[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

So how do you identify molten steel visually? How does it look different than other molten metals? How was this confirmed to be steel?

Can't wait to hear from you!

Oh, why is that? Did you present evidence of molten steel or did you just claim it was there and stomp your feet angrily when people didn't just believe you?

And how was it determined that what was seen in the video was molten steel df?

Then show us the evidence that convinced you what you saw was molten steel.

Can't wait.

Deuces, can you apply the same methodology you employed to be 100% sure what you saw was molten steel to identify which of the images below is molten aluminium and which is molten steel? Thanks.

yeah like 50 times. There is no way to give the patsies the technology enough to create the spectacle of terror needed to rob a trillion dollars and take away our rights. You can't truck bomb your way into endless war and, now, ICE.

You had to give them planes because that is all they could access with could, in the average idiot's mind, cause buildings to fall. You can't give them the actual mechanism used because no one would believe Muslim terrorists would be capable of rigging the buildings with some new fancy technology. But they could believe, like you do, that they could fly like aces in a class of plane they've never flown before, right up into the moments of their ultimate demise. One hand wave waves over less.

I'm sorry, your contention is that a bomb could not bring down the WTC?

Exactly, Jet Fuel (Kerosene) burns at about 1000-1500F in open air, depending on grade, perhaps up to 2000F in an enclosed space. However structural steel doesn't actually melt (assuming US approved AISC Certification) until approx 2500F. However given that fact at 600°C (1,112°F), steel can lose ~50% of its strength. At 980°C (1,800°F), it can lose 80–90% of its load‑bearing capacity.

A building made of steel doesn’t need the steel to liquify, it only needs the steel to get weak enough to warp, sag, or fail under load.

And that gentlemen is what caused the towers to fail to the point of collapse.

So unless someone in the building was storing large numbers of oxygen cylinders or pure thermite, magnesium or titaniumin large quantities the towers fell because the steel support structure was weakend to the point of failure.

My personal opinion is that if the planes had hit lower floors than they did, the towers would have fallen much sooner and the death toll would have been much higher. If they had hit near the top floors, the towers may have not completely collapsed at all as the collapsing weight may have not been enough to "pancake" all the floors below. That fact would expain why tower 2 fell in a shorter time, it was hit lower down than Tower 1.

I think you could bring down a building with a bomb. Not trying to be condescending here, just answering an actual question you put to me.

Presently discussing the presence, or lack of presence, of liquid molten steel, not whether a few sagging beams cause a massive skyscraper to come down like a lost game of Jenga while explosively ejecting material laterally while self pulverizing - that's a different sub topic. Everybody know steel can sag before it melts. This is not something all the scientists and engineers debunking the official story failed to consider. Yet somehow it is played like a gotcha card repeatedly.

Where do you think the planes hit? And where have you ever seen the top or even middle of something of uniform composition pancake through itself. I, for one, have the personal opinion that I live in a universe governed by what are commonly referred to as Newton's laws. In my universe, when you stack up a column of eggs and drop another egg on that column, the dropped egg will be crushed before it crushed through the column. I guess you live in a universe where the goal of everything it to get on top.

Oh look, he's lying again. You've been shown this video before.

A compilation of buildings being demolished in the exact manner you described.

Crazy.

What do you think it is that makes him enjoy getting embarrassed like this?

You are being evasive.

You think terrorists could bring down a building with a bomb they could make once they got here? Or would it be totally normal for the officials in the consulate to let them bring over some giant bomb big enough to do the trick? I guess since you dismiss the idea that they were let into the country over objections as meaningful, and that someone had their career ruined over these objections, then I guess you can live in a worldview in which huge ordinance packages can also flow with AQ affiliated people from Saudi Arabia and that this also doesn't indicate high level U.S. involvement.

That's a controlled demolition you idiot. What's more it is going from the middle. Two VW Beetles could crush themselves equally, like the two halves of this building could. What can't happen is two VW Beetles crash head on and one is crushed and one isn't. Once again you make my point for me thanks.

Sure is, df. And it proves your little theory that physics prevents this from happening wrong.

Amazing blatant goalpost move.

Not only did YOU SAY "even in the middle," but not all of them are from the middle. You should've watched the whole video.

Check out 3:22. That's the top 5 floors crushing the rest of at least a 15 floor building. There goes your theory again.

Embarrassing.

You know, df, I had been doing this for 5 or so years when I took you to the woodshed 10 years ago or so. You learned nothing at all. You're still here 10 years later trying the same stupid crap. You think I haven't heard of all of this a million times? I'm begging you to learn from this humiliation.

@ Deuces McKracken ==> obviously not a structural engineer... lol

I haven't been in this conversation for long but what exactly is this guy claiming happened to the towers?

He has no grasp of jh physics, let alone structural mechanics.

You're in for quite the ride.

No idea, but if you manage to get through his essays and figure it out, let us know.

Hey Deuces, you forgot to respond to this. Another honest mistake, I'm sure, since I know you always engage in good faith to refutations of your theories.

Just need to know which one of those supports my toddler level conspiracy ideas and I'll get right on that.

-deuces mcduncecap

He still has questions about how he determined the typical collapse time of controlled demolitions, fire induced collapses, and in particular how wtc7's 17+ second collapse time compares to those.

He also has questions about how he determined the temperature of the post-collapse smoldering debris pile and how he determined these measured temperatures could not be reached with the contents of the debris pile.

And now he has questions about identifying molten steel visually, and how the top portion of a building can crush the rest of the building on some days, just not 9/11.

Should be fun. I'm sure he'll answer all of these questions in his next post.

A few jugs of fuel, a match, and flame ******ant office furnishings can accomplish the complete pulverization and complete collapse of the 2 of the tallest buildings in the world and another 50 story skyscraper with floors as large as football fields. Big demolition always knew this but covered it up.

- Gorgo the nimrod

gorgo do you not see the top portion itself being crushed in your video. If it wasn't, then it would only mean that the explosives are doing the work taking out the bottom portion. But in the video you posted the top is being crushed. In Bazant's pancake thesis, the top somehow stays intact while crushing the remainder. That is what I, and anyone who understands basic physics, says cannot happen.

I think the reason Bazant wrote what he did, which is obvious nonsense he wrote the day after the attacks, is because he would not question the assumption that it was not a controlled definition. If you rule that out then you have to come up with something. But there is no justification to rule that out, especially when he did before any investigation even took place. Actually his thesis is more the pile driver theory. The pancake theory came later but it's related obviously.

Hey Deuces, you forgot to answer my post again. Another honest oversight, I'm sure, from such an honest guy.

LOL, no deuces. As has been explained to you, bazant did not model the collapse as it happened, he used a simplified case to determine if the amount of energy required was sufficient to progress the collapse. He didn't "claim" the top section remained intact. He simply used an intact block in his model and explained clearly it was simplified. You're simply illiterate.

Just go read the closing comments in the bazant/zhou paper. He says VERY CLEARLY that he's not saying this is what happened, he's saying no matter what the mechanism was, that building stood no chance once a single floor went.

Here's a link so you can read it yourself.

https://math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asc...

The fact that you STILL, 25 YEARS LATER, and having it explained to you MANY TIMES, don't understand even THE BASIC PURPOSE OF THE PAPER is BREATHTAKING.

Shut the hell up and answer the questions loser

Deuces, is it your argument that these guys were going to detonate building 7 even if the other buildings didn't go according to plan and ignited the building? Would they just detonate as a bonus? It seems like the way it played out worked very well for them.