100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? The buildings fell nearly at the speed a bowling ball would fall if it met no resistance and was dropped from the roof of the trade center. You can go on your tirade of all the tons above but keep i mind the floors below were even stronger to support the whole weight of the building. There would have been RESISTANCE plain and simple check your math again eh. everything had to fail exactly at the same time all accross the building. totaly absurd. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Tue 04/24/12 01:24 PM
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? The buildings fell nearly at the speed a bowling ball would fall if it met no resistance and was dropped from the roof of the trade center. You can go on your tirade of all the tons above but keep i mind the floors below were even stronger to support the whole weight of the building. There would have been RESISTANCE plain and simple check your math again eh. everything had to fail exactly at the same time all accross the building. totaly absurd. Yes they did. You fail to realize that the floors below are also weakened and already have forces being applied to them. Just curious how do you think a demolition works? They take out some supports and gravity does the rest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? The buildings fell nearly at the speed a bowling ball would fall if it met no resistance and was dropped from the roof of the trade center. You can go on your tirade of all the tons above but keep i mind the floors below were even stronger to support the whole weight of the building. There would have been RESISTANCE plain and simple check your math again eh. everything had to fail exactly at the same time all accross the building. totaly absurd. did you ever try to think about what holds the floors up? the floors do not support any extra weight, the supports that hold the floors up do. The supports are what hold the building up, not the floors. if a floor support is designed to hold up 1 floor, how do you think it would hold when 30 floors are falling on them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government itself has not proven anything, so why would you think that you have? They still use terms like, "probable" and "may have" in their reports. Math derived and fabricated with computer simulations is not proof. They are assertions. They have no proof or evidence concerning the length of the fires or the temperatures of the fires. All they have are assertions. So, no, you don't have "proof." If you do, you might want to share it with the government cause they don't even have any proof. If they ever get around to trying Khalid Sheik Muhammad then you will be able to argue they didn't prove their case. The 9-11 commission wasn't trying to prove anything. They were trying to establish the chain of events that led to the attack and make their recommendations to improve upon the wholly incompetent actions of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. There was no trial. There was no cross examination of witnesses.. People wanted to know why the government is so incompetent. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 04/24/12 04:28 PM
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? I agree that math and physics can calculate how a building "might" collapse as a result of a fire. As I said, their calculations are probably very accurate in figuring out how something like that might happen and what the circumstances would HAVE TO BE in order for that to happen. Scientists and engineers and computer programmers, I'm sure worked diligently trying to find the right figures, etc. BUT... What they did not use or have is the real evidence. They had no idea how long the fires actually burned or how hot they actually got in REALITY. Either that, or they did know, and just changed the facts to match their computer simulation results.... that would be fraud. They only know what the computer told them "must" have occurred IFF the building was demolished only by a fire. From those figures, they ASSERTED that that is what "must have" happened. But the fires did not last 7 hours and the fires did not reach the temperatures required. Even if you or they claim they did or that they "must have" they have no real evidence or proof. This is reality. This is not a computer simulation. Evidence comes from reality, --not from computer simulations or math from a bunch of brainiacs and computer nerds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government itself has not proven anything, so why would you think that you have? They still use terms like, "probable" and "may have" in their reports. Math derived and fabricated with computer simulations is not proof. They are assertions. They have no proof or evidence concerning the length of the fires or the temperatures of the fires. All they have are assertions. So, no, you don't have "proof." If you do, you might want to share it with the government cause they don't even have any proof. If they ever get around to trying Khalid Sheik Muhammad then you will be able to argue they didn't prove their case. The 9-11 commission wasn't trying to prove anything. They were trying to establish the chain of events that led to the attack and make their recommendations to improve upon the wholly incompetent actions of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. There was no trial. There was no cross examination of witnesses.. People wanted to know why the government is so incompetent. 
and they didn't even get the chain of events right. The official story changed after they discovered the NORAD TAPES. That was years later. They can't make up their minds, and they did not do anything about their top officials who apparently lied the first time around. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 04/24/12 05:04 PM
|
|
If they ever get around to trying Khalid Sheik Muhammad then you will be able to argue they didn't prove their case. I wonder what is taking them soooo long. I'll be really surprised if it ever even happens. (That's a fiasco I don't think I really care to watch.) If they had no problem "proving their case" it would have been over with already. I'm surprised he is even still alive. What a huge can of worms they will have to open for that trial. He would have probably confessed by now except in doing that he would have to go into great detail about things and he most likely does not know a damn thing. Messy. I predict he will die mysteriously of cancer. That's how they are assassinating people now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess they are going to have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial at Guantanamo Bay now, instead of New York. He's probably confessed to everything they wanted him to by now, since they have waterboarded him at least 183 times.
