Australian Politics Forum

Captain Caveman

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6204
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #105 - Sep 16^th, 2019 at 2:03pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 1:53pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 12:01pm:

Captain Caveman wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:43am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:29am:

Captain Caveman wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:28am:

freediver wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 8:13am:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 7:18am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 7:52pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

Tsk Tsk the comparison is in the post above your last post....tsk tsk............. Tongue

The big difference is the 767 is 28000 kg (28 tonne) heavier.

Sounds a lot right, do you think 28 tonne could make the difference......???

What about if I tell you that there is a safety factor between 1.5 to 3 built into all structural design.

Do you think that that 28 tonne could still make the difference.....???.....in toppling the buildings.....???

Like I have been saying from the start SIMILAR planes.

The computations would cover the heavier 767 quite easily.

Ask a structural engineer...!!

28 Tons would be equivalent to a loaded semi trailer, how much kinetic energy would a semi trailer weighing 28 tons have while travelling at 500+ Mph? Do you think that would make no difference?

The fact is the buildings did stand up for a while, whatever systems they had to fight the fires were ineffective we could say a total failure as the fires continued to burn until the buildings fell.

I think if they had effective fire fighting systems the buildings would still be there. Heat steel up till it's red hot and it loses most of its strength anyone who did high school metalwork would know this.

You have proven you know nothing about Physics and now you're proving you know nothing about engineering. Planes have a Factor of Safety around 1.5-2 they need to build them light or they will never get off the ground or have poor payload capacity.

Civil engineers use a Factor of Safety usually greater than 4-5 which is for static loads that don't move like buildings and bridges, civil engineers don't deal with dynamic loads it is not something they have to consider.

I have posted a Physics paper on the other 9/11 threads that dealt with the buildings falling. When the top of the buildings started to fall it was not going to stop as the kinetic energy of the falling building was huge, you didn't need explosives as the energy levels were equivalent to hundreds of tons of TNT.

When the building started to fall it was no longer a static load case it was a dynamic load what we call a suddenly applied load.

The only concern I have with 9/11 is why did all those Saudis fly out just after it happened.

After the jet fuel burnt off what was the heat source that exceeded fuel burning temps to weaken the massive steel structure?

The WTCs burnt in the top 3rd ...... the Grenfell Tower was entirely engulfed and burnt for 4 hrs longer yet didn't collapse.

You are assuming that fuel cannot burn at higher than the nominal burn temperature. You are wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about.

No...you don't.

There was traces of thermite found. END OF STORY.

And evidence....now.

Use whatever search engine you need. I'm sure you can find it.

The classic pseudoscientist escape clause.

Molten metal is shown coming out of the buildings in several videos.

It's there to see have a look. Roll Eyes

One of the head fire chiefs at the time explained it in detail. That is what kicked off separate studies.

It is easier to make someone believe a lie than to try and convince them that they've been lied to. TOWER 7.
One has to wonder why they would believe the MSM to start with.

Follow the money trail.
Look who's involved.
What's happened since.

Cha-ching.

Back to top

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17456
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #106 - Sep 16^th, 2019 at 2:17pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 1:51pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 8:13am:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 7:18am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 7:52pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

Tsk Tsk the comparison is in the post above your last post....tsk tsk............. Tongue

The big difference is the 767 is 28000 kg (28 tonne) heavier.

Sounds a lot right, do you think 28 tonne could make the difference......???

What about if I tell you that there is a safety factor between 1.5 to 3 built into all structural design.

Do you think that that 28 tonne could still make the difference.....???.....in toppling the buildings.....???

Like I have been saying from the start SIMILAR planes.

The computations would cover the heavier 767 quite easily.

Ask a structural engineer...!!

28 Tons would be equivalent to a loaded semi trailer, how much kinetic energy would a semi trailer weighing 28 tons have while travelling at 500+ Mph? Do you think that would make no difference?

The fact is the buildings did stand up for a while, whatever systems they had to fight the fires were ineffective we could say a total failure as the fires continued to burn until the buildings fell.

I think if they had effective fire fighting systems the buildings would still be there. Heat steel up till it's red hot and it loses most of its strength anyone who did high school metalwork would know this.

You have proven you know nothing about Physics and now you're proving you know nothing about engineering. Planes have a Factor of Safety around 1.5-2 they need to build them light or they will never get off the ground or have poor payload capacity.

Civil engineers use a Factor of Safety usually greater than 4-5 which is for static loads that don't move like buildings and bridges, civil engineers don't deal with dynamic loads it is not something they have to consider.

