Building 7 . . .

[KevinKohler]

Kevin, you have to understand the science. Office fires, even with jet fuel added cannot melt or vaporize massive structural steel columns and beams. Nor can it melt molybdenum, 4,700F, vaporized lead, 3,180F.

These are absolute impossibilities.

And yet, what's the temp needed to liquify glass? 2,000 to 2,500 degrees?

So, explain to me how, without jet fuel, just wood and air, makes my little 3 foot radius fire pit, hotter than a raging inferno inside a sky scraper, that burned for HOURS?

Seems to me, you and your experts don't understand the science, which is why you're fringe. If it was such easily proven science, you'd have every science teacher and stem grads in the US decrying this, lol.

 

[camlok]

How have the experts determine how hot the fire could have gotten?

This is normal high school science, Kevin and it is well understood by experts on both sides of the discussion.

 

[camlok]

hotter than a raging inferno inside a sky scraper, that burned for HOURS?

There was no raging inferno anything like WTCs 5 and 6. Why didn't they collapse?

Seems to me, you and your experts don't understand the science, which is why you're fringe. If it was such easily proven science, you'd have every science teacher and stem grads in the US decrying this, lol.

Here are two sources, one is a supporter of the US position and the other is I guess what we can call, a neutral US government science organization.

FEMA, a US government agency said, "The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

T Eagar, a professor and supporter of the US government position said,

"The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again.

This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best."

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

 

[KevinKohler]

This is normal high school science, Kevin and it is well understood by experts on both sides of the discussion.

And yet....my firepit.....out burns a crashed jet?

 

[KevinKohler]

Here are two sources, one is a supporter of the US position and the other is I guess what we can call, a neutral US government science organization.

FEMA, a US government agency said, "The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

T Eagar, a professor and supporter of the US government position said,

"The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again.

This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best."

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

So what your experts are saying is, only the jet fuel burned, lol? You know what fire does, right? Especially when it's inclosed. And then with that heat built up, and then a window breaks, allowing it to suck in oxygen from outside.....boom.

You still can't explain how it is, using your current crap science, that my little firepit produces more heat than a raging inferno caused by a plane crash. That burned for hours.

 

[zyzygy]

Conspiracy theories have existed, probably, forever. It is very difficult to disprove them.

Big pharma is withholding cancer cures.
The oil industry paid billions to buy technology to obsolete fossil fuel and put it on a shelf.
JFK assassination was an inside job.
Fluoride is an attempt by the gvmt or communists to somebody else to control minds.
Chem trails same thing.
Princess Di was murdered by order of the Royal Palace.
The Pearl Harbor attack was known about in advance and allowed to proceed so the US could declare war.
Pan Air Flight 103.
Iraq was a war for oil.
The global warming conspiracy.
And more.

Conspiracy theories are very difficult to disprove. And humans love drama.

And very easy to make up.

 

[camlok]

Conspiracy theories have existed, probably, forever. It is very difficult to disprove them.

Precisely, Maggie. That is why there is so much difficulty for anyone to prove the US governments' conspiracy theory. There is simply no evidence for it.

The global warming conspiracy.
The US government 911 Conspiracy Theory
And more.

Conspiracy theories are very difficult to disprove.

The US government 911 Conspiracy Theory is not at all difficult to disprove.

How many totally impossible things that go against the USGOCT must a person accept to believe in the US government 911 Conspiracy Theory: impossible to melt/vaporize metals with the available fuel; US government/military only nanothermite, both unreacted particles and the by products of which were found in WTC dust; NIST denying molten steel, the actual second in command of NIST categorically denying molten steel and yet, Maggie, there are photos of this same man touching/holding the end of a previously molten steel beam.

Imagine what everyone would be saying if this was a Russian scientist denying something like this when there was photographic evidence of him holding/touching the very thing he was denying.

How can you write a post like this, Maggie, when you have seen all these totally impossible events of the USGOCT?

 

[camlok]

So what your experts are saying is, only the jet fuel burned, lol? You know what fire does, right? Especially when it's inclosed. And then with that heat built up, and then a window breaks, allowing it to suck in oxygen from outside.....boom.

You still can't explain how it is, using your current crap science, that my little firepit produces more heat than a raging inferno caused by a plane crash. That burned for hours.

This is all so amazing, Kevin. They are experts on the USGOCT side. And no, they did not say anything like you have described. You couldn't have read the information.

T Eagar said: "However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range."

Experiencing air temperatures of 800C is a far cry from steel becoming that same 800C. Air temperatures do not equate to steel temperatures.


And you are ignoring all the myriad total impossibilities that the USGOCT contains. And you are ignoring that there is no evidence for the USGOCT.

 

[camlok]

And very easy to make up.

And you guys are fully aware of just what a made up story is the USGOCT, right, zyzygy. Which is why you folks never try to provide any evidence for the USGOCT because you know there isn't any.

Notice how devoid of anything remotely approaching evidence every one of your posts are.

 

[KevinKohler]

This is all so amazing, Kevin. They are experts on the USGOCT side. And no, they did not say anything like you have described. You couldn't have read the information.