I can't believe that. 
It makes me sad to see what our country has become.  No innocent until proven guilty anymore. Torture until you get the confessions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Tue 04/24/12 07:37 PM
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? I agree that math and physics can calculate how a building "might" collapse as a result of a fire. As I said, their calculations are probably very accurate in figuring out how something like that might happen and what the circumstances would HAVE TO BE in order for that to happen. Scientists and engineers and computer programmers, I'm sure worked diligently trying to find the right figures, etc. BUT... What they did not use or have is the real evidence. They had no idea how long the fires actually burned or how hot they actually got in REALITY. Either that, or they did know, and just changed the facts to match their computer simulation results.... that would be fraud. They only know what the computer told them "must" have occurred IFF the building was demolished only by a fire. From those figures, they ASSERTED that that is what "must have" happened. But the fires did not last 7 hours and the fires did not reach the temperatures required. Even if you or they claim they did or that they "must have" they have no real evidence or proof. This is reality. This is not a computer simulation. Evidence comes from reality, --not from computer simulations or math from a bunch of brainiacs and computer nerds. In a hypothetical.. if you say they have no proof the fires burned that long or burned that hot I cant say you have to proof they didnt. They can also calculate based on the factors there were how hot the fire could actually get. You think there are not calculations for how hot fire gets in certain environments? All they have to do is do those calculations based on the environment, type of fire, and fuel of the fire to determine its range of burning temperature. Then see if that temperature matches a failure analysis for the building over the time frame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? I agree that math and physics can calculate how a building "might" collapse as a result of a fire. As I said, their calculations are probably very accurate in figuring out how something like that might happen and what the circumstances would HAVE TO BE in order for that to happen. Scientists and engineers and computer programmers, I'm sure worked diligently trying to find the right figures, etc. BUT... What they did not use or have is the real evidence. They had no idea how long the fires actually burned or how hot they actually got in REALITY. Either that, or they did know, and just changed the facts to match their computer simulation results.... that would be fraud. They only know what the computer told them "must" have occurred IFF the building was demolished only by a fire. From those figures, they ASSERTED that that is what "must have" happened. But the fires did not last 7 hours and the fires did not reach the temperatures required. Even if you or they claim they did or that they "must have" they have no real evidence or proof. This is reality. This is not a computer simulation. Evidence comes from reality, --not from computer simulations or math from a bunch of brainiacs and computer nerds. In a hypothetical.. if you say they have no proof the fires burned that long or burned that hot I can say you have to proof they didnt. They can also calculate based on the factors there were how hot the fire could actually get. You think there are not calculations for how hot fire gets in certain environments? All they have to do is do those calculations based on the environment, type of fire, and fuel of the fire to determine its range of burning temperature. Then see if that temperature matches a failure analysis for the building over the time frame. Yes there are calculations for how hot the fire could actually get and it would require 7 hours of intense non-stop burning. No such thing occurred. NIST's claims that steel beams reached temperatures of 600 degrees C (1,100 F) and even higher is based on exaggerations about the amount of combustible material available on the floors and also about the temperatures and durations of the fires. The claims about steel temperatures are also based on false assertions, such as the assertion that raging fires were burning on the 12th floor at a time when, in fact, the fires on this floor had burned out. NIST's claims about temperatures of steel beams also seem to ignore the implication of the thermal conductivity of steel and NIST'S own estimate that fires could last in given area for only about 20 minutes. Their claims of what caused the collapse of WTC7 depends on its claims about steel temperatures, and this theory is discredited by the fact that these claims are based on gross exaggerations and even outright falsehoods. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Chazster
on
Tue 04/24/12 07:41 PM
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? I agree that math and physics can calculate how a building "might" collapse as a result of a fire. As I said, their calculations are probably very accurate in figuring out how something like that might happen and what the circumstances would HAVE TO BE in order for that to happen. Scientists and engineers and computer programmers, I'm sure worked diligently trying to find the right figures, etc. BUT... What they did not use or have is the real evidence. They had no idea how long the fires actually burned or how hot they actually got in REALITY. Either that, or they did know, and just changed the facts to match their computer simulation results.... that would be fraud. They only know what the computer told them "must" have occurred IFF the building was demolished only by a fire. From those figures, they ASSERTED that that is what "must have" happened. But the fires did not last 7 hours and the fires did not reach the