Exposions = bombs?

[pepik]

You are a jew hating loon and an embarrassment to the troof movement. I don't want to debunk you, I want you to carry on doing exactly what you are doing.

[Bushwacker]

[TmcMistress]

[pepik]

The thing is you said sarcastically that you 'forgot' that paper and office furnishings can burn hot enough to deform steel.

But when asked at what temperature these things burn at, you had no response. You still have no response. The reason is that you are a troofer, and you don't care.

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]

And do you think the corrugated metal stays up all by itself, or is it attached to a steel truss framework, like the floors of the WTC towers? Does all this furniture which is so combustible when it is in a warehouse somehow change when it is moved into an office building?

I showed you research that established that an ordinary office fire with no special qualities will reach 1000 degrees C, so there really is no doubt about the vulnerability of steel structures to fire.

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]

marky, you know full well that this was not "put forward as serious proof the towers would collapse in 10 seconds and turn mostly to dust due to fire." so why say it?

Go back to the very first post on this thread, giving an example of where explosions were heard in a fire, but no one suggests explosives were there. The fireman can have had no idea whether there actually were bombs there or not, can he?

As you know, the entire steel part of the Hotel Windsor in Madrid collapsed due to fire, but somehow troofers discount that. Skyscrapers do not routinely collapse due to fire just because their vulnerabilities are known and they are well protected by fireproofing and sprinklers. In the case of the WTC towers they were heavily damaged by the aircraft impacts, which also destroyed the fireproofing, the sprinkler systems and the elevator shafts, the thousands of gallons of jet fuel spread the fire rapidly, and the impacts were so high that the firemen had hardly reached the fire floors before the collapse. The situation was different in many ways from a normal fire in a skyscraper.

[pepik]

[marky 54]

[marky 54]

[pepik]

[Bushwacker]

I went to some trouble to spell out why the WTC towers were different, read my post again. As for examples, I mentioned only the Hotel Windsor, where every part of the steel structure did in fact collapse, leaving the central core and the lower floors which were made of concrete. You must remember it was so noticable that some concrete association used it in their adverts.

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]

Do you really dispute that steel-framed buildings are vulnerable to fire? If they are not why do you suppose that the steel has to be fire-proofed? Look up any building code to confirm that.

As you seem to ghave trouble referring back, let me save you the trouble:
In the case of the WTC towers they were heavily damaged by the aircraft impacts, which also destroyed the fireproofing, the sprinkler systems and the elevator shafts, the thousands of gallons of jet fuel spread the fire rapidly, and the impacts were so high that the firemen had hardly reached the fire floors before the collapse. The situation was different in many ways from a normal fire in a skyscraper.

As for examples, I mentioned only the Hotel Windsor, where every part of the steel structure did in fact collapse, leaving the central core and the lower floors which were made of concrete. You must remember it was so noticable that some concrete association used it in their adverts.

[marky 54]

[Bushwacker]

The fire-proofing was spray applied, a new formulation on the upper floors. There are reports about how it was inclined to fall off in such areas as the elevator shafts. Thousands of tons of broken metal ripping through the building would certainly strip off a great deal of the stuff. The pipes for the sprinkler system were severed.

There are very few reports of explosions lower down, and they are extremely dubious. William Rodgriguez as we discussed said nothing about explosions until more than a year after the event. The "squibs" coming out bear no relation to any visible signs of collapse. There were no signs of explosions before the collapse started, so it looked nothing like a demolition. No demolition expert, not even Danny Jowenko, thinks the towers were demolished, there is simply no evidence for it and no one has explained how it could possibly be done. Frankly I have great difficulty believing that anyone can study the evidence, think rationally about it, and still believe the towers were demolished.

For the WTC7 investigation, still not finalised, apparently NIST are going to specifically look at the demolition scenario since that did look like a demolition and the issue has been raised so often.

I entirely agree that there are concerns about freedoms being taken away in the name of fighting terrorism, and this is something that needs to the strongly resisted. The "truth movement" is actually a great help to governments in this, it enables all objection to be dismissed as part of a loony fringe. It would be far better to accept that 9/11 was not an inside job, which it clearly was not, and concentrate efforts on resisting excessive "protective" measures.

[Bushwacker]

Well that's it, I'm off for two weeks now. Perhaps by the time I come back marky and TmcMistress will accept that steel buildings can be brought down by fire, rodin will have sorted his physics out and stopped blaming the Jews for everything and Mark Gobell will have thought of some answers to my questions, particularly what he thinks is the most likely reason for a bridge with a burning petrol tanker under it to fall down.

Or more likely all the awkward questions will be ignored, and the story about Iron Age man smelting iron with charcoal will have been put down to CIA misinformation.

[rodin]

Pepik

Others will read your response and make their own judgements as to where the balance of truth and decency lies.

Bushwhacker

[scar]

[TmcMistress]

[whatistruth]

[pepik]

[marky 54]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I0wDis54-w

[whatistruth]

lol

[Mark Gobell]

Has anyone found a picture of the gas tanker, or it's remains, at Oakland ?

[whatistruth]

[Mark Gobell]

Repeaters have said that the alleged gasoline tanker was:

Consumed by fire. . .

Incinerated due to the intense heat . . . .

A chap held up his finger and thumb indicating it was now an inch thick . . .

So, where are the pictures of the wreck ?

[pepik]

Think about it - after it crashed and was engulfed in an inferno, a highway overpass collapsed on top of it. What do you expect?

[marky 54]