| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Batrabill wrote: | | CD doesn't produce molten steel unless you invent THERMATE |
So what are you saying, there wasn't molten metal? Or there was and you can't explain it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK bill, I'm off to invent thermate.
Just in case I can't manage it, seeing as how collapsing buildings cannot create molten steel - how do you account for the molten steel in the basements of WTC 1, 2 & 7?
_________________
"Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking very slowly.......
No known CD has ever produced "molten metal..."
Got that bit?
So the only reason for there to be "molten metal" at ground zero is because Thermate (think of it like Scotty saying "reverse the polarity Captain and that might work" i.e. fiction) has been used for the first time ever to blow up a building.
So in order to understand the "molten metal" you have to invent Thermate - if you want to prove that the building was blown up.
Or you could note that the building was on fire when it fell down.
I'm guessing you didn't get your PhD in fire analysis, so you have no idea about how "molten metal" could be present - hence you invent Thermate.
Presto. it's all explained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Batrabill wrote: | | I'm guessing you didn't get your PhD in fire analysis, so you have no idea about how "molten metal" could be present - hence you invent Thermate. |
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media
report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel
burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The
temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not
capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed
flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not
mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when
the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse
flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat
intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for
burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt
steel at 1500 °C."
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTra deCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
_________________
"Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
