Canadian 9/11 Petition for Parliament
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
My wood stove has been on fire for several months now and has yet to melt. What could be on fire in that poor building?
what was that tune?
The point about the wood stove is a good one. Normal office fires are supposed to have been what brought down the towers according to the official 9/11 report. This is impossible.
The part that is "over and over again" is the official 9/11 report. However, there is a growing body of scientific evidence which raises significant doubt about it.
There are two things wrong with what you've written.
1. A normal office fire does not involve a 757 full of fuel, passengers, and luggage.
2. It is not impossible that a normal office fire would bring down a skyscraper.
That is simply not true. I'll ask again. Why do you have to resort to trickery in order to make a point?
Go ahead waste your hard earned tax dollar, its like us trying to get rid of Obama care. Troops will be coming home this years, reason will be nonsense anyway. Will be files with thousands of others. You people keep saying there is a growing abundance of evidence, where is it why hasen't it been brought up before. Plus I doubt that your group has the tenacity to look deep into anything and if you did understand what you find..
Hey, you're getting nutty, try to envision the heap of old PCs you'd need to generate a fraction of the sustained heat that ash or rock maple does. Why do you keep defending a position that has no validity in the fact based science world that you allegedly inhabit. No disinterested scientist would or could conceive of such nonsense like kerosene destruction of masses obviously far in excess of the available fuel carried on the planes. The office computer equipment scenario is nothing but lunacy born of desperation. I think I'll put you on my lunatic list and have this machine shun you. No on second thought I would miss the entertainment. You are funnier than Whoopie Goldbrick.
Well, how did the days and months go? You can't have just one episode in a soap opera. I got up tuesday and the day was different than what I planned and I'm pretty sure the next month will not be according to my schedual.
Why would you think I'm talking about the PC's as a heat source? The heat source is the fire that you can see burning throughout the video in that shot. There's lead in computers, and there were servers in that building.
According to nutters like yourself, some of the floors that were hit by the explosion had computer servers on them.
If it were true that normal office fires melted the structural steel on 9/11 - this would be a historic first.
If you had even the slightest knowledge of materials science, you would know that there is no need for anything to have melted steel.
If you ever decide to learn anything about structural steel and its properties, you can sign up for courses at your nearest university with engineering courses.
Yes, I've been to university thanks. Question, if the steel beams were being heated - wouldn't the heat be transfered from the hot steel to the cooler steel (ie natural heat synch)? Also, how long would you have to heat the steel before it reached the point of turning to liquid? Finally, how come the remaining floors collapsed through the path of greatest resistance?
Final question for you, how do you explain the molten metal pouring out of the buildings prior to the collapse?
Final question for you, how do you explain the molten metal pouring out of the buildings prior to the collapse?
Irrelevant. The steel didn't have to melt. It only had to weaken.
As for the "molten metal", steel was not the only metal in the building and different metals liquefy at different temperatures. I'll ask a third time. Why do you have to lie in order to try and prove your points?
Where do you think all the soft metals in those computers went? Melted, and flowed to the lowest point. Floors sagging, and an open hole in the building...molten metal pours out of the building.
Actually, the problem with saying the steel just had to weaken is that the collapse was uniform and went straight through the path of greatest resistance (ie the building), so its physically impossible unless all the steel is removed - everywhere, simultaneously.
Which is easier for falling material (like the top of the building above the impact zone) to pass through, air? or the bottom of the building?
I'll go ahead and answer that for you. Air.
However, the building didn't topple over to one side did it?
Also, how is it that the fires were still burning underground for weeks?
Check out this photo:
Google Image Result for http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/626_molten_metal.jpg
Which is easier for falling material (like the top of the building above the impact zone) to pass through, air? or the bottom of the building?
I'll go ahead and answer that for you. Air.
However, the building didn't topple over to one side did it?
Also, how is it that the fires were still burning underground for weeks?
Check out this photo:
Google Image Result for http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/626_molten_metal.jpg
Final question for you, how do you explain your lack of understanding of structural engineering?