One of the true psychos I used to train with, who fought on an amateur circuit, casually asked me to hang one of his small heavy bags in his backyard workout area. It couldn't have been two feet long, like a child's bag. I could barely lift the thing: he had filled it with a mix of debris including steel shavings. He had playfully hit me in sparring a few times and put the fear of God in me.
Well sugar has vastly more energy than thermite, TNT, Semtex H et cetera.
Just as paraffin wax has more energy density than jet fuel. The rate of reaction obviously has something to do with it. But indeed, the precise combination of the combustible load is an important parameter in fire engineering. In fact, 9/11 greatly advanced that field. It was initially shown that the average office furniture combustible mass was not deemed enough to produce the temperature necessary to soften steel. It was only when the model was made to accurately reflect what were thought to be secondary factors that the model correctly matched observation. In a normal office fire model, the furniture is initially in its habitable configuration. The fire progresses slowly from its initiation point until all the fuel is involved. Instead, the Twin Tower scenario involved a mechanical impact that toppled furniture into a pile at the bottom of each floor. Then the entire fuel load was ignited at once, using jet fuel as the accelerant. This vastly altered the combustion physics and therefore the heating profile. This effect was not anticipated previously.
An instructive scene is at 1:50 minutes: Camera shows much of North face of WTC7, down Greewich St.: Initially. it all appears dark and hazy; as the camera then zooms in one fllor (perhaps the 9th or11th) become more and more visible. Point here is that, due to lack of resolution and contrast, this digital video camera does NOT show the fire while zoomed out even though it's clearly there!
I hadn't seen that one, but I have seen some stills taken perhaps 120 degrees clockwise of where tha video was and those still showed the gashes in the side of WTC7 that faced WT1 and fires on perhaps 3-5 floors with a lot of smoke poring out of the building.
It didn't "collapse into it's own footprint", it collapsed into a playground next to it.
You couldn't tell me that I'm not drop dead gorgeous for the last 15 years either, no matter how much irrefurable evidence you present to the contrary.
Girgeous and irrefurable? You're bigfoot
A mix of Gish Gallop and spraying words everywhere.
Amazing how the towers fell "into their own footprint", but not a single Truther has ever disputed that the towers' collapse damaged WTC 7.
They were also not hit by planes.
My experience with low key truthers in real life is that they always come back to old previously debunked stuff. After a gish gallop of other easily debunked stuff they start back at the beginning forgetting that it was debunked and after they say, "still there are all these questions?"
