Loki047

iTrader: (6)

JASON YOU KNOW NOTHING OF STRUCTURES OR METALLURGY

because another building can survive a fire doesn't mean anything to another. Did that building have an airplane with fuel (which has a much great btu/lb than the furniture that is burngin) fly into it at 400mph?

Its irrelevant. This conversation is dealing with a crappy magician, watch me pull my thumb off.. no just hid your thunmb. Look at this rabbit out of a hat, yeah the rabbit was in the had.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Whats the definition of a fiercely burning fire?

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

How do you know that was most of its fuel? Some calcs or data to back up your claims would be nice....

JasonC SBB

Look at how slabs of concrete remain in earthquake collapses; most of the concrete isn't pulverized. In contrast look at the cloud of concrete dust in the case of the explosives:

JasonC SBB

Another:

JasonC SBB

One hot enough to sofen steel. NIST called it an "inferno" in order to claim temperatures over 1300*F were reached. However, the fact that the firemen were able to climb the stairs *to* the floors with the fires, and radio'ed in what was needed to put the fires out, proves this is not true.

JasonC SBB

One of the main tenets of the fire collapse theory is that the plane's fuel was what caused the high temperatures. I showed that in the case of the South tower, much more of the fuel burned *outside* the building, yet the South tower collapsed in much less time than the North tower.

JasonC SBB

You said so yourself.

JasonC SBB

There was a building, #6, between building #1 and #7:

Buildingn 1, 2, and 7 are in gray:



Building 6 didn't collapse.
And you expect me to believe that fire caused #7 to free-fall symmetrically down?

JasonC SBB

Here is a result of placing a 8" x 6" x 1/4" steel plate with a 100 mil thick coating inside a furnace at 1600*F. The 1/4" steel plate took 60 minutes to reach just 1000*F. Look at the last page:

http://www.contegointernational.com/ASTM119UL263.pdf

And think of your turbo manifold. They get red hot but don't droop under the weight of the turbo and the exhaust.

JasonC SBB

Compare the cloud of dust when WTC2 collapsed:


and a building explosion:



and an eqrthquake collapse:

hustler

iTrader: (6)

so let me get this straight. You think the government can stage a big huge sham and kill thousands of people in the biggest conspiracy in the history of the world, in the biggest city in the US...but we can't find some chemical weapons in the sand in bumfuck nowhere, on the other side of earth where there are not cameras, internet connections, millions of people...?

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

Jason you're an Idiot. Have you ever seen an Uncontrolled JP8 burn before? I have when a VBD blew a fuel truck up outside of my post one night. (Jet fuel by the way. Same fuel that was on the plane.) It burned for 3 days and turned the sky black for a full day. PS it burned so hot EOD couldn't go withing 100 feet of it for 3 days. Dust looks like dust though, its rushing due to compressed air from withing the building.

Hell i may even be able to find a picture.
Here they are

JasonC SBB

Not "the government". A few criminals mostly within the gov't.

Because the the WMD excuse was a lie to begin with. Do you actually believe Bush was telling you the truth when he said Saddam had WMD?

JasonC SBB

drewbroo, how long did that stuff you point to burn? The jet fuel from the planes was consumed in a few minutes; especially in the South tower, where most of it was consumed in a fireball *outside* the building, which I showed a pic of earlier. You also ignore the fact that firemen were able to report from the floor where the biggest fires were. If the fires were hot enough to soften steel (~1300*F or so), the firemen wouldn't be able to come close. There is also a radio transmission where the firemen said most of the fire was out - that what was left was a smoldering office fire.

You keep on looking at this from the point of view that it's impossible for the explosives to be planted and the people who did it not come out and blow the whistle. Set this aside for the moment and look objectively at all the physical evidence.

JasonC SBB

Don't forget Operation Northwoods - several people in gov't had wanted to "sacrifice" several American lives to create a pretext for invading Cuba. Killing citizens is not outside the realm of possibility. Hell, 5,000 soldiers have died in Iraq for what?

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

Your ignoring the fact that the fuel was spread all over the floors when the planes hit. The pictures i showed you were of a fuel truck. The fuel was in the same place. Thats why it burned for 8 hours straight.

When the towers started to fall, the fuel was fed by the oxygen on the new floors. Back drafts are created. Superheated oxygen fed flames. Brush up on your thermodynamics, and maybe you could understand this stuff better.

Thats why its bad to open a door to a burning room. All the new air just makes it worse.

Backdrafts deplete the o2 on each floor creating vacuum, vacuum creates weakness within the structures. Makes it 10 times easier for the floors to collapse. Also did you take into consideration that the building were designed to fall that way? Seriously. Building codes for building over 100+ stories require them to have a collapsing structure. Can you imagine the amount of damage that there would be if it just fell over? Of if the structure fell all over the place.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

When did you prove that, please repost.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Jason show me destruction of more than 8 buildings, and make sure they are all over 100 floors and used the same technique of the WTCs.

Showing 3 pictures and using that as representative of how all buildings fail is absurd let alone severely faulty logic.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Jason, Do me a favor. We all have an understanding of how 9/11 happened. Why dont you tell us your "story" of 9/11 starting from when the decision was made to bring down 3 buildings in NYC and attack the pentagon. Start at that meeting, up through the clean up effort.