I have posted a Physics paper on the other 9/11 threads that dealt with the buildings falling. When the top of the buildings started to fall it was not going to stop as the kinetic energy of the falling building was huge, you didn't need explosives as the energy levels were equivalent to hundreds of tons of TNT.

When the building started to fall it was no longer a static load case it was a dynamic load what we call a suddenly applied load.

The only concern I have with 9/11 is why did all those Saudis fly out just after it happened.

After the jet fuel burnt off what was the heat source that exceeded fuel burning temps to weaken the massive steel structure?

The WTCs burnt in the top 3rd ...... the Grenfell Tower was entirely engulfed and burnt for 4 hrs longer yet didn't collapse.

You are assuming that fuel cannot burn at higher than the nominal burn temperature. You are wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about.

And of course you're another fargin knowitall like Bwian.

The pair of your must each be at least 300 yrs old .... so much knowledge on every subject.

Amazing.

How long did it remain at a higher temperature as it would have burnt off fast?

Quote:

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Did you comprehend this part in your link that does nothing to back up the nutjobs conspiracy theory?

Quote:

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

Yield level stress means it had exceeded the Youngs Modulus of the steel beams which will then be subjected to inelastic deformation.

Thermal expansion of a beam that is restrained will introduce compressive stress into beam in this case the stress levels were above the Youngs Modulus (yield level) which resulted in buckling.

Plenty of examples of Train tracks buckling from compressive stress exceeding yield point from thermal expansion on google with no fires to provide heat.

Like I said if they could have put the fires out the WTC might still be there. Wink

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

Gnads Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 28021 Gender:	Re: 9/11 Jumpers Reply #107 - Sep 16^th, 2019 at 2:30pm Railway lines are more prone to buckle these days because they are continuous weld without expansion joints. Are you saying that there were no expansion joints in that entire building? How then is it supposed to absorb energy forces ... like the supposed planes delivered or handle 7.0 to 8.0 magnitude earthquakes?
Back to top	"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39497

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #108 - Sep 16^th, 2019 at 3:18pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 2:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 1:40pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 7:18am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 7:52pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

Tsk Tsk the comparison is in the post above your last post....tsk tsk............. Tongue

The big difference is the 767 is 28000 kg (28 tonne) heavier.

Sounds a lot right, do you think 28 tonne could make the difference......???

What about if I tell you that there is a safety factor between 1.5 to 3 built into all structural design.

Do you think that that 28 tonne could still make the difference.....???.....in toppling the buildings.....???

Like I have been saying from the start SIMILAR planes.

The computations would cover the heavier 767 quite easily.

Ask a structural engineer...!!

28 Tons would be equivalent to a loaded semi trailer, how much kinetic energy would a semi trailer weighing 28 tons have while travelling at 500+ Mph? Do you think that would make no difference?

The fact is the buildings did stand up for a while, whatever systems they had to fight the fires were ineffective we could say a total failure as the fires continued to burn until the buildings fell.

I think if they had effective fire fighting systems the buildings would still be there. Heat steel up till it's red hot and it loses most of its strength anyone who did high school metalwork would know this.

You have proven you know nothing about Physics and now you're proving you know nothing about engineering. Planes have a Factor of Safety around 1.5-2 they need to build them light or they will never get off the ground or have poor payload capacity.

Civil engineers use a Factor of Safety usually greater than 4-5 which is for static loads that don't move like buildings and bridges, civil engineers don't deal with dynamic loads it is not something they have to consider.

I have posted a Physics paper on the other 9/11 threads that dealt with the buildings falling. When the top of the buildings started to fall it was not going to stop as the kinetic energy of the falling building was huge, you didn't need explosives as the energy levels were equivalent to hundreds of tons of TNT.

When the building started to fall it was no longer a static load case it was a dynamic load what we call a suddenly applied load.

The only concern I have with 9/11 is why did all those Saudis fly out just after it happened.

After the jet fuel burnt off what was the heat source that exceeded fuel burning temps to weaken the massive steel structure?

The building structure itself.

Quote:

The WTCs burnt in the top 3rd ...... the Grenfell Tower was entirely engulfed and burnt for 4 hrs longer yet didn't collapse.

The Grenfell Tower burnt at a much lower temperature because it was primarily an external fire in the cladding. The Grenfell Tower was built of different materials compared to the WTC. There were fears while the Grenfell Tower was burning that it might collapse. So it appears it might have been possible but it didn't happen.

Which was a steel outer shell and an inner core of reinforced concrete ..... both highly combustible?

