and in workplaces.that hasnt change since then either.the CIA is every bit as evil and corrupt now that it was back then,even more so.

And you think that this giant army of many different agencies paying people troll hasn't been generally noticed why? None of them have spoken up about being paid to troll and derail discussions about 9/11 why?

That... does not answer my question. So you are claiming that massive groups in every major three letter agency are doing this? Do you realize how many middle managers would have to know?

"Hey Bob, I get why we need to have our people say that ISIS is a bunch of poopy heads, and that the dollar is more stable as a currency than it really is, but why are we being told to troll and disrupt any attempt at a discussion about 9/11?" You don't think that wouldn't raise more questions than it it would squish?

Occasionally someone does a tally of all the people who would have been necessary to plan and perpetrate any of the various 9/11 CTs promoted by our foil-hat brigade. Any number of gov't agencies (both foreign and domestic), some NGOs (al Qaeda) the small army of tech people who would be required to prep and plant whatever brought down those buildings, the airlines, the MS media, the first responders (of which hundreds willingly sacrificed their lives for the "cause") the courts, the insurers and most of those who don't buy into the CT silliness (who must therefore be paid shills) well, you get the idea.
Anyway, it turns out that hundreds of millions are 9/11 co-conspirators but in over 13 years none have blown the whistle. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Freekin' amazing!

 

[SAYIT]

what would be the earth-shattering implications of molten steel at the WTC site?

the use of an Incendiary

if there was one but there was not...next!

Nor was there molten steel.

 

[eots]

structural steel melting point is approximately 1510ºC(2750ºF).

 

[eots]

Are you claiming that Israel is paying people to spend time on boards defending the standard narrative of 9/11 ?

NOW your catching on. Isreal along with agents in the government for the CIA,NSA,DIA,homeland security and probably a few others are indeed trolling this message board and SEVERAL others everywhere as well. they got them on political message boards everywhere,Not just here.

Not sure if you know this but congress did an investigation into the CIA's activities in the 70's and discovered documents the CIA has plants in the mainstream media and in workplaces.that hasnt change since then either.the CIA is every bit as evil and corrupt now that it was back then,even more so.

And you think that this giant army of many different agencies paying people troll hasn't been generally noticed why? None of them have spoken up about being paid to troll and derail discussions about 9/11 why?

That... does not answer my question. So you are claiming that massive groups in every major three letter agency are doing this? Do you realize how many middle managers would have to know?

"Hey Bob, I get why we need to have our people say that ISIS is a bunch of poopy heads, and that the dollar is more stable as a currency than it really is, but why are we being told to troll and disrupt any attempt at a discussion about 9/11?" You don't think that wouldn't raise more questions than it it would squish?

Occasionally someone does a tally of all the people who would have been necessary to plan and perpetrate any of the various 9/11 CTs promoted by our foil-hat brigade. Any number of gov't agencies (both foreign and domestic), some NGOs (al Qaeda) the tech people who prepped and planted whatever brought down those buildings, the airlines, the MS media, the first responders (of which hundreds willingly sacrificed their lives for the "cause") the courts, the insurers and most of those who don't buy into the CT silliness (who must therefore be paid shills) well, you get the idea.
Anyway, it turns out that hundreds of millions are 9/11 co-conspirators but in over 13 years none have blown the whistle. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Freekin' amazing!

physics and evidence do not care about your imaginings of what the operation would require

 

[irosie91]

trees are not the only things that burn up in forest fires

concrete and steel will not burn at those temperatures

I will help you understand------other stuff gets to flash point and combustion
ensues-------the "other stuff" may be MORE exothermic than waxy hydrocarbons
or even a lit cigarette butt.......and on and on and on--------to the magic of a giant
marshmellow roast

Steel does not melt in a hydro carbon fire

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
Hydrocarbon fuels can burn at temperatures up to 1600C.

Like fire protection systems, fires are also considered in two categories. They are classified as either cellulosic or hydrocarbon. In fire protection terms, the difference between the two types of fire is the time it takes for the fire to reach its maximum temperature range. Under test conditions a hydrocarbon fire will reach a temperature of 900°C in 8 minutes, whilst a cellulosic fire will take 60 minutes to reach the same level.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

so? that's the INITIAL thing on fire-------just like the first thing on fire that smokey
the bear does is a cigarette butt ----------no question that "cellulosic" thing will reach
really HIGH temperatures------eventually------the last time I gazed into my organic
chemistry text book------them POLYMERS were chock full of very HIGH ENERGY
bonds. What point are you STRUGGLING to make?

