For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

a reply to: firerescue


Yes Goober, we have been over this before. Which is to say I've read your sophistry before.

It WAS molten for 3 months, in spite of your being in denial about it, molten metal was present for 90 days.

And your claim that jetfuel caused the steel in the structure to weaken to the point of free fall collapse is pure nonsense.

a reply to: Salander

No proof of molten metal. The water used to cool the burning ans smoldering pile would have reacted violently with existing molten metal causing violent steam explosions spraying molten metal.

The pile was never hot enough to support molten steel.

What would keep metal molten for 90 days? If it was nuclear reactions, people would have died in hours after being at the pile.

a reply to: neutronflux

What would keep metal molten for 90 days? If it was nuclear reactions, people would have died in hours after being at the pile.

You won't get an answer.
Or at least one with provable facts.
Conspiracy people only make claims.
They never provide evidence to fully back up their claims.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

1975 WTC #1 fire burned for 3 hours on the 11th floor while spreading to many floors. This fire was more intense (hotter), and suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

WOW

Did a plane fly into it then as well?

Why didn't Tower #1 collapse in the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours at a way lower level (many floors around floor 11), which had a lot more weight above than 9/11.

Why are you asking?

Are looking to compare a plane crashing into a building with office fires?

Does that remotely seem logical to you?

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I can't find a decent online source that discusses the 1975 fire. For what it's worth (and it's not worth much, being Wikipedia) Wikipedia says the fire broke out on two office floors, where it was tackled and extinguished manually within a short space of time and that the body of the fire was contained within a vertical shaft and couldn't spread.

So yeah, looks like we might be talking about slightly (!) different-sized fires here, and all they have in common is the location.

Lets not forget that what cause the fires on 9/11.

Compared with office fires in 75, yeah, its a reasonable comparison.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: neutronflux

What would keep metal molten for 90 days? If it was nuclear reactions, people would have died in hours after being at the pile.

You won't get an answer.
Or at least one with provable facts.
Conspiracy people only make claims.
They never provide evidence to fully back up their claims.

Yeah the standard response to the radiation issue will be - "We don't know how far technology has advanced so maybe there isn't any. "

Which of course proves just how desperate these nuke believers are since their expected response is basically nothing more than appeal to magic.

No wonder that ATS has determined that nuke claims belong in the hoax bin.

a reply to: FyreByrd

While the jet fuel may weakend a few of the higher floors structurally there is no way on earth it would have caused the complete and total collapse of buildings 1 & 2 into the sub-basement.

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: FyreByrd

While the jet fuel may weakend a few of the higher floors structurally there is no way on earth it would have caused the complete and total collapse of buildings 1 & 2 into the sub-basement.

Is that supposed to be an argument?

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: FyreByrd

You have made a thread without looking and taking into account the evidence.


Building Seven Collapsed Too you know .

Please could you explain how Jet did this...

Could you explain to me how a normal fire did this..

I smell a fish.

Wish you could vote misleading threads down..

NOW you see why 9/11 conspiracies are a complete joke and its simply entertainment now at the cost of 1000s of lives on that day and many 1000s more since.


I guess you cant start a thread about things you want concerning 9/11, someone will come along and tell you off for not posting a thread about what they want to discuss.

a reply to: purplemer

The buildings where built to withstand a direct hit from a plan Building seven was not even hit by a plane..

Please do show the plans that show a plane flying at 500 miles an hour wouldn't do enough damage as what was seen on that day.

Thousands died that day and their death was used to jusify the death of a million more.. We want truth We want justice

you want justice?

Is that a joke?

you complain about this thread and you want justice?

You parrot things mentioned in youtube videos that is taken out of context.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is all the beams failing at once symmetrically is impossible.

Your problem is you omit the kinetic energy build-up....momentum as the higher steel-therefore higher temperatured for a longer period of time gives in first. then the kinetic energy of that steel on the lower steel.....on and on.

The steel below was never heated..for ANY period of time...no sagging was occuring at any point.

Kinetic energy does not BUILD UP.