T Eagar said: "However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range."

Experiencing air temperatures of 800C is a far cry from steel becoming that same 800C. Air temperatures do not equate to steel temperatures.

And you are ignoring all the myriad total impossibilities that the USGOCT contains. And you are ignoring that there is no evidence for the USGOCT.

My firepit, with a couple pounds of half rotten wood, exceeds 800 degrees C.

Your crap science is showing.

 

[KevinKohler]

And you guys are fully aware of just what a made up story is the USGOCT, right, zyzygy. Which is why you folks never try to provide any evidence for the USGOCT because you know there isn't any.

Notice how devoid of anything remotely approaching evidence every one of your posts are.

We need to provide evidence that fire is hot?

 

[camlok]

NIST's study of WTC7 was full of lies and omissions.

#1 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud


NIST's pattern of omissions and distortions:

1. In its 2004 preliminary report, NIST fabricated the myth that debris from World Trade Center Building 1 (the North Tower) created a 10-story hole at a specific location at the base of WTC 7's south face. The following year it propagated that myth in Popular Mechanics, which defended NIST's work.

2. It turns out that NIST "needed" the 10-story hole to exist at this specific location to back up its explanation for the collapse of Building 7. This is an example of reverse engineering, where supposed evidence is constructed to fit a prearranged conclusion. NIST also used its Popular Mechanics (PM) platform to launch a second myth — namely, that Building 7 had a peculiar design, which purportedly made it vulnerable to collapse.

3. The PM article also helped NIST generate two more myths — namely, that diesel fuel tanks stored inside WTC 7 supposedly fueled an imaginary fire on the fifth floor, ostensibly helping to weaken the building at a strategic location, and that certain trusses helped to facilitate the collapse of the entire building by transferring stresses from supposedly damaged columns on the south side of the building.

4. NIST's final 2008 report discarded these self-constructed myths and introduced a new collapse initiation hypothesis that blames WTC 7's destruction on normal office fires. The final report is premised on the same shoddy investigative practices that the agency displayed in its 2004 report and in the 2005 PM article. Indeed, NIST's omissions and distortions are gross enough to discredit both its entire WTC 7 investigation and the agency itself as a viable 9/11 investigator.

5. NIST has consistently ignored evidence that would refute its preconceived conclusion. All the hard evidence demonstrates that Building 7 was brought down by classic controlled demolition.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...led-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-intro.html

 

[camlok]

My firepit, with a couple pounds of half rotten wood, exceeds 800 degrees C.

Your crap science is showing.

You should publish your "science", Kevin. Have you been able to vaporize steel, 4800+F?

Why are you ignoring all the total impossibilities in the USGOCT?

 

[camlok]

My firepit, with a couple pounds of half rotten wood, exceeds 800 degrees C.

Your crap science is showing.

Why do you aim this at me? Professor Eagar, a supporter of the USGOCT, is the one that is telling everyone your contributions here are not of science.

 

[KevinKohler]

You should publish your "science", Kevin. Have you been able to vaporize steel, 4800+F?

Why are you ignoring all the total impossibilities in the USGOCT?

Because you still can't explain how my firepit gets hotter than your so called a experts claims of max possible temps in the WTC fires.

And not just MY firepit, brah. Any redneck with beer and fire have melted beer bottles, made of glass, which doesn't even get soft till after it reaches temps in excess of 1,500 degrees F. Which is why your fringe, and no one believes you, or your experts.

 

[camlok]

Because you still can't explain how my firepit gets hotter than your so called a experts claims of max possible temps in the WTC fires.

And not just MY firepit, brah. Any redneck with beer and fire have melted beer bottles, made of glass, which doesn't even get soft till after it reaches temps in excess of 1,500 degrees F. Which is why your fringe, and no one believes you, or your experts.

Now I understand. You are a redneck, Kevin. You can't even grasp that the expert I gave you is a USGOCT supporter, when it is dead in front of your nose.

 

[KevinKohler]

Now I understand. You are a redneck, Kevin. You can't even grasp that the expert I gave you is a USGOCT supporter, when it is dead in front of your nose.

Says the guy who still can't explain how this rednecks firepit gets hotter than the hottest supposedly possible blaze in a jet fuel powered office fire inferno that burned for hours, lol.

 

[beefheart]

The government and NIST apologists have had 16 years to prove their various claims and theories, and have failed at every turn.

They've had 16 years to prove that 93 was in Shanksville and 77 was at the Pentagon, but all they can deliver are forged FDR data and frequently edited passenger manifests.

Any legitimate leader with clean hands would have formed a panel to investigate what happened, but Dubya & Dick fought that for about 2 years, and then named Henry Kissinger to be the head of the panel. :lamo

And when the panel is finally formed, most members made public comments about how the commission was set up to fail.

Yet you and others hang your hat on the crazy idea that the government has proved anything at all except its malfeasance.

And, yet, you still have nothing...because "they" are hiding the troof! :lamo

 

[MaggieD]

The US government 911 Conspiracy Theory is not at all difficult to disprove.

