[For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT] (Viewer #7,232,952)
Don’t argue with my post title. That steel absolutely did NOT melt…
[For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT] (Viewer #7,232,952)
Don’t argue with my post title. That steel absolutely did NOT melt…
Everybody knows BUSHHITLERCHENEYHALLIBURTON planted TNT when they were being built.
Everybody knows that Bush and Cheney were personally camped out on rooftops with missile launchers, and that the peaceful islamists took control of the plane in hopes of intercepting the missiles before they hit the towers.
Thank you Jesus, ‘”purgatoryironworks” and Harvey, for explaining the obvious. It doesn’t have to melt, it only has to bend, and once it does, gravity is in charge. I’ve been making this argument for years. It’s gratifying to see it demonstrated.
you have to read the comments on his you tube page to believe them, the number of people who will argue that the demonstration does not actually prove anything.
Reading comments on youtube is not a good idea, it makes you understand how someone like Obama could be “elected”…twice.
I actually watched a building taken down by “implosion” and the very loud, successive, boom boom boom boom boom before it dropped kinda gave it away. That was an 18 story building, 110 might take a few more and I think maybe someone might have heard it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oXoKEfh9Ew
And weirdly, I was standing EXACTLY where whoever shot this one was:
Also, the “burning temperature” of jet fuel is flexible. Small amounts burn a lot cooler than large amounts. Add O2 and get hotter burning. Add small amounts of other metals, like aluminum and magnesium (stuff that would be in a typical office building or AIRPLANE for example), burn hotter still. Create a strong drafting effect, (like that furnace has), burn hot enough to MELT steel, not just make it weaker. But definitely make it weak enough to collapse.
Plus to go allow with what Professor Hale said, this leaves out the heat intensifying effects of an enclosed space.
Really, the video is a sufficient argument by itself. If you really didn’t understand why a metal building, stable for two decades, could collapse due to heat, now you know.
It’s also a good reminder for fire fighters: metal buildings will collapse faster than wooden ones–or they did until builders went to metal clips for rafters.
Oops, pretty sure (2001-1970=31) I shoulda said “three decades.”
And, for the cherry on top, if fire can’t melt steel, how are there steel castings?