temperatures required. Even if you or they claim they did or that they "must have" they have no real evidence or proof. This is reality. This is not a computer simulation. Evidence comes from reality, --not from computer simulations or math from a bunch of brainiacs and computer nerds. In a hypothetical.. if you say they have no proof the fires burned that long or burned that hot I can say you have to proof they didnt. They can also calculate based on the factors there were how hot the fire could actually get. You think there are not calculations for how hot fire gets in certain environments? All they have to do is do those calculations based on the environment, type of fire, and fuel of the fire to determine its range of burning temperature. Then see if that temperature matches a failure analysis for the building over the time frame. Yes there are calculations for how hot the fire could actually get and it would require 7 hours of intense non-stop burning. No such thing occurred. NIST's claims that steel beams reached temperatures of 600 degrees C (1,100 F) and even higher is based on exaggerations about the amount of combustible material available on the floors and also about the temperatures and durations of the fires. The claims about steel temperatures are also based on false assertions, such as the assertion that raging fires were burning on the 12th floor at a time when, in fact, the fires on this floor had burned out. NIST's claims about temperatures of steel beams also seem to ignore the implication of the thermal conductivity of steel and NIST'S own estimate that fires could last in given area for only about 20 minutes. Their claims of what caused the collapse of WTC7 depends on its claims about steel temperatures, and this theory is discredited by the fact that these claims are based on gross exaggerations and even outright falsehoods. And you know all this better than them because??? I know.. you used your ability to time travel to go back to 9/11/01 and then used your ability to be immune to fire to go inside the buildings and then used your ability to instantly know the temperature of fire and stayed until the building collapse. Right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? I agree that math and physics can calculate how a building "might" collapse as a result of a fire. As I said, their calculations are probably very accurate in figuring out how something like that might happen and what the circumstances would HAVE TO BE in order for that to happen. Scientists and engineers and computer programmers, I'm sure worked diligently trying to find the right figures, etc. BUT... What they did not use or have is the real evidence. They had no idea how long the fires actually burned or how hot they actually got in REALITY. Either that, or they did know, and just changed the facts to match their computer simulation results.... that would be fraud. They only know what the computer told them "must" have occurred IFF the building was demolished only by a fire. From those figures, they ASSERTED that that is what "must have" happened. But the fires did not last 7 hours and the fires did not reach the temperatures required. Even if you or they claim they did or that they "must have" they have no real evidence or proof. This is reality. This is not a computer simulation. Evidence comes from reality, --not from computer simulations or math from a bunch of brainiacs and computer nerds. In a hypothetical.. if you say they have no proof the fires burned that long or burned that hot I can say you have to proof they didnt. They can also calculate based on the factors there were how hot the fire could actually get. You think there are not calculations for how hot fire gets in certain environments? All they have to do is do those calculations based on the environment, type of fire, and fuel of the fire to determine its range of burning temperature. Then see if that temperature matches a failure analysis for the building over the time frame. Yes there are calculations for how hot the fire could actually get and it would require 7 hours of intense non-stop burning. No such thing occurred. NIST's claims that steel beams reached temperatures of 600 degrees C (1,100 F) and even higher is based on exaggerations about the amount of combustible material available on the floors and also about the temperatures and durations of the fires. The claims about steel temperatures are also based on false assertions, such as the assertion that raging fires were burning on the 12th floor at a time when, in fact, the fires on this floor had burned out. NIST's claims about temperatures of steel beams also seem to ignore the implication of the thermal conductivity of steel and NIST'S own estimate that fires could last in given area for only about 20 minutes. Their claims of what caused the collapse of WTC7 depends on its claims about steel temperatures, and this theory is discredited by the fact that these claims are based on gross exaggerations and even outright falsehoods. And you know all this better than them because??? I know.. you used your ability to time travel to go back to 9/11/01 and then used your ability to be immune to fire to go inside the buildings and then used your ability to instantly know the temperature of fire and stayed until the building collapse. Right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? I agree that math and physics can calculate how a building "might" collapse as a result of a fire. As I said, their calculations are probably very accurate in figuring out how something like that might happen and what the circumstances would HAVE TO BE in order for that to happen. Scientists and engineers and computer programmers, I'm sure worked diligently trying to find the right figures, etc. BUT... What they did not use or have is the real evidence. They had no idea how long the fires actually burned or how hot they actually got in REALITY. Either that, or they did know, and