Question for Non-9/11 Truthers: Did You Know Jet Fuel is Just Kerosene?

[HitchSlap]

That would seem odder if I I could name any other such building fires with massive amounts of accelerant.

WTC #7?

 

[[serious]]

Correct. It cannot burn hot enough to melt steal. Further, Tower 7 is the smoking gun if you hadn't already figured out the other two buildings came down in a controlled demolition.

As I posted earlier, the adiabatic flame temperature of kerosene is 3800 degrees F.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm also befuddled by the fact that the plane that was shot down in PA had no bodies and no plane.

 

[[serious]]

WTC #7?

I'm not sure how that relates. It was not exposed to the amount of accelerant as the two towers and did not experience a full collapse, only a partial collapse after damage from the debris of the other buildings.

 

[[serious]]

I'm also befuddled by the fact that the plane that was shot down in PA had no bodies and no plane.

Flight 93? We recovered bodies, wreckage, and the flight recorder with audio from the passenger revolt.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm not sure how that relates. It was not exposed to the amount of accelerant as the two towers and did not experience a full collapse, only a partial collapse after damage from the debris of the other buildings.

Looks like full collapse?

 

[lasthero]

Correct. It cannot burn hot enough to melt steal. Further, Tower 7 is the smoking gun if you hadn't already figured out the other two buildings came down in a controlled demolition.

Why would someone destroy them in a controlled demolition?

 

[[serious]]

Looks like full collapse?

my bad, I was confusing it with one of the other buildings.

I'll revise my statement to "That would seem odder if I I could name any other such building fires with massive amounts of accelerant. Oh, and didn't have a larger building severely damage them with falling debris"

 

[HitchSlap]

Flight 93? We recovered bodies, wreckage, and the flight recorder with audio from the passenger revolt.

Why would someone destroy them in a controlled demolition?

Double indemnity for acts of terrorism, perhaps?

 

[[serious]]

Why would someone destroy them in a controlled demolition?

Because conspiracy!

You see, they were trying to hide the fact that it was an inside job. To disguise the explosives they used to really bring them down, they had to demolish the building... um, with the explosives... which they were trying to hide... or use to cover up...


CONSPIRACY!

 

[JustHisKid]

Not a conspiracy dude, just odd to me that in modern structural history, the only three high rise buildings that collapsed on themselves while on fire all happened on the same day, in the same town.

Weird.

Tower 7 was never on fire.

 

[lasthero]

Tower 7 was never on fire.

Yes, it is was.

 

[JustHisKid]

Yes, it is was.

The video showing it fall in a perfectly controlled demolition shows no fire at all. Further, even if there was an "office fire" in Tower 7, it would not have fallen flat to the ground in 11 seconds. It wasn't hit by anything.

 

[lasthero]

The video showing it fall in a perfectly controlled demolition shows no fire at all. Further, even if there was an "office fire" in Tower 7, it would not have fallen flat to the ground in 11 seconds. It wasn't hit by anything.

It was hit by something.

And I didnt get an answer before, so I'll ask again: WHY would someone destroy the building in a controlled demolition?

 

[JustHisKid]

It was hit by something.

Actually, it wasn't, but even if it was, it just isn't possible for it to fall the way it did without it being a controlled demolition. Watch the video.

And I didnt get an answer before, so I'll ask again: WHY would someone destroy the building in a controlled demolition?

Why does anyone do evil and wicked things? They had a reason, but I certainly don't know it.

 

[lasthero]

Actually, it wasn't, but even if it was, it just isn't possible for it to fall the way it did without it being a controlled demolition. Watch the video.

I have.

Why did the penthouse fall first?

Also, does this look like just a little office fire to you?

Why does anyone do evil and wicked things? They had a reason, but I certainly don't know it.

Of course you don't.

How would they set up a controlled demolition without anyone noticing?

 

[JustHisKid]

I have.