It isn't the steel or the concrete that burns, it is the insulation, the ceiling tiles, the walls made of gyprock and plywood, furniture, etc. that burns. The heat distorts the steel and the steel reinforcing in the concrete and that results in expansion and buckling.

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39497

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #109 - Sep 16^th, 2019 at 3:19pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 2:30pm:

Railway lines are more prone to buckle these days because they are continuous weld without expansion joints.

Are you saying that there were no expansion joints in that entire building?

How then is it supposed to absorb energy forces ... like the supposed planes delivered

or handle 7.0 to 8.0 magnitude earthquakes?

When did New York last experience a Magnitude 7.0-8.0 earthquake? Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 131449
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #110 - Sep 16^th, 2019 at 3:38pm

Captain Caveman wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 1:54pm:

There have been plenty of high ranking gov officials and military personnel that have come forward over the years and TOLD you that the gov created the conspiracy theory you see on the MSM.

Oh well, it must be true then.

High ranking government officials and military personnel never lie.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #111 - Sep 16^th, 2019 at 4:15pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 1:53pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 12:01pm:

Captain Caveman wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:43am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:29am:

Captain Caveman wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:28am:

freediver wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 8:13am:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 7:18am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 7:52pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

Tsk Tsk the comparison is in the post above your last post....tsk tsk............. Tongue

The big difference is the 767 is 28000 kg (28 tonne) heavier.

Sounds a lot right, do you think 28 tonne could make the difference......???

What about if I tell you that there is a safety factor between 1.5 to 3 built into all structural design.

Do you think that that 28 tonne could still make the difference.....???.....in toppling the buildings.....???

Like I have been saying from the start SIMILAR planes.

The computations would cover the heavier 767 quite easily.

Ask a structural engineer...!!

28 Tons would be equivalent to a loaded semi trailer, how much kinetic energy would a semi trailer weighing 28 tons have while travelling at 500+ Mph? Do you think that would make no difference?

The fact is the buildings did stand up for a while, whatever systems they had to fight the fires were ineffective we could say a total failure as the fires continued to burn until the buildings fell.

I think if they had effective fire fighting systems the buildings would still be there. Heat steel up till it's red hot and it loses most of its strength anyone who did high school metalwork would know this.

You have proven you know nothing about Physics and now you're proving you know nothing about engineering. Planes have a Factor of Safety around 1.5-2 they need to build them light or they will never get off the ground or have poor payload capacity.

Civil engineers use a Factor of Safety usually greater than 4-5 which is for static loads that don't move like buildings and bridges, civil engineers don't deal with dynamic loads it is not something they have to consider.

I have posted a Physics paper on the other 9/11 threads that dealt with the buildings falling. When the top of the buildings started to fall it was not going to stop as the kinetic energy of the falling building was huge, you didn't need explosives as the energy levels were equivalent to hundreds of tons of TNT.

When the building started to fall it was no longer a static load case it was a dynamic load what we call a suddenly applied load.

The only concern I have with 9/11 is why did all those Saudis fly out just after it happened.

After the jet fuel burnt off what was the heat source that exceeded fuel burning temps to weaken the massive steel structure?

The WTCs burnt in the top 3rd ...... the Grenfell Tower was entirely engulfed and burnt for 4 hrs longer yet didn't collapse.

You are assuming that fuel cannot burn at higher than the nominal burn temperature. You are wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about.

No...you don't.

There was traces of thermite found. END OF STORY.

And evidence....now.

Use whatever search engine you need. I'm sure you can find it.

The classic pseudoscientist escape clause.

Molten metal is shown coming out of the buildings in several videos.

It's there to see have a look. Roll Eyes

And molten metal proves what, other than there being molten metal. ANd plus provide the video.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Legend

Posts: 21718
Rockhampton, Q
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #112 - Sep 16^th, 2019 at 5:23pm

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 12:11pm:

The only way a building can collapse like that is with controlled demolition.

Nothing else can explain it.

How did they get the explosives up in the towers in no considerably long time? And if they had demolition explosives already set, how did they not explode upon getting hit by the planes?

Back to top

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28021
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #113 - Sep 17^th, 2019 at 7:48am

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 3:18pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 2:03pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 1:40pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 7:18am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 7:52pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

Tsk Tsk the comparison is in the post above your last post....tsk tsk............. Tongue

The big difference is the 767 is 28000 kg (28 tonne) heavier.

Sounds a lot right, do you think 28 tonne could make the difference......???

What about if I tell you that there is a safety factor between 1.5 to 3 built into all structural design.

Do you think that that 28 tonne could still make the difference.....???.....in toppling the buildings.....???

Like I have been saying from the start SIMILAR planes.

