The Towers were filled with asbestos.
Burning fuel burns only at a max of 1200 degrees F.
You need special configurations to get blow-torch effects out of the burning fuel.
Tons of concrete insulation ward off heat convection.
Little heat as shown in the pictures above.
The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.
None of that above statements is accurate. It only shows Baddecker's ignorance. Insulation concentrates heat, rather than reducing it. Ovens and such are...insulated. Lots of wind blowing into that fire means lots of oxygen. Burning fuel burns only at a max of 1200 degrees F.
You need special configurations to get blow-torch effects out of the burning fuel.
Tons of concrete insulation ward off heat convection.
Little heat as shown in the pictures above.
The heat was far from sufficient to take the towers down.
And we can easily calculate the joules of energy released by these planes' fuel burning, and see if it is sufficient to weaken the tower structure (Hint: I already did this in the other thread. So I can just copy and paste, duh).
Two words for you:
Controlled Demolition
All three buildings were simply "pulled" as Larry Silverstein said. It was all planned moths before the "attack" on US soil, attack by it's own government.
Buildings "pulled?" Really? Why don't you go try to pull a building? I'll loan you a rope.Controlled Demolition
All three buildings were simply "pulled" as Larry Silverstein said. It was all planned moths before the "attack" on US soil, attack by it's own government.
Silverman explains this stupid misinterpretation of his comment, as I recall, he was talking about getting the firemen out of there. Great idea, they wouldn't be dead if he had.
Regardless, if you want to make the claim of controlled demolition, why not support it? Some actual evidence? Start with the claim that the US government was involved just for grins.
Oh man, I can't believe what I'm reading here. I don't know if you're so stupid or just too lazy to use your own brain. ....
Lol, no, we're not going for "facts and evidence" from Youtube videos.
Let's start with the problem of the steel. You think the fire from the kerosene was insufficient to weaken the steel to the point where it was very weak, right? That's what leads to the "need to talk about thermite" and in turn that leads to a "need for a conspiracy." This is a simple problem at the high school level of physics and chemistry, so tell me if I understand this objection correctly.
RE the "involvement of the US Government" I assume that if there is no need for a conspiracy theory, then the US Government were not conspirators. Take your pick, either that view or the US Government was involved in hiring/coercing "innocent Islamic Jihadists" to take lessons in flying planes and then crashing them into the towers. Either or both is fine just let us know.