 

[daws101]

structural steel melting point is approximately 1510ºC(2750ºF).

true ...
1600 °C is equal to 2912 °F
The conversion formula is Fahrenheit temperature = (9/5 x Celsius temperature)+ 32
you just fucked yourself again!

 

[eots]

concrete and steel will not burn at those temperatures

I will help you understand------other stuff gets to flash point and combustion
ensues-------the "other stuff" may be MORE exothermic than waxy hydrocarbons
or even a lit cigarette butt.......and on and on and on--------to the magic of a giant
marshmellow roast

Steel does not melt in a hydro carbon fire

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
Hydrocarbon fuels can burn at temperatures up to 1600C.

Like fire protection systems, fires are also considered in two categories. They are classified as either cellulosic or hydrocarbon. In fire protection terms, the difference between the two types of fire is the time it takes for the fire to reach its maximum temperature range. Under test conditions a hydrocarbon fire will reach a temperature of 900°C in 8 minutes, whilst a cellulosic fire will take 60 minutes to reach the same level.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

so? that's the INITIAL thing on fire-------just like the first thing on fire that smokey
the bear does is a cigarette butt ----------no question that "cellulosic" thing will reach
really HIGH temperatures------eventually------the last time I gazed into my organic
chemistry text book------them POLYMERS were chock full of very HIGH ENERGY
bonds. What point are you STRUGGLING to make?

you are then one struggling and babbling nonsense

 

[SAYIT]

what would be the earth-shattering implications of molten steel at the WTC site?

that jet fuel burns hotter than the twoofers will admit.
when you get a chance watch the documentary national geographic science and conspiracy .
there's a chapter in the film that explodes (pun intended) all the twoofer bullshit about jet fuel and it's effect on the twin towers,

kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700F

bullshit
Flash point 38 °C (100 °F)
Autoignition temperature 245 °C (473 °F)[10]
Freezing point −47 °C (−53 °F) −40 °C (−40 °F)
Max adiabatic burn temperature 2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)[11][12][13]
Density at 15 °C (59 °F) 0.804 kg/L (6.71 lb/US gal) 0.820 kg/L (6.84 lb/US gal)
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg 43.02 MJ/kg
Energy density 34.7 MJ/L 35.3 MJ/L

Our Ideots has been reduced to blatant lying lately, signaling (IMHO) his final desperate attempt to avoid admitting - at least to himself - that his dream of 9/11 CT fame and glory and the "Truther" Movement itself are dead issues. Ideots may survive the realization but I fear for HandJob ... he could do something rash.

 

[irosie91]

NOW your catching on. Isreal along with agents in the government for the CIA,NSA,DIA,homeland security and probably a few others are indeed trolling this message board and SEVERAL others everywhere as well. they got them on political message boards everywhere,Not just here.

Not sure if you know this but congress did an investigation into the CIA's activities in the 70's and discovered documents the CIA has plants in the mainstream media and in workplaces.that hasnt change since then either.the CIA is every bit as evil and corrupt now that it was back then,even more so.

And you think that this giant army of many different agencies paying people troll hasn't been generally noticed why? None of them have spoken up about being paid to troll and derail discussions about 9/11 why?

That... does not answer my question. So you are claiming that massive groups in every major three letter agency are doing this? Do you realize how many middle managers would have to know?

"Hey Bob, I get why we need to have our people say that ISIS is a bunch of poopy heads, and that the dollar is more stable as a currency than it really is, but why are we being told to troll and disrupt any attempt at a discussion about 9/11?" You don't think that wouldn't raise more questions than it it would squish?