The computations would cover the heavier 767 quite easily.

Ask a structural engineer...!!

28 Tons would be equivalent to a loaded semi trailer, how much kinetic energy would a semi trailer weighing 28 tons have while travelling at 500+ Mph? Do you think that would make no difference?

The fact is the buildings did stand up for a while, whatever systems they had to fight the fires were ineffective we could say a total failure as the fires continued to burn until the buildings fell.

I think if they had effective fire fighting systems the buildings would still be there. Heat steel up till it's red hot and it loses most of its strength anyone who did high school metalwork would know this.

You have proven you know nothing about Physics and now you're proving you know nothing about engineering. Planes have a Factor of Safety around 1.5-2 they need to build them light or they will never get off the ground or have poor payload capacity.

Civil engineers use a Factor of Safety usually greater than 4-5 which is for static loads that don't move like buildings and bridges, civil engineers don't deal with dynamic loads it is not something they have to consider.

I have posted a Physics paper on the other 9/11 threads that dealt with the buildings falling. When the top of the buildings started to fall it was not going to stop as the kinetic energy of the falling building was huge, you didn't need explosives as the energy levels were equivalent to hundreds of tons of TNT.

When the building started to fall it was no longer a static load case it was a dynamic load what we call a suddenly applied load.

The only concern I have with 9/11 is why did all those Saudis fly out just after it happened.

After the jet fuel burnt off what was the heat source that exceeded fuel burning temps to weaken the massive steel structure?

The building structure itself.

Quote:

The WTCs burnt in the top 3rd ...... the Grenfell Tower was entirely engulfed and burnt for 4 hrs longer yet didn't collapse.

The Grenfell Tower burnt at a much lower temperature because it was primarily an external fire in the cladding. The Grenfell Tower was built of different materials compared to the WTC. There were fears while the Grenfell Tower was burning that it might collapse. So it appears it might have been possible but it didn't happen.

Which was a steel outer shell and an inner core of reinforced concrete ..... both highly combustible?

It isn't the steel or the concrete that burns, it is the insulation, the ceiling tiles, the walls made of gyprock and plywood, furniture, etc. that burns. The heat distorts the steel and the steel reinforcing in the concrete and that results in expansion and buckling.

So all those same types of items burning in the Grenfell Tower( same materials ceiling tiles, insulation,gyprock, plywood, furniture etc)

after being "ignited by the external cladding"

(you know just like being ignited by a plane bursting into flames on the external wall of the towers & some fuel going inside on the WTC)

burned at a lower temperature than the same materials in the WTC for what reason?

The Grenfell Tower was gutted by fire & the external cladding caught fire as a result of an internal apartment fire.

Expansion & buckling of the steel .... that in the collapse seems to vaporise?????

leaving only scattered remnants of that steel skeleton a couple of levels high at the base.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39497

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #114 - Sep 17^th, 2019 at 6:10pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 7:48am:

So all those same types of items burning in the Grenfell Tower( same materials ceiling tiles, insulation,gyprock, plywood, furniture etc) after being "ignited by the external cladding"

(you know just like being ignited by a plane bursting into flames on the external wall of the towers & some fuel going inside on the WTC)

The planes did not "burst into flames on the external walls" of the WTC. The planes penetrated through the external walls and burst into flames inside the WTC. Indeed, they nearly burst through the opposite external wall. The resulting explosion and fire weakened the steel structure which then collapsed, carrying the higher floors onto the lower floors which in turn collapsed. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28021
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #115 - Sep 18^th, 2019 at 8:13pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 4:15pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 1:53pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 12:01pm:

Captain Caveman wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:43am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:29am:

Captain Caveman wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 11:28am:

freediver wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 8:13am:

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 7:18am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 7:52pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 5:25pm:

Tsk Tsk the comparison is in the post above your last post....tsk tsk............. Tongue

The big difference is the 767 is 28000 kg (28 tonne) heavier.

Sounds a lot right, do you think 28 tonne could make the difference......???

What about if I tell you that there is a safety factor between 1.5 to 3 built into all structural design.

Do you think that that 28 tonne could still make the difference.....???.....in toppling the buildings.....???

Like I have been saying from the start SIMILAR planes.

The computations would cover the heavier 767 quite easily.

Ask a structural engineer...!!

28 Tons would be equivalent to a loaded semi trailer, how much kinetic energy would a semi trailer weighing 28 tons have while travelling at 500+ Mph? Do you think that would make no difference?

The fact is the buildings did stand up for a while, whatever systems they had to fight the fires were ineffective we could say a total failure as the fires continued to burn until the buildings fell.

