"WTC fires too cool to weaken steel"

Discussion in '9/11' started by Ronstar, Dec 10, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Not nearly as much jet fuel.
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,869
    Likes Received:
    3,841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't remember anyone claiming that jetfuel burned for months.

    And you didn't answer the question. You claimed that thermite was responsible for the fires that burned for months. How much thermite is required for it to burn for months?
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah,considering thermite doesn't need oxygen to burn...
     
  4. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The fires burned for months. You claim they did so because of jet fuel (kerosene). Therefore you attribute the steel seen dripping from steel beams and the fires that lasted for months were directly or indirectly the result of fires initiated by kerosene.

    You are insinuating that I have intimated that a certain quantity of thermite would be necessary to account for the duration and intensity of the fires. I did not.

    What I am suggesting to you is that it would require less thermite to explain these observations than the amount of jet fuel (kerosene) that was left over after the eruption of the fire ball which was seen immediately following the crash.


    [​IMG]

    Many pictures such as these which were retrieved from the wreckage despite the attempt to have them destroyed quickly caused some authorities to question how simple office fires could account for their deteriorated condition.

    This led to speculation that the intergranular melting and sulfidation were caused by wall board!


    Of the two alternatives, which do you suppose would be more likely to cause these results, jet fuel and gypsum or thermite (ate)?


    [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG]


    Also some people who have worked with steel have said that only very high temperatures could allow these huge steel beams to be bent without cracking.

    [​IMG]

    In other words, in the absence of such temperatures, don't you think that the force required to cause this bending would break the column loose at the joints (bolts/welds) before the bending would occur. And that if the bending were to occur, that the steel would fracture unless it was hot enough to be that malleable?


    The condition of these samples also begs the question, how could so many of these beams be in this condition when only a limited number of them were exposed to the "raging inferno" caused by the jet planes?


    It has been revealed by eye witness testimony and numerous news articles that not only did the fire department dump tremendous amounts of water on these fires over a long period of time, but that two thunderstorms occurred within days of the crash which were severe enough to cause cessation of work.

    This water was turned to steam upon contact with the hot metal. The evidence of this is on film.


    The workers boots melted.

    Many workers and authorities SAW metal dripping and "pools" of metal.

    Aluminum will char and vaporize in an open wood fire of any intensity. Try it and see.

    At any rate, there was not enough aluminum in those planes to account for the quantities of it which were not only seen dripping in plain view from the corner supports of the buildings before they fell (one of the most critical spots of support), but also the massive amounts of it that were seen in the debris.

    It should also be noted that this debris would have been buried deep within the pile of wreckage, indicating that it resulted from fire on floors which were far below the crash site.

    How much jet fuel could have fallen down elevators, AFTER the initial fireball, and made it out of the HERMETICALLY sealed elevator core shafts to have caused all this?

    Would it be fair to say that the question really should be to you; just how much jet fuel do you suppose that all this damage would take?

    Do you suppose that those planes which were only half fueled contained enough so that a sufficient quantity found it's way all the way down 100 or so stories without being ignited before managing to blow out the lobby and explode in the basement floors as well?



    Thermite better fits the observations than jet fuel.

    - - - Updated - - -

    .....unlike jet fuel WHICH DOES!
     
  5. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Youskies are being evasive. How about YOU answering a couple of questions?

    1. Why did Bush and his cohorts do so much foot-dragging and stonewalling to prevent an investigation?

    2. Why did Bush and Rice LIE about having not having any idea that such an attack could occur?

    3. Why did they say that it was unimportant whether it was ever discovered who placed all the Put Options?

    ....which directly ties into the question

    4. Why was so much material in the initial reports redacted?

    5. Why should they object to the American public knowing what other foreign intelligence agencies were responsible for the attacks?

    6. Why did Goss deny having heard reports of molten metal in the wreckage and act like it was an affront to ask him?

    7. How could making the NIST computer simulation parameters made public "jeopardize national security"? These are people in the same US government who allow Israel to routinely spy on the US, steal technology, and then sell it to China or Russia or the highest bidder.

    These are the people who accept campaign funds from the Communist Chinese in exchange for the missile technology which allowed them to launch into space. (Clinton) and which incidentally gave China the potential to strike the US with nuclear warheads! These are the people who give the Chinese military command guided tours of our Navel defense, who sell them property within the US and invite them in joint military training ventures.

