9/11 truth movement topic

[ring_theory]

I don't know how to say "office materials have low energy density" any clearer.
I don't know how to say "jet fuels max burning temp is 900 celcius" any clearer.

maybe a couple of office items have a low energy density but a couple floors worth of office items would definately burn hotter than expected.
900c sure makes a good fire starter when distributed as it was. 

[d3adp00l]

The fires on the 3 floors up around the 80th floor, were suffocated when the floors dropped, not much spread there. Smashed concrete would be very similar to a halon fire extinguisher. And unless all the items were in powder form increasing its surface area to be able to burn each particle almost instantly, prior to the oxygen depriving collapse, there would be more than 4 to 500 degrees. I was on a site where a five story wooden framed building was burned by arsonists. Imagine a five story multi acre pallet bonfire. There was more energy potential in that building then the planes and contents of a good portion of the towers, and yet the structural steel portion of the building survived. A tower crane that was in the center of the building did fall but that was due to the concrete base failed and the crane was twisted when it came down. aluminum inside the structure was melted to nothing, but the steel rod hold downs were intact, all the steel parts were left in the ashes. So even in that case doug fir which is basically a fiberous sponge with high octane hydrocarbons(gas) locked in its sap (lots of sap in fir trees) isn't hot enough. So nothing in that building that was supposed to be there could even in the best circumstances get that hot. And there was little smoke from the fire, it burned almost as perfect as wood can, short of being in a lab and pure oxygen power fed into it.

[Dingus Mungus]

I don't know how to say "office materials have low energy density" any clearer.
I don't know how to say "jet fuels max burning temp is 900 celcius" any clearer.

maybe a couple of office items have a low energy density but a couple floors worth of office items would definately burn hotter than expected.
900c sure makes a good fire starter when distributed as it was. 

Your missing the point still...

None of those items will burn hotter than the fuel, and the fuel won't burn hot enough to melt the steel. Please show me proof of otherwise! Airation of fuel (wood, paper, fuel) will allow it oxidize more readily untill it reaches its max temp. Nothing in the building (exept the explosives) could burn hot enough to sever steel coloumbs, or created pools of liquid iron. The energy needed is simply not there. You keep stating that it is, but offer no proof. Show me one link that confirms that office supplies can burn at the 1600 celcius needed to liquify iron. Show me one proof of concept.

~Dingus Mungus

[Dingus Mungus]

REPEAT...

Like WTC 7 who gives a flying flip wiether it was demoloshed or fell due to structural damage, debris and fire. it was evacuated! What point does knowing anything about WTC 7 have to do with who orchistrated 9/11?     

It would have taken more than 5 hours to rig an implosion...
Clearly if the building was demo'ed then someone had advanced warning, and has covered up the use of explosives from the begining. That coupled with the short installation window in a time of panic, clearly illistrates why wtc7 and the related inconsistancies are important.

Would you agree that if explosives where used than they would have been set up in advance?

Ok i agree wood does not burn as hot under normal conditions. However change the conditions and you can have a hotter than "normal" fire. simply inject oxygen. Refering a jet engine to a blast furnace is just wrong. Now on the other hand it is in effect closer to a gas axe. Maximum possible temp again i agree however there is also a flash point involved.

"Refering a jet engine to a blast furnace is just wrong." Ummmm...  What about swapping coal or coke for JET FUEL. So you say the jet fuel with moving air acted like a blast furnace in WTC, but when the air and fuel move through an engine suddenly its not like a blast furnace??? Explain...

"Why would he say it doesn't exist???" Denial. I know that makes your point as well. However given that I cannot seem to get what i concider some of the brightest minds in the world to understand how it come to be. I'm certain that he himself don't understand it's presence so he in his own mind denies it's existance. simply because he cannot even begin to comprehend how it came to be. He cannot explain it so he don't want to discuss it and the easy and fastest way is to deny it's existance. Which brings to bare the whole point of Witness reliability bieng well, unreliable.

HE HEADED THE "FALL AND BURN" SECTION OF THE REPORT!!!!
Thats not something I want ignored! Thats my POINT!!!
Do you now understand why there must be a new investigation.

Fall time: newton covered that maybe you need to address some of his works again as You won't listen to me.

WTC7 fall time: 6.5seconds
free fall in vac: 6.0seconds

Due to "wind resistance" there's simply no extra time left for any pancaking to take place. Per floor fall time would be measured in two times; fall time and resistance time. You understand fall time, but you need to analise resistance time. There is an exchange of energy that needs to take place when one object turns another to dust... This would slow its fall speed considerably on each impact. Please research this point for yourself. It's simply impossible from a physics stand point. There is no extra time!

DO YOU DISAGREE?

do a side by side comparison of WTC collapse and a building bieng imploded by soundtrack alone. you will hear a distinct difference between ignited charges and shearing structural supports as the building twists and collapses.

Here this is brand new, it required a lot of stabilizing.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/744529/9_11_new_collapse_footage_rare_demo_clearly_seen/
Side by side no audio, but you heard the audio in last clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo
Mini version of wtc 7...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0

Now you find me a video of a building falling from structural damage like wtc7 did!

[pese]

Iraq war veteran and experienced demolitions expert blows the cover on 9/11 inside job.

http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

source of the above link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=167155&mesg_id=167155