How many totally impossible things that go against the USGOCT must a person accept to believe in the US government 911 Conspiracy Theory: impossible to melt/vaporize metals with the available fuel; US government/military only nanothermite, both unreacted particles and the by products of which were found in WTC dust; NIST denying molten steel, the actual second in command of NIST categorically denying molten steel and yet, Maggie, there are photos of this same man touching/holding the end of a previously molten steel beam.

Imagine what everyone would be saying if this was a Russian scientist denying something like this when there was photographic evidence of him holding/touching the very thing he was denying.

How can you write a post like this, Maggie, when you have seen all these totally impossible events of the USGOCT?

I don't believe in the theory. I merely point out that they are difficult to disprove to those who advocate for them. I should have been clearer in my post.

 

[camlok]

Says the guy who still can't explain how this rednecks firepit gets hotter than the hottest supposedly possible blaze in a jet fuel powered office fire inferno that burned for hours, lol.

There's no sense discussing science with a redneck who proves he can't even read and comprehend. Prove your silly self described redneck notions with some actual evidence, Kevin.

 

[camlok]

I don't believe in the theory. I merely point out that they are difficult to disprove to those who advocate for them. I should have been clearer in my post.

By "the theory" do you mean the USGOCT, Maggie?

 

[MaggieD]

By "the theory" do you mean the USGOCT, Maggie?

I honestly don't know what USGOCT means. I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job. Am I talking past you by accident? I assume you are on the same page.

 

[KevinKohler]

There's no sense discussing science with a redneck who proves he can't even read and comprehend. Prove your silly self described redneck notions with some actual evidence, Kevin.

Says the guy who can't explain how this rednecks firepit gets hotter than the hottest supposedly possible blaze in a jet fuel powered office fire inferno that burned for hours, lol.

 

[camlok]

I honestly don't know what USGOCT means. I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job. Am I talking past you by accident? I assume you are on the same page.

USGOCT = US government official conspiracy theory.

It's not a conspiracy theory that 911 was not committed by 19 Arab hijackers and OBL. It's hard science. First OBL was accused by the gross serial liars you apparently do believe when they never ever provided any proof/evidence that they continually promised but they and the media let you all go on thinking OBL was responsible. Does this sound like honest, responsible adults?

The 19 Arab hijackers COULD NOT have done all the impossible things that have been found using hard science.

Just one of these myriad impossible things should be enough for a thinking person to have grave doubts as to the veracity of the USGOCT.

US government/US military developed nanothermites/super explosives were found in WTC dust. No one but US scientists knows how to make these NANO scale [one billionth of a meter in size] super explosives.

How could they have gotten into WTC dust? How could the residues of these super explosives and unreacted [= unexploded] particles be in WTC dust in volumes that illustrate a lot of US proprietary nanothermite was exploded on 911?

How can anyone not have grave doubts about the USGOCT considering this and all the gigantic lies that were told to us? And all the other total impossibilities?

 

[MaggieD]

USGOCT = US government official conspiracy theory.

It's not a conspiracy theory that 911 was not committed by 19 Arab hijackers and OBL. It's hard science. First OBL was accused by the gross serial liars you apparently do believe when they never ever provided any proof/evidence that they continually promised but they and the media let you all go on thinking OBL was responsible. Does this sound like honest, responsible adults?

The 19 Arab hijackers COULD NOT have done all the impossible things that have been found using hard science.

Just one of these myriad impossible things should be enough for a thinking person to have grave doubts as to the veracity of the USGOCT.

US government/US military developed nanothermites/super explosives were found in WTC dust. No one but US scientists knows how to make these NANO scale [one billionth of a meter in size] super explosives.

How could they have gotten into WTC dust? How could the residues of these super explosives and unreacted [= unexploded] particles be in WTC dust in volumes that illustrate a lot of US proprietary nanothermite was exploded on 911?

How can anyone not have grave doubts about the USGOCT considering this and all the gigantic lies that were told to us? And all the other total impossibilities?

I don't understand the scientific evidence that proves that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't think it does. At best, I think it's a somewhat plausible theory that can be explained in other ways.

I personally saw a passenger jet crash into the tower. It was absolutely not a grey windowless military plane. There is no doubt that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was hijacked and part of the attack, foiled though it was. The people who stepped forward saying that's what they saw were not on the scene when interviewed, but were interviewed post-9/11. All of those people listed as killed on 9/11 are indeed dead. Unless all of the required dozens of people required to pull off a massive conspiracy of this kind are also dead? Not one respectable news source has come forward disputing the official version. There was heavy media coverage from shortly after the first plane hit to the arrival of the next one. Not one respectable news source saw the second plane as a military jet. Not one person has stepped forward confessing their participation in planting explosives in the towers. Not one has stepped forward confessing their involvement in a secret plot. There is no reasonable motive for our gvmt to have engineered this attack. Science is sometimes wrong... and sometimes manipulated to arrive at a foregone conclusion.

If, and that's a huge if, what you think is true? We will never know. Arguing about it over and over and over again is a form of mental masturbation.