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? 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. The fact that you think those things are related in any way show you lack any common sense. Open air compared to closed air, gasoline compared to jet fuel, horizontal railroad tracks to a vertical building under a huge load. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no jet fuel in WTC7.
Focus on WTC7 and the fraud perpetrated there using fabricated evidence via computer simulation input vs. real world evidence and the entire 9/11 fiasco will come crumbling down faster than the buildings did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. The fact that you think those things are related in any way show you lack any common sense. Open air compared to closed air, gasoline compared to jet fuel, horizontal railroad tracks to a vertical building under a huge load. Jet fuel is basicly Kerosene. We are talking heat and fire and steel and its ductility and strenght that was magicly weakened by the fire? By open air I am saying it was not an insulated furnace constantly being fed with fuel to reach a temperature. It was a quick fireball that exploded and burned off leaveing behind some smoldering office furnature. News flash. The building was built to withstand plane crashes, earthquakes, hurrican winds and fires. It was not built out of a deck of cards to come crashing down at free fall speed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conspiracy is brought about by the lack of truth.
Concealment of truth by Governments enables criminality to foster. 911 is more or less the perfect Crime |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. The fact that you think those things are related in any way show you lack any common sense. Open air compared to closed air, gasoline compared to jet fuel, horizontal railroad tracks to a vertical building under a huge load. Jet fuel is basicly Kerosene. We are talking heat and fire and steel and its ductility and strenght that was magicly weakened by the fire? By open air I am saying it was not an insulated furnace constantly being fed with fuel to reach a temperature. It was a quick fireball that exploded and burned off leaveing behind some smoldering office furnature. News flash. The building was built to withstand plane crashes, earthquakes, hurrican winds and fires. It was not built out of a deck of cards to come crashing down at free fall speed. Actually I am nit the one that refuses to state my education. Please list in detail with links form reliable sources the exactly size, capacity, and velocity of plane it was built to withstand. You know divisions was built to withstand earthquakes too. Guess the radiation problem there is a conspiracy too right? I was also told by a civil engineering professor that the insulation used in that building helped feed the fire as well and they actually changed building codes for skyscrapers not allowing them to use it anymore. Not sure where to verify that but I trust my professor. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Thu 04/26/12 03:22 PM
|
|
Conspiracy is brought about by the lack of truth. Concealment of truth by Governments enables criminality to foster. 911 is more or less the perfect Crime Conspiracy is brought about by a lack of understanding. Concealment of truth by Governments is universal but has nothing to do with conspiracy theories which spawn from ignorance. 911 was just a crime committed by terrorists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
911 was just a crime committed by terrorists.
Which means NOTHING. OF COURSE IT WAS COMMITTED BY TERRORISTS. The question is.... who are the real terrorists? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. The fact that you think those things are related in any way show you lack any common sense. Open air compared to closed air, gasoline compared to jet fuel, horizontal railroad tracks to a vertical building under a huge load. Jet fuel is basicly Kerosene. We are talking heat and fire and steel and its ductility and strenght that was magicly weakened by the fire? By open air I am saying it was not an insulated furnace constantly being fed with fuel to reach a temperature. It was a quick fireball that exploded and burned off leaveing behind some smoldering office furnature. News flash. The building was built to withstand plane crashes, earthquakes, hurrican winds and fires. It was not built out of a deck of cards to come crashing down at free fall speed. Actually I am nit the one that refuses to state my education. Please list in detail with links form reliable sources the exactly size, capacity, and velocity of plane it was built to withstand. You know divisions was built to withstand earthquakes too. Guess the radiation problem there is a conspiracy too right? I was also told by a civil engineering professor that the insulation used in that building helped feed the fire as well and they actually changed building codes for skyscrapers not allowing them to use it anymore. Not sure where to verify that but I trust my professor. Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners. Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center. LINK 1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated. The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity. property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200 fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2 length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. The fact that you think those things are related in any way show you lack any common sense. Open air compared to closed air, gasoline compared to jet fuel, horizontal railroad tracks to a vertical building under a huge load. Jet fuel is basicly Kerosene. We are talking heat and fire and steel and its ductility and strenght that was magicly weakened by the fire? By open air I am saying it was not an insulated furnace constantly being fed with fuel to reach a temperature. It was a quick fireball that exploded and burned off leaveing behind some smoldering office furnature. News flash. The building was built to withstand plane crashes, earthquakes, hurrican winds and fires. It was not built out of a deck of cards to come crashing down at free fall speed. Actually I am nit the one that refuses to state my education. Please list in detail with links form reliable sources the exactly size, capacity, and velocity of plane it was built to withstand. You know divisions was built to withstand earthquakes too. Guess the radiation problem there is a conspiracy too right? I was also told by a civil engineering professor that the insulation used in that building helped feed the fire as well and they actually changed building codes for skyscrapers not allowing them to use it anymore. Not sure where to verify that but I trust my professor. Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners. Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center. LINK 1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated. The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity. property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200 fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2 length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Fri 04/27/12 02:18 AM
|
|
There was no jet fuel in WTC7. Focus on WTC7 and the fraud perpetrated there using fabricated evidence via computer simulation input vs. real world evidence and the entire 9/11 fiasco will come crumbling down faster than the buildings did. And plenty Fire from above! Ever seen Magnesium or Magnesium-rich ALU-Alloys burn? Ever try to extinguish it? Now consider how much Magnesium Alloys are in modern Buildings and Office-Furniture! Real fun when they start to burn! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. The fact that you think those things are related in any way show you lack any common sense. Open air compared to closed air, gasoline compared to jet fuel, horizontal railroad tracks to a vertical building under a huge load. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no jet fuel in WTC7. Focus on WTC7 and the fraud perpetrated there using fabricated evidence via computer simulation input vs. real world evidence and the entire 9/11 fiasco will come crumbling down faster than the buildings did. And plenty Fire from above! Ever seen Magnesium or Magnesium-rich ALU-Alloys burn? Ever try to extinguish it? Now consider how much Magnesium Alloys are in modern Buildings and Office-Furniture! Real fun when they start to burn!
The composition of American Office Furniture..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no jet fuel in WTC7. Focus on WTC7 and the fraud perpetrated there using fabricated evidence via computer simulation input vs. real world evidence and the entire 9/11 fiasco will come crumbling down faster than the buildings did. And plenty Fire from above! Ever seen Magnesium or Magnesium-rich ALU-Alloys burn? Ever try to extinguish it? Now consider how much Magnesium Alloys are in modern Buildings and Office-Furniture! Real fun when they start to burn!
The composition of American Office Furniture.....
Actually it was called Dur-Aluminium,a German Invention! Also called Elektron! Extremely strong for it's weight! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was no jet fuel in WTC7. Focus on WTC7 and the fraud perpetrated there using fabricated evidence via computer simulation input vs. real world evidence and the entire 9/11 fiasco will come crumbling down faster than the buildings did. And plenty Fire from above! Ever seen Magnesium or Magnesium-rich ALU-Alloys burn? Ever try to extinguish it? Now consider how much Magnesium Alloys are in modern Buildings and Office-Furniture! Real fun when they start to burn!
The composition of American Office Furniture.....
Actually it was called Dur-Aluminium,a German Invention! Also called Elektron! Extremely strong for it's weight!
And very popular in "AMERICA"...... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok now steel is flameable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok now steel is flameable
Only American Steel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok now steel is flameable
Not sure why you are saying that. I don't think anyone said its flammable. Steel is a great conductor though. Assuming you know what that means. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok now steel is flameable
Not sure why you are saying that. I don't think anyone said its flammable. Steel is a great conductor though. Assuming you know what that means. I think Conrads very astute post concerning Magnesium Alloys and/or Magnesium Elektron has them confused..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 04/29/12 08:57 AM
|
|
It's not very comforting to know that our high rise buildings are being made with materials then, that a mere office fire can result in the total and sudden destruction of the entire structure. We must have some brilliant structural engineers building our buildings. I'm glad I don't live in the city.
I guess terrorists don't need explosives and bombs or missiles. All one needs is a match. And yet the mystery remains why the streets were filled with dust and ash and yet also lots of paper flying all over the place, that had not even been burned at all. PAPER. BLOWING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
Strange fire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not very comforting to know that our high rise buildings are being made with materials then, that a mere office fire can result in the total and sudden destruction of the entire structure. We must have some brilliant structural engineers building our buildings. I'm glad I don't live in the city.
I guess terrorists don't need explosives and bombs or missiles. All one needs is a match. And yet the mystery remains why the streets were filled with dust and ash and yet also lots of paper flying all over the place, that had not even been burned at all. PAPER. BLOWING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
Strange fire. This post reads like baking a pie with no pie flling would taste Jeannie.....
|
|
|
|
|
