Stupid People like this are as big a danger to this country as any racist

[Blake]

...the biggest staged ever.

[Mikeanaro]

OK Mikey -- walk us through your conspiracy. How were 1, 2 and 7 rigged to collapse?

Dont care to discuss it with you sorry.

[Pavlov]

Dont care to discuss it with you sorry.

Alright -- just forfeit and take the L then.

[Mikeanaro]

Damage = structural columns supporting more weight than they were designed for.

Fire = slowly weakening steel

More force + less ability to withstand that force. Once the load bearing capacity of any supporting element is exceeded, it collapses, meaning that even more weight is instantly distributed to already stressed, weakened parts.

Once you get movement of mass, KE equation kicks in again.

This is basic, simple physics, testable, reproducible.

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.

[Mikeanaro]

Alright -- just forfeit and take the L then.

What L, did you win? how? by fapping in front of dat screen?

[Pavlov]

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.

That isn't the official statement. You are weirdly babbling.

[Pavlov]

What L, did you win? how? by fapping in front of dat screen?

I don't win -- you just lose.

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is en led "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017

1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.

That you think 1200 ing degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science.

Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "



Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.

This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science?

So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.

So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.

I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.

Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.

Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)

I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.

You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.

I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it.

Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.

I give you evidence and you say "no evidence"

Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a ing joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.

The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.

That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?

[Pavlov]

I dont need to explain nothing

Couldn't if you tried.

[RandomGuy]

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.

[RandomGuy]

Couldn't if you tried.

Maybe he can magically speak a 2270 story building into existence.

[Pavlov]

Maybe he can magically speak a 2270 story building into existence.

Simple physics

[Mikeanaro]

Couldn't if you tried.

Wow, explain me why the JFK files are not available to the public.

[Mikeanaro]

That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?

What you say is not evidence either, is just an empty calculation like putting a naked steel column on the grill, sorry but you dont have a case either so your point is not valid, not saying mine is 100% accurate but thats how things are.

[RandomGuy]

Wow, explain me why the JFK files are not available to the public.

Wow, explain to me all the tests you did on the structural strength of steel when subjected to various high temperatures.

[Mikeanaro]

I don't win -- you just lose.

You are the biggest loser here, thats a fact.

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is en led "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017

1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.

That you think 1200 ing degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science.

Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "



Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.

This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science?

So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.

So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.

I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.

Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.

Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)

I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.

You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.

I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it.

Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.

I give you evidence and you say "no evidence"

Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a ing joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.

The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.

That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?

What you say is not evidence either, is just an empty calculation like putting a naked steel column on the grill, sorry but you dont have a case either so your point is not valid, not saying mine is 100% accurate but thats how things are.

You didn't answer my question.

Are you a building engineer?

[Mikeanaro]

You didn't answer my question.

Are you a building engineer?

Im not a building engineer, and I dont need to be one since not every building engineer agreed on your theory.
Are you stupid? or do you need to be stupid to answer if you are stupid?

[Mikeanaro]

Wow, explain to me all the tests you did on the structural strength of steel when subjected to various high temperatures.

Lol now you are collapsing like the building, you dont have an answer about JFK files, a liberal to the core like you dont have an answer to the assassination of the goodie two shoes of the demmies.
It was clean, its all that matter LMAO!

He was going to change the world, dont you care what happened????

[RandomGuy]

I dont need to explain nothing, you always have problems when something contradicts your theories, in this particular case you are saying the fire of the WTC has hotter than lava.

No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is en led "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC." FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).Aug 1, 2017

1500 F is not enough to melt steel, you are correct.

There was no melted steel in the towers, and the collapse did not require any steel to be melted, merely hot enough to lose structural integrity, and warp/expand, both of which happen when it is heated to those temperatures.

That you think 1200 ing degrees below the melting point is anywhere close enough for steel to lose structural integrity. Pseudo science.

Yes, I do. I not only think it, I know it does.

"As indicated in the figure, if the steel attains a temperature of 550 degrees Centigrade (1,022 degrees Fahrenheit), the remaining strength is approximately half of the value at ambient temperature. "



Maybe you can wow me with all the data you have done for your testing of the structural properties of steel under various temperatures.

This is what happens, bro, when these steel beast catch fire. Stuff collapses, not the steel framework. It takes detonation. You want to give the benefit of doubt to no detonation and quote your pseudo science?

So... you have smileys.

Got it.

Color me unimpressed.

So, the govt. does a huge commission to find out the truth of 9/11 and just pretends building 7 never happened. They don't even come up with a faux excuse. That's how dead to rights them and your cuck ass are.

I don't see any evidence in this post either.

It's almost like you don't have any.

Yup, no planes in the photographs of the Pentagon bombing.

Yup, physics verifies that the (concrete enforced) steel holds up in these fires.

Yup, the radiation levels on the ground were certainly testible and inconsistent with the govt. stories.

Yup, no evidence for any of your claims.