Let me hit a nail with a hammer and assume it will punch ITSELF in deeper an hour later.

originally posted by: manuelram16
a reply to: dfnj2015
There is a report on how the building failure occurred, and it was a sandwich 'effect' also on the twin towers the structural steel was on the outer walls not the inside.

Ya sure it was..clearly you have never seen the videos of its construction.

a reply to: ParasuvO

Kinetic energy does not BUILD UP.

It doesn't?

So if a mass accelerates and gains mass its not increasing its kinetic energy?

a reply to: Salander

Do you problems with listening and comprehension ????

In Video the FDNY chief states its 6 WEEKS aka October not 3 MONTHS

www.youtube.com...

States its about 1500 deg F - steel melts at 2700 deg F

Also beams recovered were not molten but heated red hot by fires in debris

Only molten metal seen with proof is on 9/11 - 81 st floor South Tower

It is not steel but mostly aluminum from remains of the aircraft which ended up into that corner of building

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I think you have no idea what to do when someone doesn't state a theory so your system just glitched.

If a truther ever stated a coherent theory that is when my system would glitch.

You can't give us anything resembling a coherent theory. You are just another average truther.

Wait! Someone who wants a proper investigation but has no personal theory is an average truther, and someone that does hold theories is also a truther?

Do you have any other derogatory names that you could give? I feel like there might be a difference between the two.

Or do you feel that the OS is the absolute truth and anyone that doesn't believe and/or believes something else is classified as a truther?

Is this the whole either I'm with you or I'm with the terrorists ultimatum?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I think you have no idea what to do when someone doesn't state a theory so your system just glitched.

If a truther ever stated a coherent theory that is when my system would glitch.

You can't give us anything resembling a coherent theory. You are just another average truther.

Wait! Someone who wants a proper investigation but has no personal theory is an average truther, and someone that does hold theories is also a truther?

Do you have any other derogatory names that you could give? I feel like there might be a difference between the two.

Or do you feel that the OS is the absolute truth and anyone that doesn't believe and/or believes something else is classified as a truther?

Is this the whole either I'm with you or I'm with the terrorists ultimatum?

Nice rant and waste of time when you could lay out a specific theory, provided evidence, and cite sources.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Can you quote the individual where they believe ever aspect of the offical account? But that's not the conspiracists game! Just use innuendo to spin a narrative totally void of facts.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is all the beams failing at once symmetrically is impossible.

Your problem is you omit the kinetic energy build-up....momentum as the higher steel-therefore higher temperatured for a longer period of time gives in first. then the kinetic energy of that steel on the lower steel.....on and on.

The steel below was never heated..for ANY period of time...no sagging was occuring at any point.

Kinetic energy does not BUILD UP.

Let me hit a nail with a hammer and assume it will punch ITSELF in deeper an hour later.

Look at a falling building and tell me again momentum doesn't build up kinetic energy. A snow ball rolling down a hill builds into an avalanche.

a reply to: FyreByrd

so you, and the video you show us, say that fire can NOT bring down a steel structure/building.
OK so I guess that the Bush/Chaney/Et all dark evil conspiracy group were still active and trying to cover their tracks by doing it again on May 10, 1993 when they brought down the Kader Toy Factory, that was ruled a collapse due to fire. Damn those Bush/Chaney/Et all bastids.
Then those evil Bush/Chaney/Et all bastids did it again on January 19,2017 when they brought down the Plasco Building. That was also ruled as a collapse due to fire.
Those evil bastids are still wreaking their havok all over the globe

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

I think you have no idea what to do when someone doesn't state a theory so your system just glitched.

If a truther ever stated a coherent theory that is when my system would glitch.

You can't give us anything resembling a coherent theory. You are just another average truther.

Wait! Someone who wants a proper investigation but has no personal theory is an average truther, and someone that does hold theories is also a truther?

Do you have any other derogatory names that you could give? I feel like there might be a difference between the two.

Or do you feel that the OS is the absolute truth and anyone that doesn't believe and/or believes something else is classified as a truther?

Is this the whole either I'm with you or I'm with the terrorists ultimatum?

Nice rant and waste of time when you could lay out a specific theory, provided evidence, and cite sources.

Rather watch you defend your silly conspiracy theory. I don't have one.