Reply With Quote
So I'm not good at telling jokes. I didn't mean that seriously, but jokes are often based on a factual experience.
Religion is an excuse for them to hate. They do plenty of things, like Baptists.
So I'm not good at telling jokes. I didn't mean that seriously, but jokes are often based on a factual experience.
Excellent Juan Cole video destroys National Geographic and proves that thermite can be used to cut steel beams
So you're saying you think thermite was used to bring down the WTC buildings?
Thermite is regularly used to cut steel beams. Horizontal steel beams.
lol melted steel
lol iron rich spheres
lol explosive paint chips
lol super nano explosive thermite/mate placed exactly at the impact floors on each building
lol controlling the collapse of the north tower to fall into wtc7 and bring it down for no apparent reason
I'm not saying I've bought into whether thermite was used or not, especially in the case of WTC7....I'm just saying that the possibility is certainly there and mercury fuses certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings.....
What you got? Still think that was melted aluminum from the plane running down the buildings before they collapsed?
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/me...als-d_860.htmlI'm not saying I've bought into whether thermite was used or not, especially in the case of WTC7....I'm just saying that the possibility is certainly there and mercury fuses certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings.....
What you got? Still think that was melted aluminum from the plane running down the buildings before they collapsed?
Melting temperatures.
Aluminum: 1220F
Carbon Steel: 2600F - 2800F
You do realize there was far more aluminum in that building than just in the planes, right?
Nothing you say and no amount of youtube videos will change the fact that aluminum melts at far lower temperatures than steel.
If you are raising the temperature of a mixture of rubble/structure, the material with the lowest melting point is the material you will see first.
If the ONLY thing you see is one stream of molten material in a fire, you are probably safe in assuming that it is the material with the lowest melting point.
QED
Which material has a lower melting point Dan?
The utlimate problem with your statement is that it has the same following form of:
Dancing fairies and pixies certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings...
Do you actually have any evidence of this rather specific claim?
I can't back up my theory that dancing fairies and pixies did it. Maybe you can do better?
So what crushed the top floor? There are many photos of collapsed buildings none of them turn into powder most of them have complete floors still intact.
Between this topic and your lack of radiation knowledge you might be better off getting that PlayStation II out of the pawnshop to occupy your time.
A fall of some 1,000 feet crushed the top floor into fairly small chunks. Not powder, but small chunks. A good deal of material, including concrete was made into powder, but certainly not all of it.
To my knowledge these were, and still are, the tallest buildings to ever collapse due to any cause. Kind of makes comparisons to smaller buildings a tad less relevant. Ca va?
Sorry, my tin foil hat wearing friend, you are revisiting things long ago debunked by people more knowledgeable than I.
If you want to re-hash the whole controlled demolition thing feel free. You will, once again, be called on to actually read the NIST report. Once again, you won't/haven't. Once again, you will simply have to fall back on bad logic, magic physics, and innuendo.
Maybe some of that, probably more likely lead from a bank of backup batteries known to be on the 81st floor, over reinforced corner trusses.I'm not saying I've bought into whether thermite was used or not, especially in the case of WTC7....I'm just saying that the possibility is certainly there and mercury fuses certainly explain some of the bright white fires seen by witnesses and explosions inside the buildings.....
What you got? Still think that was melted aluminum from the plane running down the buildings before they collapsed?
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/...r-of-wtc2.html
But you already knew about this didn't you?
Sorry I had no idea you lost the pawn ticket, (my bad) you can have my play station 1 pm me for address.
Melting point of Lead: 621F
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/me...als-d_860.html
That would make it even more likely to have been lead from a large battery unit than aluminum.
I didn't know that bit. Interesting, even after all this time, I learn something new.
Thanks.
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/...r-of-wtc2.htmlWhy is all this important? Because if there was an uninterruptible power supply on the 80th or 81st floor, in the northeast corner, the impact of the aircraft and the collapse of the floors above, with their conducting metal parts, would have caused countless short-circuits of the batteries, providing currents of tens of thousands of amps (as calculated in this article), which can produce unimaginable thermal effects. In addition to this, abundant hydrogen, which is highly flammable, is generated during the shorting of a UPS system (it is also generated during normal operation, hence the need for special ventilation, firefighting equipment, and restricted access), and it is well-known that batteries are prone to explode in case of fire (hence the warning printed even on small AA batteries).
This inferno would have easily melted the lead of the batteries, whose melting point is even lower than aluminum's and is well within the temperature range of a building fire and far lower than the melting point of steel. This would have allowed the molten metal to flow without damaging the steel columns, which is what the visual evidence shows.
In other words, the catastrophic shorting and meltdown of a UPS system would provide a very plausible and simple explanation for the glowing fountain.
That accounts for the white hot fires and explosions heard as well. Neat.
One would think that the producer of the above YouTube would have included that as a possible cause of the "fountain" since he so thoroughly "researched" the earlier NIST hypothesis.
One might conclude that he left it out on purpose, if one were su ious of such actions by people who make conspiracy videos -- especially if one has seen such omissions before.
The phrase "the Truther thoroughly researched" is an oxymoron, with an emphasis on the last two syllables of that word.
so twoo
When Chump or his cronies post about 9/11.
When anyone else post about 9/11
Why so offended? I was just pointing out that the 'prevailing opinion' that thermite could not be used effectively to cut steel beams is no longer a given...your pixies and dancing fairies example would be sooooo,,.... original and mildly amusing if we weren't talking about the death of 2000+ Americans
....thermite needs to be thrown back into the mix.....
...Mouse is right....
None of this was in the 911 Commission report, nor in the NIST analysis....your speculating....could have been fairies and pixie dust too...or thermite
They have no dignity....just watch...
Once the 'stretches in truth' in the 9/11 Commission report are exposed, because lies always eventually are (think Able Danger), watch how quick Randomlie and Chumpy, the report largest cheerleaders, run away from it...
Last edited by Nbadan; 09-14-2011 at 08:45 PM.
So no comment from the resident conspiracy non-theorists about the UPS batteries.
Just attempts to change the subject.
lol speculating
Here we have a truther attempting to prove the thermite theory.
With a good bit of effort, he does manage to prove it is possible to use thermite and shaped "cutters" to cut vertical columns using thermate.
Unfortunately, he doesn't really solve the rest of the problems for the theory:
1) The requirement to have access to all the columns, including the requirement to cut through office walls to access the appropriate columns.
2) The sheer amount of labor it would take.
3) The massive amount of heat and smoke produced.
4) How to proof his cutters against the shock of impact and fire.
This sets aside the circular logic of his theory, and the misleading half-truths presented as complete facts.
Not altogether convincing, although I do give him credit for succeeding where NG failed.
I am still left with the impression that the guy was lying to me by omission.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