I think if they had effective fire fighting systems the buildings would still be there. Heat steel up till it's red hot and it loses most of its strength anyone who did high school metalwork would know this.

You have proven you know nothing about Physics and now you're proving you know nothing about engineering. Planes have a Factor of Safety around 1.5-2 they need to build them light or they will never get off the ground or have poor payload capacity.

Civil engineers use a Factor of Safety usually greater than 4-5 which is for static loads that don't move like buildings and bridges, civil engineers don't deal with dynamic loads it is not something they have to consider.

I have posted a Physics paper on the other 9/11 threads that dealt with the buildings falling. When the top of the buildings started to fall it was not going to stop as the kinetic energy of the falling building was huge, you didn't need explosives as the energy levels were equivalent to hundreds of tons of TNT.

When the building started to fall it was no longer a static load case it was a dynamic load what we call a suddenly applied load.

The only concern I have with 9/11 is why did all those Saudis fly out just after it happened.

After the jet fuel burnt off what was the heat source that exceeded fuel burning temps to weaken the massive steel structure?

The WTCs burnt in the top 3rd ...... the Grenfell Tower was entirely engulfed and burnt for 4 hrs longer yet didn't collapse.

You are assuming that fuel cannot burn at higher than the nominal burn temperature. You are wrong. You have no clue what you are talking about.

No...you don't.

There was traces of thermite found. END OF STORY.

And evidence....now.

Use whatever search engine you need. I'm sure you can find it.

The classic pseudoscientist escape clause.

Molten metal is shown coming out of the buildings in several videos.

It's there to see have a look. Roll Eyes

And molten metal proves what, other than there being molten metal. ANd plus provide the video.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28021
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #116 - Sep 18^th, 2019 at 8:15pm

UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 5:23pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 12:11pm:

The only way a building can collapse like that is with controlled demolition.

Nothing else can explain it.

How did they get the explosives up in the towers in no considerably long time? And if they had demolition explosives already set, how did they not explode upon getting hit by the planes?

In the basement around foundations and lower floors.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 28021
Gender: male

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #117 - Sep 18^th, 2019 at 8:17pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 6:10pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 7:48am:

So all those same types of items burning in the Grenfell Tower( same materials ceiling tiles, insulation,gyprock, plywood, furniture etc) after being "ignited by the external cladding"

(you know just like being ignited by a plane bursting into flames on the external wall of the towers & some fuel going inside on the WTC)

The planes did not "burst into flames on the external walls" of the WTC. The planes penetrated through the external walls and burst into flames inside the WTC. Indeed, they nearly burst through the opposite external wall. The resulting explosion and fire weakened the steel structure which then collapsed, carrying the higher floors onto the lower floors which in turn collapsed. Roll Eyes

They fargin did .... Roll Eyes

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39497

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #118 - Sep 18^th, 2019 at 9:18pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 8:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 6:10pm:

Gnads wrote on Sep 17^th, 2019 at 7:48am:

So all those same types of items burning in the Grenfell Tower( same materials ceiling tiles, insulation,gyprock, plywood, furniture etc) after being "ignited by the external cladding"

(you know just like being ignited by a plane bursting into flames on the external wall of the towers & some fuel going inside on the WTC)

The planes did not "burst into flames on the external walls" of the WTC. The planes penetrated through the external walls and burst into flames inside the WTC. Indeed, they nearly burst through the opposite external wall. The resulting explosion and fire weakened the steel structure which then collapsed, carrying the higher floors onto the lower floors which in turn collapsed. Roll Eyes

They fargin did .... Roll Eyes

No, they did not. If they had burnt on the exterior of the buildings, the buildings would have displayed burn marks around the entry holes of the aircraft. They did not. What you are observing is the planes entering the buildings and exploding and the explosion exiting the building via the windows on the exterior walls and the entry holes. You really do need to look more closely at your video. It supports my points, not yours. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 39497

Re: 9/11 Jumpers
Reply #119 - Sep 18^th, 2019 at 9:19pm

Gnads wrote on Sep 18^th, 2019 at 8:15pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Sep 16^th, 2019 at 5:23pm:

Ajax wrote on Sep 15^th, 2019 at 12:11pm:

The only way a building can collapse like that is with controlled demolition.

Nothing else can explain it.

How did they get the explosives up in the towers in no considerably long time? And if they had demolition explosives already set, how did they not explode upon getting hit by the planes?

In the basement around foundations and lower floors.

Yet, as we saw on the day, the upper stories collapsed first, not the lower stories immediately above the foundations and the lower floors. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged