Windsor building on fire

[thedman113]

"You do know that there was a building between building 7 and 1 it was building 6, so your telling me as it collapsed the debris "jumped over" building 6 and fell on 7?"

Nope, it hit that too. Building 6 was crushed.

[MindsUnleashed]

DON'T WASTE TIME ARGUING tell them that

JET FUEL BURNS AT 800 to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit

Steel does not begin to weaken until 2,000F degrees, It gets red hot at 2,500F degrees, and melts at 2,750F degrees.

[horrabilly]

wrong.

steel begins to weaken @ 700F degrees.

"Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength"

azobuild*com/details*asp?Artic­leID=3621

so the temperatures in the towers and in wtc7 were easily hot enough to cause the steel to weaken and then to fail.

swing and a miss little truther.

[slimjim1389]

hey horrabilly,

I got a pitch for you,

Explain away the molten metal just pouring off the side of the WTC then?

explain the molten metal found underneath all 3 demolished wtc buildings.

Peace

[horrabilly]

oh another little truther stand up.

ok.

At least you call it what it is. Molten METAL. Not Molten STEEL.

explain the molten metal from the 82nd floor.

alright.

11-settembre*blogspot*com/ 2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-w­tc2*html

this is one of the best descriptions of what it could have been.

There are lots of other metals in the towers which would melt in the temperatures listed including tin, aluminum, manganese, copper, even silver, brass, bronze and there are dozens more.

[horrabilly]

I have just provided you with a great indepth analysis of the location of the UPS (which do short out and melt in fires).

I have also provided you with a list of other metals which would melt in the temperatures provided.

now you need to provide

one image of any steel melted by thermite. Any photo of melted steel column .

you need to also be able to provide scientific proof that you can eliminate any of the metals I have just listed.

[horrabilly]

demolished?

really?

by who? With what?

oh you mean demolised because the towers were hit by jets moving 500 mph full of fuel and burned.

and you mean wtc7 demolished because it was hit by thousands of tons of debris, and had fires burning out of control for 8 hours...

yes, that is demolised alright.

[aurumdeus]

There's no point arguing with people like horrabilly. People wont see what they dont want to, no matter what you put in front of their faces. The fact is one conclusion leads to hatred and blame of a foreign entity (and a load of gain when you then go kill them), and the other a complete loss of faith in your own government, and a realisation that everything conducted as a result of 9/11 since is beyond wwar crimes. The Nazi's for all their notoriety have nothing on the US government...

[horrabilly]

wow.

Just like a truther. Immediately come out the NAZI references.

It is amazing.

Calling the US government NAZI's, while standing idly by and covering for people who murdered 3000 Americans, (and were hoping for MANY more).

The same people who kidnap and behead foreigners. The same people who want to drop a nuke on israel, the same people who beat girls for listening to music, and behead girls who want to go to school.

yup... I know who the NAZI's are there.

[aurumdeus]

seems to me a 'truther' in your view is someone who differs in oppinion to yourself.

First things first I certainly dont support the taliban, or any of their actions (other than stopping heroin production in afgan, which the americans seem in capable of doing).

Apart from any other piece of evidence to either side, explain why the rubble waas laced with nano thermite exactly?

[horrabilly]

ROFLMAO.

Oh thank you little truther. I do love waking up to a good joke.

1. ah the nano thermite argument... yes. In the Open chemistry journal. Yup.

now you have found the SMOKING gun.

oh wait. No steel showed any signs of MELTING. So no thermtie was used.

2. nano thermite. when was that invented again? Before 2001? really? I can't find any literature to suggest it even existed until very recently.

[pussypitcher]

that you can't find anything about thermite, doesn't mean, that there wasn't any literature about it.

[horrabilly]

3. the chemical signatures of thermite (even nano thermite) are full of sulphur, aluminum, and iron oxide. what was the tower filled with? oh, drywall and concrete... what are they filled with? sulphur. The towers were filled with metal like... aluminum. And since the towers were made from steel and iron, could there be RUST anywhere? Oh all over the place.

so nano thermite? maybe. But elimianate all of the other possibliities first. which you can't. so nano thermite? nope

[horrabilly]

4. the red paint chips (which is what truthers point to for the nano thermite claim) were made by a paint company in Kansas (I think), and guess what??? When asked for the chemicals which went into making the primer paint (which was sprayed on in 1977, was nano thermite around in 1977?) they reply with a list of chemicals including.... wait for it.... sulpher, iron oxide and aluminum.

