Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And you chose a rather poor video. Other videos do show the distortion. This one appears to be by a troofer and at about 1:40 you see the first collapse and you can see the distortion that your video claims does not exist:
That was explained to. Fires that burned for hours with any way to fight them. The sprinklers failed since there was no water due to the collapse of the Twin Towers cutting the water line. I do believe the diesel fuel for the building's generators may have played a role as well.
Suddenly there was no building beneath the upper portion that was falling. What happened to the building beneath while the upper portion was falling 105 feet? Provide those repeatable experiments.
NIST disagrees with you, and did not mention A36. Are you going to read the NIST report that you linked to at some point?
Do you agree that the events of 9/11 were the result of a conspiracy?
Badly formed question. They did not do so "independently".
On just about everything you've said so far. For instance, NIST plainly states that fuel oil fires from the emergency generators "did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of the critical interior column to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed."
Quote whatever you are referring to I have demonstrated a lack of understanding about.
Poorly worded and misleading question.
Then quote it.
The fact that the NIST report does not mention A36 is the first clue.
Again, quote whatever it is in the NIST that you claim I have demonstrated a lack of understanding about.
Not only does the hand-inputed NIST simulation not resemble the sudden drop of the roof line, the simulation does not fall at free-fall rate.
Why do they need to mention A36? Do you think that they were unaware of what kind of structural steel was in the building? Seriously? The main cause of the collapse appears to be from thermal expansion. The building cooked for hours and that is the only time a building of that size with an internal fire burned uncontrolled for seven hours.
What is "poorly worded" or "misleading" about this question: Do you agree that the events of 9/11 were the result of a conspiracy?
I would have to quote the whole article it appears and without a copy and paste I am not about to do that. That they did not mention A36 is merely a red herring on your part. I asked you why it was important and you had no answer.
You have been trying to use equivocation fallacies by tying a conspiracy that we know happened to one that we know did not happen.
Is that what they said? Must admit I took one look at the journal and stopped reading. But how funny.And I probably do not have to point out to a chemist that a beam painted with "nano-thermite" would have "nano-results"
(nano of course being the prefix meaning "billionth" for those that did not know).
Are you not able to read or do you just not want to inform yourself about what is in the NIST report you linked to? NIST's worse-case scenario for the fire temperature in WTC 7 is less than one-third that required to produce A36.
Quote where I've used different meanings for the same word.
It was one explanation proposed by some of the theorists that a thermite paint was used. But works real good because it's nanothermite!
No, the peer-reviewed journal article did not say any such idiotic thing.
