Poll

Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams???

Yes!
2 (20%)
No!
6 (60%)
Yiff Yiff?
2 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Voting closed: November 13, 2015, 10:18:15 AM

Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams

  • 72 Replies
  • 11521 Views
Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« on: November 10, 2015, 10:18:15 AM »
Busch's baked beans caused 9/11.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2015, 11:46:41 AM »
Add a 4th option of "No, but it can make the steel bend easier and remove the vast majority of it's strength such that steel beams will sag and create a huge amount of tensile stress on the weakened vertical pillars which will eventually cause the vertical pillars to be taken out causing the top part to fall a few floors and hit the bottom with enough force to make vital structures buckle and collapse.".
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2015, 11:52:22 AM »
Add a 4th option of "No, but it can make the steel bend easier and remove the vast majority of it's strength such that steel beams will sag and create a huge amount of tensile stress on the weakened vertical pillars which will eventually cause the vertical pillars to be taken out causing the top part to fall a few floors and hit the bottom with enough force to make vital structures buckle and collapse.".
And leave a central core column of 47 steel structures after the trusses supposedly pancake onto each other.
Try again because that explanation really holds no water, at all.

Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2015, 11:54:13 AM »
Add a 4th option of "No, but it can make the steel bend easier and remove the vast majority of it's strength such that steel beams will sag and create a huge amount of tensile stress on the weakened vertical pillars which will eventually cause the vertical pillars to be taken out causing the top part to fall a few floors and hit the bottom with enough force to make vital structures buckle and collapse.".
And leave a central core column of 47 steel structures after the trusses supposedly pancake onto each other.
Try again because that explanation really holds no water, at all.
Exactly, this guy knows whats up.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2015, 12:04:33 PM »
And leave a central core column of 47 steel structures after the trusses supposedly pancake onto each other.
Try again because that explanation really holds no water, at all.

Immagine dropping your house from a few stories high, what do you suspect would happen to it?  It can be calculated that the force that needs to be applied to stop the falling top part of the tower is far above the strength of the structure.  I happen to know of a few videos that show how silly thisconspiracy theory is.  I will link you to them in a bit.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2015, 01:25:53 PM »
And leave a central core column of 47 steel structures after the trusses supposedly pancake onto each other.
Try again because that explanation really holds no water, at all.

Immagine dropping your house from a few stories high, what do you suspect would happen to it?  It can be calculated that the force that needs to be applied to stop the falling top part of the tower is far above the strength of the structure.  I happen to know of a few videos that show how silly thisconspiracy theory is.  I will link you to them in a bit.
Let's use some real common sense here.

You are championing the top section (undamaged) falling into the damaged section and causing a pancake collapse in roughly 10 seconds.
Ok then, a few issues.

In many videos - one tower  (the top section you say falls into the rest of the building) leans ready to topple over at about 23 degrees before somehow falling back into the building again to collapse to the ground.

In another video, you see the undamaged top section supposedly fall into the rest of the building. When I say "supposedly" it's because when you actually observe it all, you clearly see the top section "disintegrate" as the rest of the building falls.


More to the point. You're not stupid and you also know that you can't walk through a closed door faster  than you can walk through an open one.
You also know that 110 storey's at around 12 feet each in height are not going to collapse from the top, crushing steel core columns and snapping every truss on every floor with each floor taking about 0.1 second to crush due to encountering no resistance at all.

110 storey's in around 10 seconds. seriously?

Now, if you want to argue about the time taken for collapse and want to add a few more seconds to it...be my guest but you still have the same problem that you people go to pains about in harping on about this 9.8m/s/s, fall rate.

That building and your math would not compute, right  and I'm actually giving you the benefit of zero resistance to each floor, as if each floor simply fell in free fall.

So what's wrong?
Clearly there's a lot wrong. Not just in the free fall stuff but in the actual speed of fall in the footage, even if it was controlled demolition.
It means that the video footage is not telling the real story.

Any sensible person can guess why. What do you think, Mike?

Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2015, 01:45:06 PM »
8s to fall 300m.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #7 on: November 10, 2015, 02:09:02 PM »
Let's use some real common sense here.

You are championing the top section (undamaged) falling into the damaged section and causing a pancake collapse in roughly 10 seconds.
Ok then, a few issues.

In many videos - one tower  (the top section you say falls into the rest of the building) leans ready to topple over at about 23 degrees before somehow falling back into the building again to collapse to the ground.