just changed the facts to match their computer simulation results.... that would be fraud. They only know what the computer told them "must" have occurred IFF the building was demolished only by a fire. From those figures, they ASSERTED that that is what "must have" happened. But the fires did not last 7 hours and the fires did not reach the temperatures required. Even if you or they claim they did or that they "must have" they have no real evidence or proof. This is reality. This is not a computer simulation. Evidence comes from reality, --not from computer simulations or math from a bunch of brainiacs and computer nerds. In a hypothetical.. if you say they have no proof the fires burned that long or burned that hot I can say you have to proof they didnt. They can also calculate based on the factors there were how hot the fire could actually get. You think there are not calculations for how hot fire gets in certain environments? All they have to do is do those calculations based on the environment, type of fire, and fuel of the fire to determine its range of burning temperature. Then see if that temperature matches a failure analysis for the building over the time frame. Yes there are calculations for how hot the fire could actually get and it would require 7 hours of intense non-stop burning. No such thing occurred. NIST's claims that steel beams reached temperatures of 600 degrees C (1,100 F) and even higher is based on exaggerations about the amount of combustible material available on the floors and also about the temperatures and durations of the fires. The claims about steel temperatures are also based on false assertions, such as the assertion that raging fires were burning on the 12th floor at a time when, in fact, the fires on this floor had burned out. NIST's claims about temperatures of steel beams also seem to ignore the implication of the thermal conductivity of steel and NIST'S own estimate that fires could last in given area for only about 20 minutes. Their claims of what caused the collapse of WTC7 depends on its claims about steel temperatures, and this theory is discredited by the fact that these claims are based on gross exaggerations and even outright falsehoods. And you know all this better than them because??? I know.. you used your ability to time travel to go back to 9/11/01 and then used your ability to be immune to fire to go inside the buildings and then used your ability to instantly know the temperature of fire and stayed until the building collapse. Right? i don't think common sense is a big factor with truthers... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? I agree that math and physics can calculate how a building "might" collapse as a result of a fire. As I said, their calculations are probably very accurate in figuring out how something like that might happen and what the circumstances would HAVE TO BE in order for that to happen. Scientists and engineers and computer programmers, I'm sure worked diligently trying to find the right figures, etc. BUT... What they did not use or have is the real evidence. They had no idea how long the fires actually burned or how hot they actually got in REALITY. Either that, or they did know, and just changed the facts to match their computer simulation results.... that would be fraud. They only know what the computer told them "must" have occurred IFF the building was demolished only by a fire. From those figures, they ASSERTED that that is what "must have" happened. But the fires did not last 7 hours and the fires did not reach the temperatures required. Even if you or they claim they did or that they "must have" they have no real evidence or proof. This is reality. This is not a computer simulation. Evidence comes from reality, --not from computer simulations or math from a bunch of brainiacs and computer nerds. In a hypothetical.. if you say they have no proof the fires burned that long or burned that hot I can say you have to proof they didnt. They can also calculate based on the factors there were how hot the fire could actually get. You think there are not calculations for how hot fire gets in certain environments? All they have to do is do those calculations based on the environment, type of fire, and fuel of the fire to determine its range of burning temperature. Then see if that temperature matches a failure analysis for the building over the time frame. Yes there are calculations for how hot the fire could actually get and it would require 7 hours of intense non-stop burning. No such thing occurred. NIST's claims that steel beams reached temperatures of 600 degrees C (1,100 F) and even higher is based on exaggerations about the amount of combustible material available on the floors and also about the temperatures and durations of the fires. The claims about steel temperatures are also based on false assertions, such as the assertion that raging fires were burning on the 12th floor at a time when, in fact, the fires on this floor had burned out. NIST's claims about temperatures of steel beams also seem to ignore the implication of the thermal conductivity of steel and NIST'S own estimate that fires could last in given area for only about 20 minutes. Their claims of what caused the collapse of WTC7 depends on its claims about steel temperatures, and this theory is discredited by the fact that these claims are based on gross exaggerations and even outright falsehoods. And you know all this better than them because??? I know.. you used your ability to time travel to go back to 9/11/01 and then used your ability to be immune to fire to go inside the buildings and then used your ability to instantly know the temperature of fire and stayed until the building collapse. Right? So what part of failure analysis and heating properties of fire areally common sense? Apparently mealing has a license in common sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 04/25/12 04:27 PM
|
|
Common sense is common sense.