5. If it was nanothermite on the beams, why didnt' they ignite when welded together in 1977????

thanks

[aurumdeus]

First things first if you want to actually discuss this properly, please leave out the labels etc. They aren't neccessary and really dont help things.

Lets see tomorrow what Farmer's got to say? After that I'll get on with answering things.

[horrabilly]

By all means.

Please respond to the 5 points I just brought up..

[chevytheplayer]

thousands of tons??? seriously???

You do know that there was a building between building 7 and 1 it was building 6, so your telling me as it collapsed the debris "jumped over" building 6 and fell on 7?

Seriously??

Your debunkers are seriously starting to sound crazy, and desperate, and its sad

[Mrwrinkle73]

WTC Building 7 was not hit by a plane either. You obviously know nothing of the properties of steel. NEO-CON

[psikeyhackr]

Windsor Twr. 131 ft x 82 ft x 348 ft tall

30 flrs of WTC 205 ft x 205 ft x 360 ft tall

There had to be enough steel on the 80th floor of the south WTC to hold FOUR Windsor Towers. But we don't hear how much steel was on every level of the buildings

 see WTC Impact Model - MIT

[lplate67]

Thankyou svojetta for posting this.

It graphically shows the enormity of the lie that the World Trade Center buildings came down "because of fire".

They actually came down because someone put explosives in the building weeks before, then, after the planes crashed into the towers the explosives were set off.

We see in your video here that fire does NOT make steel structures collapse.

Again thankyou.

[jordan24e]

Get a fucking life. The poster of this video clearly had no intention of starting off these god damn conspiracy theories on the WTC again so please take your spam somewhere else.

[mdoelle]

Iplate67 is correct. there is a video about that conspiracy

[LolLoosechange]

Madrid tower was not hit by a plane.

[omega771]

nor was building wtc 7 and it burned for 5 to 7 hours and fell at free fall speed ... this building burned for 20 some odd hrs and on more floors but the fuck is a conspiracy theory .... we are comparing apples to apples and the math dont add up. ppl hold on to the al quaida conspiracy that come out of the idiot box .. but dont call it that call it news but its the same thing maybe ppl should get an english lesson and learn denotation of words and not just connotation. trained monkeys

[horrabilly]

No you are comparing apples to oranges little truther.

1. the buildings have differnt design, as such they react differently in fire.

2. This building had reinforced concrete over steel beams. That was not present in wtc.

3. a good example is the madrid tower. the lower part (the reinforced concrete) held up, but what happened to the steel framed part on top? Oh it failed and collapsed due to FIRE.

4. wtc 7 had 2.5 sec of freefall, out of a 16 second collapse. so what? it was expected

[omega771]

have you ever in life seen anything else fall in on it self with out having its foundation removed 1st and 2nd what would you expect any free fall time that would indicate no resistance at all... and even weaken steel would have some resistance... and i think was 4.5 sec. of free fall

[horrabilly]

which building fell in on itself? wtc 1 and 2 covered 10 city blocks. wtc7 covered 4 city blocks and did $1.4 billion in damages to the Verizion building.

which one again?

I would fully expect about 2.5 to 3 seconds of freefall for wtc7 because of the con ed station under it and the UNIQUE design. So did NIST.

Weakened steel at 1000 degrees loses 1/2 of its structural capabiltiies. As such it fails.

All it took was column 87 failing in wtc7.

look up single point failure and read it

2.5

[slimjim1389]

The metals you forgot I believe are

Potassium Permanganate, Sulfur.

This can not be explained away my friend, And if you look into the other steel buildings that were obviously burning much more out of control, you see these metals were not collecting anywhere in pools.

What do we know about fires that give off a LOT of grey smoke.

Also look into what the firefighters who were IN THE BUILDING and what they had to say on the whole fire situation. Look at the first hand accounts first.