Occasionally someone does a tally of all the people who would have been necessary to plan and perpetrate any of the various 9/11 CTs promoted by our foil-hat brigade. Any number of gov't agencies (both foreign and domestic), some NGOs (al Qaeda) the tech people who prepped and planted whatever brought down those buildings, the airlines, the MS media, the first responders (of which hundreds willingly sacrificed their lives for the "cause") the courts, the insurers and most of those who don't buy into the CT silliness (who must therefore be paid shills) well, you get the idea.
Anyway, it turns out that hundreds of millions are 9/11 co-conspirators but in over 13 years none have blown the whistle. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Freekin' amazing!

physics and evidence do not care about your imaginings of what the operation would require

regardless of the evidence presented by the CT people ---proving that the WTC did not go down-------I still believe that the EVENT DID HAPPEN

 

[daws101]

NOW your catching on. Isreal along with agents in the government for the CIA,NSA,DIA,homeland security and probably a few others are indeed trolling this message board and SEVERAL others everywhere as well. they got them on political message boards everywhere,Not just here.

Not sure if you know this but congress did an investigation into the CIA's activities in the 70's and discovered documents the CIA has plants in the mainstream media and in workplaces.that hasnt change since then either.the CIA is every bit as evil and corrupt now that it was back then,even more so.

And you think that this giant army of many different agencies paying people troll hasn't been generally noticed why? None of them have spoken up about being paid to troll and derail discussions about 9/11 why?

That... does not answer my question. So you are claiming that massive groups in every major three letter agency are doing this? Do you realize how many middle managers would have to know?

"Hey Bob, I get why we need to have our people say that ISIS is a bunch of poopy heads, and that the dollar is more stable as a currency than it really is, but why are we being told to troll and disrupt any attempt at a discussion about 9/11?" You don't think that wouldn't raise more questions than it it would squish?

Occasionally someone does a tally of all the people who would have been necessary to plan and perpetrate any of the various 9/11 CTs promoted by our foil-hat brigade. Any number of gov't agencies (both foreign and domestic), some NGOs (al Qaeda) the tech people who prepped and planted whatever brought down those buildings, the airlines, the MS media, the first responders (of which hundreds willingly sacrificed their lives for the "cause") the courts, the insurers and most of those who don't buy into the CT silliness (who must therefore be paid shills) well, you get the idea.
Anyway, it turns out that hundreds of millions are 9/11 co-conspirators but in over 13 years none have blown the whistle. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Freekin' amazing!

physics and evidence do not care about your imaginings of what the operation would require

since you know jack shit about physics and evidence.all you have is your imaginings.
also you are about to blow a gasket.

 

[daws101]

I will help you understand------other stuff gets to flash point and combustion
ensues-------the "other stuff" may be MORE exothermic than waxy hydrocarbons
or even a lit cigarette butt.......and on and on and on--------to the magic of a giant
marshmellow roast

Steel does not melt in a hydro carbon fire

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
Hydrocarbon fuels can burn at temperatures up to 1600C.

Like fire protection systems, fires are also considered in two categories. They are classified as either cellulosic or hydrocarbon. In fire protection terms, the difference between the two types of fire is the time it takes for the fire to reach its maximum temperature range. Under test conditions a hydrocarbon fire will reach a temperature of 900°C in 8 minutes, whilst a cellulosic fire will take 60 minutes to reach the same level.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

so? that's the INITIAL thing on fire-------just like the first thing on fire that smokey
the bear does is a cigarette butt ----------no question that "cellulosic" thing will reach
really HIGH temperatures------eventually------the last time I gazed into my organic
chemistry text book------them POLYMERS were chock full of very HIGH ENERGY
bonds. What point are you STRUGGLING to make?

you are then one struggling and babbling nonsense

standard eots disclaimer when he's getting his ass handed to him.
in other words..... lol!

 

[irosie91]

I will help you understand------other stuff gets to flash point and combustion
ensues-------the "other stuff" may be MORE exothermic than waxy hydrocarbons
or even a lit cigarette butt.......and on and on and on--------to the magic of a giant
marshmellow roast

Steel does not melt in a hydro carbon fire

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
Hydrocarbon fuels can burn at temperatures up to 1600C.