(slow clap)

I wouldn't even give you credit for "judging" as much as I'd say you simply serving a canned argument; and you've unraveled upon being held to a light.

You have failed to present any evidence here, and have simply, repeatedly, done nothing but repeat your unproven assertions.

Feel free to step up your game at any time, rather than falling back on canned catchphrases.

I wasn't tasked with getting to the bottom of 9/11. The govt. was. Their answer: Pretend building 7 never happened because stooges like you would just accept it.

Still no evidence.

Almost as if you don't have any.

I give you evidence and you say "no evidence"

Me: Dude admitted WTC7 detonated.
You: No evidence.

You're a ing joke at this point.

You have yet to show how steel reacts when heated, in regards to its weight bearing capacity. This evidence is key to your claims about either building 7 or the twins.

Office fire temperatures, such as building 7 burn at a fairly predictable temperature curve.

The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C

References

[1] Fristrom, R. M., Flame Structure and Process, Oxford University Press, New York (1995).
[2] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., Some Stochastic Properties of Fire Plumes, Fire and Materials 6, 127-134 (1982).

[3] Gaydon, A. G., and Wolfhard, H. G., Flames: Their Structure, Radiation and Temperature, 3rd ed., Chapman and Hall, London (1970).

[4] McCaffrey, B. J., Purely Buoyant Diffusion Flames: Some Experimental Results (NBSIR 79*1910). [U.S.] Natl. Bur. Stand., Gaithersburg, MD (1979).

[5] Audoin, L., Kolb., G., Torero, J. L., and Most., J. M., Average Centerline Temperatures of a Buoyant Pool Fire Obtained by Image Processing of Video Recordings, Fire Safety J. 24, 107-130 (1995).

[6] Cox, G., and Chitty, R., A Study of the Deterministic Properties of Unbounded Fire Plumes, Combustion and Flame 39, 191-209 (1980).

[7] Smith, D. A., and Cox, G., Major Chemical Species in Turbulent Diffusion Flames, Combustion and Flame 91, 226-238 (1992).

[8] Yuan, L.-M., and Cox, G., An Experimental Study of Some Line Fires, Fire Safety J. 27, 123-139 (1997).

[9] Ingason, H., Two Dimensional Rack Storage Fires, pp. 1209-1220 in Fire Safety Science-Proc. Fourth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science, (1994).

[10] Ingason, H., and de Ris, J., Flame Heat Transfer in Storage Geometries, Fire Safety J. (1997).

[11] Heskestad, G., Flame Heights of Fuel Arrays with Combustion in Depth, pp. 427-438 in Fire Safety Science--Proc. Fifth Intl. Symp., Intl. Assn. for Fire Safety Science (1997).

[12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1*7 (1979).

[13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

[14] Sullivan, A. L., Ellis, P. F., and Knight, I. K., A Review of Radiant Heat Flux Models Used in Bushfire Applications, Intl. J. Wildland Fire 12, 101-110 (2003).

Building 7 collapsed at approximately 5:20pm, it had been on fire for more than 8 hours.

Simple physics... a giant building more than capable to handle that plane and its fire received too much heat on the hundreds steel columns from 500 meters to probably 100 meters under ground on each column going thru cement/concrete/ceramics/water pipes etc etc so it was too much and it totally collapsed, not one single part could resist...

Thats the official statement, I would not trust a government that cant release the JFK files because thinks people is too stupid to understand, sorry but is a giant no no.

That doesn't look like evidence to me.

That looks like you stating something as a fact, as if you simply saying it makes it true. Man if that is the case, please say I am a millionaire.

Are you a building engineer?

What you say is not evidence either, is just an empty calculation like putting a naked steel column on the grill, sorry but you dont have a case either so your point is not valid, not saying mine is 100% accurate but thats how things are.

You didn't answer my question.

Are you a building engineer?

Im not a building engineer

You have made several claims about what a building can, or can't withstand.

What testing have you done on the load-bearing capacity of steel when heated?

[tlongII]

Come on Mike give it up. 9/11 was not a government conspiracy. Those were real jetliners whose destructive force and heat took down the towers. It was obvious. I know the government does stupid , but even I cannot give credence to an act like you're hypothesizing.

[UnWantedTheory]

your sciences and ur physicses. It tells too much proof and data and what not. I don't like that there proof that I didn't make up pseudo sciency engineer guy. To with you and all your factual knowledge!

[Spurtacular]

Come on Mike give it up. 9/11 was not a government conspiracy. Those were real jetliners whose destructive force and heat took down the towers. It was obvious. I know the government does stupid , but even I cannot give credence to an act like you're hypothesizing.

Yea, surely the govt. wouldn't be part of a game changer in their favor.

[Pavlov]

Wow, explain me why the JFK files are not available to the public.

The CIA knew more about Oswald than they let on. It was a up.

[Pavlov]

Fun fact: It's currently up to Trump to make the last JFK files public when the time comes.