    These are the people who practically crucified Nixon for trying to save the boobs who tried to steal the Democrat's campaign strategies. Coincidentally this plan was "discovered" by Jews also.


    http://beforeitsnews.com/scandals/2013/12/censored-congressional-report-shows-saudi-arabia-involved-in-911-attack-after-the-911-attacks-the-public-was-told-al-qaeda-acted-alone-with-no-state-sponsors-but-the-white-house-never-let-it-2432718.html



    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/23/aipac911saudi/


     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,869
    Likes Received:
    3,841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree that zero thermite is required for a fire to burn for months?
     
  7. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thjere was NO jet fuel burning for months at the WTC,there was NO 'steel dripping' from any beams pulled out of the rubble pile...any thermite would have burned off,since once lit,it STAYS burning......You're just trading in more troother lies

    And aluminum will melt,not vaporize in a wood fire

    You just keep getting so much wrong,kid
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    more lies?...your 'questions' have been asked here and answered long ago
     
  9. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The Kennedy memorial has been burning for longer than that without the aid of thermite. But what does that have to do with the evidence of thermite in the WTC rubble?

    What I said was, that thermite BETTER explains the results than the simple jet fuel story.

    BOTH scenarios require a conspiracy so you cannot say that your excuse doesn't have one.

    If we are going to measure the nuttiness of believing one over the other, you have to admit that the fact that these Arabs came into the US unmolested, went about preparing to commit harakiri on the WTCs without the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, or all the Mossad agents running around at the time noticing them, and then managed to hijack four planes and fly them for an hour without being intercepted by NORAD, and flying one of them into the Pentagon, the most heavily defended airspace in the world AFTER one of the planes had already crashed into the WTC,
    I'd say that you run a close second at least,

    Because if anyone had thought such a thing would have been possible before 9/11 they would have been told they were crazy.

    Bush and C. Rice weren't crazy. No one in their administration ever thought such a thing. You don't some to have any problem at all imagining how all this could have been pulled off without a hitch and then destroy three buildings with two planes. So you have to be at least crazier than they were.

    - - - Updated - - -

    We already know that there wasn't any jet fuel burning for months. It all burned up in the first few seconds after impact.

    According to your story, that leaves only a bunch of paper and office furniture to do the job.

    Lot's of people were surprised that it could. I'll even throw in some curtains and computers and that still leaves a lot to the imagination. And I have to hand it to you. Youskies really have some imagination.



    Toss some aluminum cans into a wood fire and see what happens....kid.
     
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It burned long enough to set multiple fires in the WTC,some burned in th first few seconds,NOT all

    And there was tons of paper,office furnishings,flammable chemicals,carpeting,clothing and organic material in the rubble,plenty along with decay of said organic material to sustain spontaneous combustion in the rubble

    And it doesn't take much imagination when you're not trying to lie about the events

    And I've tossed many,many cans on a fire,they melt,yes,vaporize,no.

    kid.
     
  11. holston

    holston Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    http://www.ehow.com/facts_6815657_dangers-burning-aluminum-cans_.html

    You still haven't answered my questions. Are they too hard?

    Now, were the fires hot or not?

    First you want them hot enough to cause huge metal columns to bend without cracking.
    Now you want them cool enough so that the aluminum does not sublimate.

    Make up your mind.

    You walked straight into that one, squirt.

    And one more thing. When you pour water on burning paper,office furnishings, carpeting,clothing and organic material it ordinarily goes out. That's why the fire department uses water.
    Evidently that's why they were pouring hundreds of thousands of gallons of water on the WTC rubble.

    Little did they realize that the building was filled with volatile organic materials. Otherwise they might have tried something else like CO2 or something designed for a grease fire.
    You can't blame them however since they use water on most of the fires they are called to.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1-'oxidizing' is NOT vaporizing
    2- the columns were steel,not aluminum,and steel doesnt crack much unless it's been hardened
    3-I'm not the one who hasn't made up their mind
    4-sometimes water on fires doesn't put out the fires,that's why firemen stay and watch a building after a fire,in case it flares up again
    5-the fire department also uses corrosive chemical powder too
    6-water causes rapid decomosition,and a result of that is heat
    7-You DO know what the 'organic materials' were,right?
    8-evidently water didn't reach everywhere inside the pile
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,947
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113

    nice example of a nice clean cutter charge cut.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,947
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113

    total debunker vomit.

    lefty, explain how fuel traveling the speed of a bullet can instantly come to a dead stop then magically form a pool to pour down the elevators instead of turning to mist?

    low viscosity liquids turn to mist even at 3 miles per hour when they come to a direct stop.

    see:

    [​IMG]

    at the speed of a bullet it would be a super fine mist.
     
  15. Alucard

    Alucard New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2015
    Messages:
    7,828
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good comparison was made by mentioning the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid.
     

Share This Page