Like fire protection systems, fires are also considered in two categories. They are classified as either cellulosic or hydrocarbon. In fire protection terms, the difference between the two types of fire is the time it takes for the fire to reach its maximum temperature range. Under test conditions a hydrocarbon fire will reach a temperature of 900°C in 8 minutes, whilst a cellulosic fire will take 60 minutes to reach the same level.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

so? that's the INITIAL thing on fire-------just like the first thing on fire that smokey
the bear does is a cigarette butt ----------no question that "cellulosic" thing will reach
really HIGH temperatures------eventually------the last time I gazed into my organic
chemistry text book------them POLYMERS were chock full of very HIGH ENERGY
bonds. What point are you STRUGGLING to make?

you are then one struggling and babbling nonsense

I AM DELIGHTED to learn that buildings never burn down. (one went down in my town just because of a faulty electric pot-----I am so glad it did not really
happen------there was another that went down just because of some
Chanukah candles------SO GOOD that it did not happen and those kids are still
alive since candle wax really does not burn all that hot)

 

[SAYIT]

Occasionally someone does a tally of all the people who would have been necessary to plan and perpetrate any of the various 9/11 CTs promoted by our foil-hat brigade. Any number of gov't agencies (both foreign and domestic), some NGOs (al Qaeda) the tech people who prepped and planted whatever brought down those buildings, the airlines, the MS media, the first responders (of which hundreds willingly sacrificed their lives for the "cause") the courts, the insurers and most of those who don't buy into the CT silliness (who must therefore be paid shills) well, you get the idea.
Anyway, it turns out that hundreds of millions are 9/11 co-conspirators but in over 13 years none have blown the whistle. Zippo. Zilch. Nada.
Freekin' amazing!

physics and evidence do not care about your imaginings of what the operation would require

But it's not my "imaginings" of what was required to plan and perpetrate any of the foil-hat silliness you and your now-defunct movement could fabricate, it was yours. As JoshZ noted, you "paid shills" CT just adds more co-conspirators to the ever-growing list.

 

[eots]

[

structural steel melting point is approximately 1510ºC(2750ºF).

true ...
1600 °C is equal to 2912 °F
The conversion formula is Fahrenheit temperature = (9/5 x Celsius temperature)+ 32
you just fucked yourself again!

QUOTE="daws101, post: 11288976, member: 30999"]

structural steel melting point is approximately 1510ºC(2750ºF).

true ...
1600 °C is equal to 2912 °F
The conversion formula is Fahrenheit temperature = (9/5 x Celsius temperature)+ 32
you just fucked yourself again![/QUOTE]
#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
hydrocarbon fires do not reach those temperatures

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

 

[eots]

Steel does not melt in a hydro carbon fire

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
Hydrocarbon fuels can burn at temperatures up to 1600C.

Like fire protection systems, fires are also considered in two categories. They are classified as either cellulosic or hydrocarbon. In fire protection terms, the difference between the two types of fire is the time it takes for the fire to reach its maximum temperature range. Under test conditions a hydrocarbon fire will reach a temperature of 900°C in 8 minutes, whilst a cellulosic fire will take 60 minutes to reach the same level.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

so? that's the INITIAL thing on fire-------just like the first thing on fire that smokey
the bear does is a cigarette butt ----------no question that "cellulosic" thing will reach
really HIGH temperatures------eventually------the last time I gazed into my organic
chemistry text book------them POLYMERS were chock full of very HIGH ENERGY
bonds. What point are you STRUGGLING to make?

you are then one struggling and babbling nonsense

I AM DELIGHTED to learn that buildings never burn down. (one went down in my town just because of a faulty electric pot-----I am so glad it did not really
happen------there was another that went down just because of some
Chanukah candles------SO GOOD that it did not happen and those kids are still
alive since candle wax really does not burn all that hot)

really and was it made of concrete and structural steel ?..did it collapse at free fall....

 

[eots]

what would be the earth-shattering implications of molten steel at the WTC site?

the use of an Incendiary

if there was one but there was not...next!

Nor was there molten steel.

 

[irosie91]

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
Hydrocarbon fuels can burn at temperatures up to 1600C.