In another video, you see the undamaged top section supposedly fall into the rest of the building. When I say "supposedly" it's because when you actually observe it all, you clearly see the top section "disintegrate" as the rest of the building falls.


More to the point. You're not stupid and you also know that you can't walk through a closed door faster  than you can walk through an open one.
You also know that 110 storey's at around 12 feet each in height are not going to collapse from the top, crushing steel core columns and snapping every truss on every floor with each floor taking about 0.1 second to crush due to encountering no resistance at all.

110 storey's in around 10 seconds. seriously?

Now, if you want to argue about the time taken for collapse and want to add a few more seconds to it...be my guest but you still have the same problem that you people go to pains about in harping on about this 9.8m/s/s, fall rate.

That building and your math would not compute, right  and I'm actually giving you the benefit of zero resistance to each floor, as if each floor simply fell in free fall.

So what's wrong?
Clearly there's a lot wrong. Not just in the free fall stuff but in the actual speed of fall in the footage, even if it was controlled demolition.
It means that the video footage is not telling the real story.

Any sensible person can guess why. What do you think, Mike?

the towers did not fall at free fall.  During most of the collapse the buildings were shrouded in debris blocking them from view and most conspiracy theorists assume that when the debris cloud hit the ground the building has collapsed.  Of course the debris cloud is going at free fall speed, it's actually free falling.  It can be seen in many photos and videos of the incident that the collapse does not keep up with the debris cloud because it can be seen that the floors at the bottom of that cloud are still in tact.  The buildings fell significantly slower then free fall.  It makes sense that the buildings fell down instead of toppling over because they were damaged at the top, not the bottom.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2015, 02:27:12 PM »
lol, so the debris that surrounds the top of the falling building is falling faster than the building?  You sound like a moron; sorry, no offense intended. 

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2015, 03:58:28 PM »
the towers falling in 10 seconds is a myth

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2015, 04:17:21 PM »
lol, so the debris that surrounds the top of the falling building is falling faster than the building?  You sound like a moron; sorry, no offense intended.

The debris that is falling through the air is falling faster than the building that is undergoing structural  collapse.....? Seems fine to me.....
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2015, 04:28:35 PM »
Then, the debris should be hitting the ground a considerable amount of time sooner than the top of the building, am I right? 

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2015, 05:05:42 PM »
Then, the debris should be hitting the ground a considerable amount of time sooner than the top of the building, am I right? 
Pay attention.

the towers did not fall at free fall.  During most of the collapse the buildings were shrouded in debris blocking them from view and most conspiracy theorists assume that when the debris cloud hit the ground the building has collapsed.  Of course the debris cloud is going at free fall speed, it's actually free falling.  It can be seen in many photos and videos of the incident that the collapse does not keep up with the debris cloud because it can be seen that the floors at the bottom of that cloud are still in tact.  The buildings fell significantly slower then free fall.  It makes sense that the buildings fell down instead of toppling over because they were damaged at the top, not the bottom.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2015, 05:08:54 PM »
Then, the debris should be hitting the ground a considerable amount of time sooner than the top of the building, am I right? 
Pay attention.

the towers did not fall at free fall.  During most of the collapse the buildings were shrouded in debris blocking them from view and most conspiracy theorists assume that when the debris cloud hit the ground the building has collapsed.  Of course the debris cloud is going at free fall speed, it's actually free falling.  It can be seen in many photos and videos of the incident that the collapse does not keep up with the debris cloud because it can be seen that the floors at the bottom of that cloud are still in tact.  The buildings fell significantly slower then free fall.  It makes sense that the buildings fell down instead of toppling over because they were damaged at the top, not the bottom.

Oh, because everything that mikeman says is true, right?  ::)  You are new here, aren't you?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2015, 05:14:07 PM »
Cool
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2015, 05:37:59 PM »
the towers falling in 10 seconds is a myth

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html
Along with all that mumbo jumbo, it would have been nice to include at time stamped video. I guess they just forgot. ::)
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2015, 05:40:26 PM »
the towers falling in 10 seconds is a myth

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html
Along with all that mumbo jumbo, it would have been nice to include at time stamped video. I guess they just forgot. ::)

Apparently you missed this link on that page
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html
Or the pics on the right side.

