Unanswered questions about 9/11..

What controls the flame in an oil furnace?

"Gas and oil-fired systems were usually controlled by a thermostat inside the home"

 

yer already in wayyyy over your head and drowning.

the 'system' thermostat only turns the furnace on and off and does not control the flame, oil pressure, air pressure, and nozzle style set the amount of flame and is preset for optimal burn efficiency. there is no thermostatically controlled flame.

and I suppose you think you are qualified to argue with me about all those falsehoods you posted right

 

so if you are finished with the sidetrack, then back to telling us how come a furnace does not collapse under its own weight do furnaces operate under a different set of physics laws than structural steel, and how about that pic of a raging fire in building 2.....come on this stuff is building up on you here ante up.

 

So let's see. According to your theory, all the steel from 3 buildings turned to something like butter from jet fuel fire and they all "fell down" so it's not a mystery. Am I getting your theory somewhat correct? Is "fell down" also an accurate explanation or term for the manner of the "collapse" of the 3 buildings?

The thing is NIST didn't bother to explain the "collapse" of the twin towers, they just said it was "inevitable". But for WTC7 they said they couldn't get a handle on the cause and about 7 years later they said the answer stares you in the face. So it was a 7 year mystery for them until they had a eureka moment. But you knew the answer all along. Did you explain your theory to NIST?

 

Maybe its just me but it seems these OCT supporters all have comprehension disorders. Takes a HUGE leap to assume that because fire is 1600 degrees that the metal was the same. He wont come up with any data because like the other ones here they are just throwing **** at the wall hoping ot get something to stick.

 

Correct, he's just parroting popular OCT stories and trying to peddle it as fact and claim it's "no mystery". In other words, don't even question it because it's so obvious it stares you in the face (to borrow from Shyam Sunder, the alchemist).

 

Sham Blunder? Yeh another laugh, the head of NIST, the one the high school teacher did a tap dance on his face forcing him to change and correct their report, I remember that *******.

 

thanks for the lunatic videos.
first moron boy heats steel in an oven almost to liquid and pretends that applies to the towers when nist said the hottest any steel got was 400 degrees and that was only a couple pieces. LOL PLONK

second see if you are capable of figuring out the complete lunacy being peddled between 6.06 and 6.22, total tardation and I dont believe you understand any of this, so do tell. PLONK I stopped watching it after that, a total waste of my time.

PLONK is the sound your attempted argument makes when it hits the bottom of the trash bin

 

How does the above video answer any of my questions or address anything I posted? Do you have no clue how to explain your theory in your own words?

 

Where in the NIST report did it say this?

 

you havent responded to my rebuttal, you first.

see if you are capable of figuring out the complete lunacy being peddled between 6.06 and 6.22, total tardation and I dont believe you understand any of this, so do tell. PLONK I stopped watching it after that, a total waste of my time.

That would be in the video you posted presumably as some kind of support for the other crap you posted.



I will accept your concession that you do not know enough about the subject matter if you continue to fail to respond.

 

Show me where in the NIST report that it says "the hottest any steel got was 400 degrees."

 

I withdraw the statement, Im not going to look it up, now back to your explaining to us the asshelmetitus being peddled between 6.06 and 6.22

your video:

 

LMFAO!

That's because the fricking NIST report doesn't state that "the hottest any steel got was 400 degrees."

 

Fine spin it any way you like, now back to your video:


back to your explaining to us the asshelmetitus being peddled between 6.06 and 6.22

your video:

 

You don't understand that steel expands and contracts based on temperature changes?

Here's a little bit of math for ya...
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/qq.09.05/jim2.html

 

Here's a little more information on steel expansion...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_stressing

 

so thermal expansion from the floors being heated made the columns pull in is that your theory?

 

I guess I wont wait around any longer for your answer.

Meanwhile enjoy

 

According to NIST, in SIMULATIONS temperatures ranged from 300 C to 700 C (NIST NCSTAR 1, page 184). Of note, NIST refused to publicly release their claimed simulations despite official FOIA requests. Therefore, none of their THEORY could be verified. No peer review, no scientific method, failure to follow their own NFPA protocol they peddle, junk science.

The problem is most of the jet fuel exploded on impact outside the tower so any fire caused by the jet fuel would be fire from office furnishings. Another problem is fire does not remain in one area for more than 20 minutes then burns itself out and moves on to another area, even according to NIST. And yet another problem is that a fire does not necessarily heat steel to the temperature of the fire with or without fireproofing. And yet another problem is that there isn't any factual evidence the fireproofing was removed and even if it was, it could have only been removed at the impact site, not the entire building. The only evidence NIST used to claim the fireproofing was stripped was an experiment with a shotgun blast that does not match reality. Furthermore, the fireproofing was coincidentally reinforced prior to 9/11 at the impact site for both WTC1 and WTC2. Of additional note, NIST claims that if the fireproofing were not stripped, the buildings would not have "collapsed".

But none of the above explains the manner in which the two buildings were destroyed which NIST admitted they never explained. And certainly none of the above has anything to do with WTC7 and the manner in which that building was destroyed.

So bottom line, there are numerous problems with NIST's theory and your theory and especially your claim that it's "no mystery". Many of these problems are insurmountable.

 

This is absolutely not true.

See video below where the second plane hit (4:12 - 4:20) and you can see that the jet fuel and debris went clearly through the building.

 

I may be mistaken but on the Nat Geo special, I seem to recall that they found several dead bodies below the impact floors caused by fire. The fire was propelled by jetfuel that came down the elevator shafts

 

and on the wrong side of the building too! LOL