National Geographic's Professional Hit Job on 9/11 Truth

This is a lie. The color of smoke has zero to do with how hot a fire is. The color of smoke is also not an indication of being oxygen starved. This is not new information.

http://rt.com/news/benghazi-clashes-libya-militia-424/

the second picture will be the one to discuss. please explain to me how the fire is oxygen starved.

- - - Updated - - -

No he's not. You have proven you don't either. Then add icing to the cake that proves you know nothing about fire either.

 

How can you claim mechanical equilibrium achieved when on of the factors is not static?

 

How can you claim mechanical equilibrium achieved when on of the factors is not static?...well????

 

That fire is relatively cool. White hot fire is hot. That fire is red orange. Burning rubber also makes black smoke.

Yes he is. Quantumhead has demonstrated a clear understanding of physics on numerous occasions.

 

How can you claim mechanical equilibrium achieved when on of the factors is not static?

 

So you measured what temperature that fire is burning at just by looking at it? Cool. Thank you for admitting you are lying when you make the claim that black smoke is an indication of an oxygen starved fire..[/QUOTE]

Just like Kokomojo, right?

 

Too bad for you that didn't apply on 9/11,or the 2795

 

The fact that you don't know how to determine the relative temperature of fire by observation discredits you.

Yes. Kokomojojo clearly understands the physical world. That is why he is light years ahead of you understanding the facts surrounding 9/11.

 

Fire is hot. There I told the relevant temperature of the fire just by looking at it, but I also understand that color of smoke is not an indicator of how much oxygen a fire is getting. So this says what about you? A fool, by every definition of the word. And if you need confirmation of that claim, look at your next line:

Coming from someone who doesn't understand the physical world I can see why you think he does. Comic gold.

 

Truthers argue that since this fire had dark smoke, the flames were cool and not hot enough to weaken steel.







and yet, the all-steel sections of this building weakened and collapsed.

 

Color of the fires smoke is consistent with a fire in which office materials are burning. Something the WTC towers were filled with.

 

Well????....so now you know black smoke is consistent with a fire burning office material? All set with that claim?

 

No?

How did the steel potion of the Windsor Tower in Madrid collapse? Elves? Maybe Bigfoot?

James Quintiere has the following credentials:

Quintiere wrote a paper that states:

What about what the American Institute of Steel Construction says:

You're wrong on SO many levels it's not even funny anymore.

 

So you're saying that the mass of the lower section is what dictates how the individual components will resist the impact of the upper section impacting it??? That's nuts! I see why you and BJ avoid answering the following question. If one of the floors was designed to support the load of itself and the objects placed upon it, how could it have resisted the upper section falling on it?! If you don't understand this simple concept, you have no business debating the subject.

And why do you continue to bring "crushing" into this conversation? The upper section did not crush the lower section, It tore through/sheared through the loewer section HUGE difference.

Now, since you believe that nothing should fail locally because the entire mass of the lower section should be counted, how does someone break the front door of a house down? It's got the entire mass of the house behind it right Quantum?

It's only irrelevant because it proves you wrong.

While you're running away, answer this question. How did the smaller, upper section of this building crush the lower, larger section?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

Newton's Law right?

 

How did the steel portion of the tower in Madrid collapse if office fires are not hot enough to weaken steel? What about James Quintiere who thanks fire caused the collapses? What about what the AISC has to say about office fire temperature?

Your claim of office fires not being hot enough to weaken steel has been eradicated and you have been shown to not know what you are talking about.

Now you just keep avoiding the tough questions and posting your silly "go take a physics class" rebuttals. It shows everyone here just what you're about.

- - - Updated - - -

You are telling me that no steel collapsed at the Madrid towers???

 

Ahh the hear no evil see no evil defense. Truthers say: "Go away evidence that refutes my delusion. Go away!"

Very good point. Also note that slender columns buckle before they crush. You'll find very little crushed steel in the WTC rubble data. What you will find is a whole lot of buckled steel.

Truthers like to tack back and forth between a poor understanding of the mechanics of collapse initiation and a poor understanding of the mechanics of collapse progression. When you pin them on the mechanics of collapse initiation they claim that the momentum should have been arrested by the remaining structure. When you pin them on the mechanics of the collapse progression they claim that they building collapse never should have started in the first place. The existence of their argument depends on a circular series of lapses in memory that allows them to completely forget how thoroughly schooled they were just moments ago.


1. Collapse initiation was caused by a weakening of structure in the damaged area of the building caused by heating.

2. Collapse progression was caused by an overloading of the remaining structure by the falling load. This load was an order of magnitude higher than the capacity of the remaining structure.

Truthers have never shown any theoretical, statistical, or physical evidence that these two points were not the case.

 

Perfect description!

 

This is the electronic version of placing your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut and shouting out loud, "I don't hear you!!!!...la la la la la la!!!*"

* Stomping your feet is optional.

 

Do you kids know what spending the rest of your life in prison means? Guantanamo. That is what you are asking for.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah...

 

Bring it on, punk. I'm done with your mealy mouthed, snide accusations and sniveling.

Put up or shut up.

 

Do you know what being full of (*)(*)(*)(*) is?....grab a mirror.

 

This is retarded. If the bottom 93 floors were made of air, then the top 17 floors were also made of air, making the percentage different in weight identical.

I would be able to elicit a more rational conversation from a heavily sedated grapefruit. All of the air in the entire world does not weigh half a million tons, which is how heavy each of the twin towers were.

 

Unfortunately for you the grapefruit displays a better comprehension of physics and engineering than you do, so you would still be at a disadvantage.

 

Meet me at the corner of sixth and colfax. You will shud up.

 

How did the upper portion of this building crush the lower portion of said building? Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

According to you, that shouldn't happen. The lower portion was larger than the upper portion yet the upper portion crushed the lower portion without explosives or thermite?