When the NIST report on WTC7's collapse is proven to be a fraud, the rest of the 9/11 official story will come crumbling down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common sense is common sense. When the NIST report on WTC7's collapse is proven to be a fraud, the rest of the 9/11 official story will come crumbling down. And yet the didn't prove that in almost 11 years. Kind of tells you something. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 04/25/12 05:34 PM
|
|
Common sense is common sense. When the NIST report on WTC7's collapse is proven to be a fraud, the rest of the 9/11 official story will come crumbling down. And yet the didn't prove that in almost 11 years. Kind of tells you something. I think they have proven it. That is why so many people don't believe the official story and think there is a cover-up. The problem remains that when the people in charge of the country are the guilty parties, there is no one (except the public) left to police them. As they say, the insane are running the asylum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What? You ask how can a building fall like that without explosives. That most certainly can be proven by math and physics. You can calculate the load of the building, the heat of the fires, etc. It isn't some magic art. The government didn't do those calculations, scientists and engineers did. And you complain that the government did an investigation. Well who the he'll else do you think was gonna pay for it?? Why don't you trotters raise money and hire the ASCE or some colleges or something to do another investigation if you want one so badly? I agree that math and physics can calculate how a building "might" collapse as a result of a fire. As I said, their calculations are probably very accurate in figuring out how something like that might happen and what the circumstances would HAVE TO BE in order for that to happen. Scientists and engineers and computer programmers, I'm sure worked diligently trying to find the right figures, etc. BUT... What they did not use or have is the real evidence. They had no idea how long the fires actually burned or how hot they actually got in REALITY. Either that, or they did know, and just changed the facts to match their computer simulation results.... that would be fraud. They only know what the computer told them "must" have occurred IFF the building was demolished only by a fire. From those figures, they ASSERTED that that is what "must have" happened. But the fires did not last 7 hours and the fires did not reach the temperatures required. Even if you or they claim they did or that they "must have" they have no real evidence or proof. This is reality. This is not a computer simulation. Evidence comes from reality, --not from computer simulations or math from a bunch of brainiacs and computer nerds. In a hypothetical.. if you say they have no proof the fires burned that long or burned that hot I can say you have to proof they didnt. They can also calculate based on the factors there were how hot the fire could actually get. You think there are not calculations for how hot fire gets in certain environments? All they have to do is do those calculations based on the environment, type of fire, and fuel of the fire to determine its range of burning temperature. Then see if that temperature matches a failure analysis for the building over the time frame. Yes there are calculations for how hot the fire could actually get and it would require 7 hours of intense non-stop burning. No such thing occurred. NIST's claims that steel beams reached temperatures of 600 degrees C (1,100 F) and even higher is based on exaggerations about the amount of combustible material available on the floors and also about the temperatures and durations of the fires. The claims about steel temperatures are also based on false assertions, such as the assertion that raging fires were burning on the 12th floor at a time when, in fact, the fires on this floor had burned out. NIST's claims about temperatures of steel beams also seem to ignore the implication of the thermal conductivity of steel and NIST'S own estimate that fires could last in given area for only about 20 minutes. Their claims of what caused the collapse of WTC7 depends on its claims about steel temperatures, and this theory is discredited by the fact that these claims are based on gross exaggerations and even outright falsehoods. And you know all this better than them because??? I know.. you used your ability to time travel to go back to 9/11/01 and then used your ability to be immune to fire to go inside the buildings and then used your ability to instantly know the temperature of fire and stayed until the building collapse. Right? So what part of failure analysis and heating properties of fire areally common sense? Apparently mealing has a license in common sense. Oh feel free to pile on all the fire resistant carpeting and office furniture you can find. |
|
|
|
|
