Nice rebuttal to that guys very weak attempt to show you that "it was 100% CD". I wish I had of been there, I would have torn him a new one with a rebuttal.
From naznaz at LC Forum:
About the ''proof'' of 9/11 conspiracy you was not able to find here is one that I think pretty much prooves without a shadow of a doubt that it was a controlled demolition. I will explain it step by step so you can understand...
the anticipation is killing me...
1. Government says buildings collapsed because the fire of the fuel and furniture weakened the steel structure of the World Trade Center.
No, govt, via NIST report, says it was a combination of (1) Office Fires over 8-10 floors in size, started by the jet fuel and maintained via the building contents, (2) Removal of 60% or more of the "Spray on" Fireproofing from the interior of the building via the jet impacts, and (3) severing of many of the exterior and interior steel columns, as well as other impact damage, from the jet impacts, that all contributed to the collapse of the towers. All of this, and the towers still stood for almost an hour in one case, and more than an hour in the other case.
2. So they are saying the steel bent and the building collapsed because it could no longer withstand the weight of the top floors.
If you are speaking of the steel at the floors of impact, yes, the fires weakened the steel, and in the cases of the steel that was not severed by the impact, yes it bent, and sagged from the weight above.
(OK so far most people with no scientific knowledge or knowledge of how the buildings were constructed will agree)
I would say that most people, knowledge or not, would agree so far, with my rebuttal, and with elements of the original argument.
3. At ground zero (the bottom of where the buildings collapsed) there were massive pools of molten steel. This molten steel had temperatures of over 1000 degrees for weeks after 9/11! What melted this steel?
(1) define "massive". (2) No verifiable evidence of molten "Steel" has ever been shown through expert testimony or physically collected evidence. Molten "Metal" has been described by a number of witnesses, none of which have the expertese to determine which metal, from visual inspection alone.(3) how many weeks?
4. Burning kerosine (jet fuel) even when burning at optimal temperature (but was'nt because of the black smoke which meant an oxygen deprived fire) does not reach the tempeature required to melt steel. In fact its optimal burning temperature is nowhere near the temperature to melt steel.
While I appreciate your attempt to minimize the inflammatory effect of calling it "Jet Fuel", by calling it "Kerosine", lets call it what it was, an leave it at "Jet Fuel" since this is where it came from.
Define optimal Temperature wrt your reference here?
Black smoke can be seen with oxygen deprived fires, but also with fires that burn various other materials that produce "black smoke" on combustion. Its presence in a burning SKYSCRAPER, means nothing.
See my reference above to what NIST said caused the collapse, and you will see, once again, that there was much more that Jet Fuel burning. The Fuel is believed by THE EXPERTS to have only been the ignitor of the fires, which were then sustained by the contents of the buildings. These "contents" burn at much higher temps, more than high enough to decrease the strength of the steel.
5. We can conclude it was thereofre not fire from the fuel or furninture that melted this steel. You cannot change the laws of physics, this is fact. If you think otherwize why don't you try jumping out of a window to see if you can fly like superman?
No you only spoke to the jet fuel, so you can conclude nothing about these fires, as both Jet Fuel and building contents were involved, and you only addressed the fuel.
As for your silliness afterwards, I will not lower myself to address it.
6. When a building collapsed, its steel does not melt. Even people without scientific knowledge know this.
Not sure the relevance of this, unless you are very vaguely and obtusely referring to the effect of friction of the collapse on the steel. In this case, friction was a factor on heating some steel, but its relivance to the collapse is nil. Otherwise, I have no idea what the above comment is suppose to mean.
Once again, Noone said the steel melted (as in turned to liquid) prior to collapse. The earlier reports of this have long since been refuted, so just drop it.
7. So what explains this molten steel? If you did your so called research you will know the corrupt 9/11 commission offers no explanation for this. So how can you possibly believe the government's explanation if they dont even consider or explain this molten steel?
They also didnt address alien macrolasers hitting the WTCs. Why? No evidence of such. No credible evidence of molten STEEL, and also no evidence that if it did exist, that it would have any impact on the cause of the COLLAPSE of the towers. As a result, no mention of it by the 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans of the Commission.
8. One explossive substance can melt steel : thermate, which was discovered in the molten steel by a university professor.
LOL. Thermate can cut through Steel, but it does so in a unique way, and it does not cause pools of molten steel. A welders torch can melt steel also. Any fire hot enough, can melt steel, but the point is moot, as there is no SOLID EVIDENCE of melted STEEL from the WTC site.
What more proof do you need?
A whole F&*King lot more than provided above.
TAM