Why did the penthouse fall first?

Also, does this look like just a little office fire to you?

Of course you don't.

How would they set up a controlled demolition without anyone noticing?

The elevator shafts were closed for "repairs" for quite some time before the demolitions took place.

 

[lasthero]

The elevator shafts were closed for "repairs" for quite some time before the demolitions took place.

Really? I can't find any source that confirms that.

I'll admit to not being a demolition expert, but I'm not aware of any demolitions where the explosive were placed just inside an elevator shaft. Everyone demolition I've seen had them placed around the building.

But okay. Let's say they were. Evilbadmeanpeople snuck explosives on lot wtc7, and managed to do this without arousing suspicion, and they had super secret explosives set up. And they had wtc7 go off at some random time later.

Okay.

But they had to know the building was going to get hit? How?

And do you concede that you are wrong about the fire? I ask again, does that look like some tiny office fire to you?

 

[Goonie]

Pass me the tin foil hat.

 

[rawo]

well, blacksmithing is a lie unless the adiabatic burn temperature of coal (and kerosene) is in the 3800 F range. Then that would be bigger than the 2500 F melting point of steel and make it reasonable that an enclosed fire would get hot enough to deform steel.

We are not talking about steel being "deformed" we are talking about it cut into little pieces and being hurled out laterally:

You can zoom in and see the pieces close up in THIS PHOTO, seen below.

A closer view:

Also you have a poor understanding of how metallurgy works. Fuel requires a mechanically forced air supply to reach high temperatures, like a bellows or the air pump in a blast furnace, a very time-consuming and costly process. In a blast furnace air is super-heated before being forced into the melting chamber, which itself requires lots of expensive fuel and machinery. A blacksmith still has to do considerable labor as he only heats steel or iron to the point where it can be worked, with lots of pounding and hammering.

If the officlal 9/11 story is true then bin Laden revolutionized the steel industry. All you ever needed was a hollow tower, kerosene and throw-away furniture, and a few gashes for convection current to get steel hot enough to work. Imagine wasting all that money all those years on coal and energy for the air pumps, or having slaves sweating at the bellows to get steel soft enough just to pound into shapes, with a lot of muscle. Light some kerosene and office carpet and viola!

It really takes only a little thinking to see how absurd the official story is.

https://flic.kr/p/18778758371

Is it less awful than "Explosive Evidence" by the same group? Because I wasted a whole bunch of time watching and dissecting that, and if you can't tell me that this is considerably stronger in the "evidence" department, then I'm just not going to bother. You see, the combined expertise and endorsement of those 2,000 architects and engineers rings more than a little hollow when you email the organization and ask them if they have any papers on the subject published in peer-reviewed journals, and they say "no, but it shouldn't matter". Yes, actually, it kinda freakin' does! A petition like this is entirely meaningless if it's not strongly supported by the evidence published in the peer-reviewed literature. The anti-climate-change petition has more than ten times the signatories and it doesn't change the facts of the issue. .

Also, I wonder if you've seen the JREF deconstructions of that list of "2,000 architects and engineers" - turns out only like 6 of them have any expertise.

So I'll tell you what; you guarantee me that this documentary is less stupid than "Explosive Evidence", and I'll watch right up until the first blatant lie.

Here is the full Explosive Evidence. Put your money where your mouth is and identify the first lie, with the time it occurs at. And below that is The New Pearl Harbor, which is even better. It's easy to say blah blah blah bunch of lies. Show me one.

BTW I read your "dissection" of Explosive Evidence that you linked, it consist of, for example, critiqueing that they don't offer an explanation of how thermite works. That's not pointing out a "lie." You are saying that unless a full alternative mechanism for collapse is shown, you cannot prove the official one impossible. That's dumb. That's like saying unless you can tell me how that water is running uphill, I am not seeing it running uphill, even if it clearly is. You are equating the failure to offer an alternative hypothesis with a falsehood.