Like fire protection systems, fires are also considered in two categories. They are classified as either cellulosic or hydrocarbon. In fire protection terms, the difference between the two types of fire is the time it takes for the fire to reach its maximum temperature range. Under test conditions a hydrocarbon fire will reach a temperature of 900°C in 8 minutes, whilst a cellulosic fire will take 60 minutes to reach the same level.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

so? that's the INITIAL thing on fire-------just like the first thing on fire that smokey
the bear does is a cigarette butt ----------no question that "cellulosic" thing will reach
really HIGH temperatures------eventually------the last time I gazed into my organic
chemistry text book------them POLYMERS were chock full of very HIGH ENERGY
bonds. What point are you STRUGGLING to make?

you are then one struggling and babbling nonsense

I AM DELIGHTED to learn that buildings never burn down. (one went down in my town just because of a faulty electric pot-----I am so glad it did not really
happen------there was another that went down just because of some
Chanukah candles------SO GOOD that it did not happen and those kids are still
alive since candle wax really does not burn all that hot)

really and was it made of concrete and structural steel ?..did it collapse at free fall....

brick and structural steel------and sheet rock. ----and linoleum-----and the lamp shade were -----?silk???? --------there was some plastic furniture-----it got burnt up-----the kids were made of kid I once saw a car burn up-----metal stuff and plastic and some
fuzzy stuff in the seats

 

[daws101]

[

structural steel melting point is approximately 1510ºC(2750ºF).

true ...
1600 °C is equal to 2912 °F
The conversion formula is Fahrenheit temperature = (9/5 x Celsius temperature)+ 32
you just fucked yourself again!

QUOTE="daws101, post: 11288976, member: 30999"]

structural steel melting point is approximately 1510ºC(2750ºF).

true ...
1600 °C is equal to 2912 °F
The conversion formula is Fahrenheit temperature = (9/5 x Celsius temperature)+ 32
you just fucked yourself again!

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
hydrocarbon fires do not reach those temperatures

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf[/QUOTE]








rationalizing does not change the math ....
Updated May 19, 2014.
This is a list of flame temperatures for various common fuels. Adiabatic flame temperatures for common gases are provided for air and oxygen. For these values, the initial temperature of air, gas and oxygen are 20 °C. MAPP is a mixture of gases, chiefly methyl acetylene and propadiene with other hydrocarbons.

Flame Temperatures

Fuel Flame Temperature
acetylene 3,100 °C (oxygen), 2,400 °C (air)
blowtorch 1,300 °C (2,400 °F, air)
Bunsen burner 1,300-1,600 °C (2,400-2,900 °F, air)
butane 1,970 °C (air)
candle 1,000 °C (1,800 °F, air)
carbon monoxide 2,121 °C (air)
cigarette 400-700 °C (750-1,300 °F, air)
ethane 1,960 °C (air)
hydrogen 2,660 °C (oxygen), 2,045 °C (air)
MAPP 2,980 °C (oxygen)
methane 2,810 °C (oxygen), 1,957 °C (air)
natural gas 2,770 °C (oxygen)
oxyhydrogen 2,000 °C or more (3,600 °F, air)
propane 2,820 °C (oxygen), 1,980 °C (air)
propane butane mix 1,970 °C (air)
propylene 2870 °C (oxygen)
Typical Flame Temperature for Different Fuels

 

[daws101]

#1 your facts are wrong. Where did you get them?
Hydrocarbon fuels can burn at temperatures up to 1600C.

Like fire protection systems, fires are also considered in two categories. They are classified as either cellulosic or hydrocarbon. In fire protection terms, the difference between the two types of fire is the time it takes for the fire to reach its maximum temperature range. Under test conditions a hydrocarbon fire will reach a temperature of 900°C in 8 minutes, whilst a cellulosic fire will take 60 minutes to reach the same level.

http://www.pfpsystems.com/assets/Uploads/HydrocarbonBook1.pdf

so? that's the INITIAL thing on fire-------just like the first thing on fire that smokey
the bear does is a cigarette butt ----------no question that "cellulosic" thing will reach
really HIGH temperatures------eventually------the last time I gazed into my organic
chemistry text book------them POLYMERS were chock full of very HIGH ENERGY
bonds. What point are you STRUGGLING to make?

you are then one struggling and babbling nonsense

I AM DELIGHTED to learn that buildings never burn down. (one went down in my town just because of a faulty electric pot-----I am so glad it did not really
happen------there was another that went down just because of some
Chanukah candles------SO GOOD that it did not happen and those kids are still
alive since candle wax really does not burn all that hot)

really and was it made of concrete and structural steel ?..did it collapse at free fall....

only for 2.5 seconds just like wtc7...