Interestingly, that site is a truther site.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2015, 09:47:03 PM »
Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2015, 11:51:10 PM »
If you have enough jet fuel very concentrated in a tight space which is somewhat isolated then yes, jet fuel can melt steel beams. You can also point a strong enough laser at the fuel to start a fusion. So there are ways jet fuel can melt steel beams.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2015, 03:24:18 AM »
If you have enough jet fuel very concentrated in a tight space which is somewhat isolated then yes, jet fuel can melt steel beams. You can also point a strong enough laser at the fuel to start a fusion. So there are ways jet fuel can melt steel beams.
Ahhh so a laser beam caused the fuel to start fusion and this is why the steel melted.  ;D

Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2015, 03:37:55 AM »
Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.
Just because you are pretending to be a flat earther, doesn't mean you have to support every moronic conspiracy theory....or maybe it does...I'm not sure now...
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2015, 05:17:25 AM »
"lol, so the debris that surrounds the top of the falling building is falling faster than the building?  You sound like a moron; sorry, no offense intended."

He means the cladding and stuff that came detached from the building itself fell at free-fall. You could tell because it quickly fell past the point of collapse. He would be a moron if he believed that gravity made exceptions to 9/11 debris. LOL.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #22 on: November 11, 2015, 09:01:47 AM »
Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.
Just because you are pretending to be a flat earther, doesn't mean you have to support every moronic conspiracy theory....or maybe it does...I'm not sure now...
If it's absurd, would you care to give me a reasonable explanation as to how these two things happened without involving elements of some sort of orchestration?

Anyone who believes the official report is super gullible. Let's be honest.
Nero burned Rome to the ground, and then fed people to dogs when he was accused.
There's evidence that the sinking of the Lusitania didn't go down like the "official report" says.
Pearl Harbor was instigated.
You act like a conspiracy hasn't ever happened before.

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.
That aside, every time the U.S. is in economic trouble, we need war - see WW1, WW2.
What better way to help us with our never-ending, infinite economic problems in the present, than a never-ending, infinite war?
We're at war with an idea. You can't kill an idea.
 


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #23 on: November 11, 2015, 09:06:23 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #24 on: November 11, 2015, 09:21:13 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2015, 09:24:30 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?
Nope.  that's why I only responded to the one.  Quotes, how do they work?

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #26 on: November 11, 2015, 09:26:36 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?
Nope.  that's why I only responded to the one.  Quotes, how do they work?
Okay. Thought so.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #27 on: November 11, 2015, 09:29:52 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?
Nope.  that's why I only responded to the one.  Quotes, how do they work?
Okay. Thought so.
honestly, at this point, I can't even remember what those points were and I don't care enough to look for them.  I'm only barely following the thread as it is.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #28 on: November 11, 2015, 09:33:43 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?
Nope.  that's why I only responded to the one.  Quotes, how do they work?
Okay. Thought so.
honestly, at this point, I can't even remember what those points were and I don't care enough to look for them.  I'm only barely following the thread as it is.
They're towards the bottom of the page when you're typing a reply.
You're too lazy to school down a bit? Or you just don't have answers that fit the official story?

I'll even quote it here for you:
Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Can jet Fuel Melt Steel Beams
« Reply #29 on: November 11, 2015, 09:36:49 AM »

Earlier in the year, Silverstein took out a multi-billion dollar insurance plan on the towers.
He actually ended up profiting quite a bit.

He took out a policy for LESS than the recommended amount and had to be talked UP to that amount.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html
In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.
So, would you then care to address my original two points?
Nope.  that's why I only responded to the one.  Quotes, how do they work?
Okay. Thought so.
honestly, at this point, I can't even remember what those points were and I don't care enough to look for them.  I'm only barely following the thread as it is.
They're towards the bottom of the page when you're typing a reply.
You're too lazy to school down a bit? Or you just don't have answers that fit the official story?

I'll even quote it here for you:
Two things:
Mike, you seem to be knowledgable.
Tell me again why the path of most resistance was taken. When else does this happen naturally, with the exception of active (energy hungry) biological events?
Second, phone calls from cruising altitude and/or altitudes outside the range of ground cells.
too lazy and really don't care but since you insist.

Gravity pulls downward. 

I've heard that the majority of the calls were from airphones.  Of the few from cells I've heard they were from low altitudes and didn't stay connected long.

but again, I don't really care.  and isn't this off-topic for this forum anyway?