National Geographic's Professional Hit Job on 9/11 Truth

Oh an internet tough guy. Those are so rare.

A retired doctor with a class a builders license internet tough guy must be like a unicorn.

 

stop this.

no one here is going to prison.

 

internet tough guy?

 

Waiting for your attorney's call. The ball is in your court. You made the threat, let's see you follow up on it.

 

Is this supposed to be a joke? The building in your video had just undergone a controlled demolition.

Stop lying or you're going on ignore.

 

Except the rainbow glitter in his hair, that's the real scary thing.

 

But seriously for you to mischarecterize my statement shows your desperation. The INTERIOR (as was stated in the original post) was mostly air (that is how office buildings and structures tend to be). I mean how could you rent office space if there was, well, no space? I was correct, the grapefruit has a better grasp of physics and engineering.

 

ok, now lets talk about what the real facts are.

the facts are, the experts say 9-11 wasn't an inside job.

 

MOD EDIT>>>OFF TOPIC<<<

there's no evidence that there were no planes at the WTC on 9-11.

but there are countless videos of the 2nd plane crashing into the south tower.

 

I don't support 'no planes'.
MOD EDIT>>>OFF TOPIC<<<

 

I'd comment but, what's the point since it will be deleted, again.

 

Yet you constantly link to 'no planes' websites. How is that not supporting them?

 

Can't you get your own posts deleted too, boss?

 

What are you talking about?

 

The single beam over the fire pit was not connected to any other steel that could conduct heat away. Air could flow in from all sides to feed the fire. The exhaust gas could then flow straight up to suck in more air from the sides.

In the WTC all of the steel was connected to other steel The only way for air to come in was through holes created by the plane coming in or parts flying out or windows broken by explosion. Then the exhaust gas had to go out through the same holes.

Watch the videos and you see smoke coming out of the top of the holes. Fresh air had to go in through the bottom.

That video was laughable. But the Truthers did a lousy job of debunking it. Did they have any information ahead of time or did they have to respond cold without any time to think about it? If so it was a setup.

psik

 

It wasn't meant to be an exact analogy of what happened at the WTC,but a proof of the concept that steel loses it's structural integrity when exposed to fire

 

Steel loses structural integrity when it gets hot enough. Whether or not it could get hot enough in the WTC fires is the question. It takes lots more energy to get lots more steel hot enough, especially if it can be conducted away.

Videos of all of the various skyscraper fires where the buildings did not collapse would have been more useful. How many fires would that be?

psik

 

Steel by itself isn;'t that good of a conductor of heat.
All that was needed was localized heating to the trusses.

And WHAT 'various skyscraper fires'?

 

However due to the nature of the construction, it would not take much. Hence why the fire retardant was so liberally used

 

Just because copper and silver are better heat conductors doesn't make steel a bad conductor.

Oh just a few:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_fire

psik

 

I said it's not as good, not 'poor'

And the WTC towers are on your 'list' as well

 

They were skyscrapers and they were on fire. Shocking!

What other ones collapsed? Only 3 in the same place on the same day, and one was not hit by an airliner. And one that was hit by an airliner deflected FIFTEEN INCHES on impact. Funny that we never hear that.

psik

 

Funny how you never get to the point, either...

 

The point is that office fires can not get hot enough to weaken steel enough to cause global collapse of buildings. That fact has been proven throughout all of history.