What does a collapse theory have to do with conspiracies? It's science, nothing more nothing less. I merely cited that the only thing I agree with is the quote that is your signature. The actual contents of your post make no scientific or factual sense. The fallacious aspect of your claim has been analyzed in detail and posted in this thread. You just choose to repeat your fallacious theory despite the science and the facts. For example, YOU first posted that steel loses 90% of its strength when heated to your chosen temperature which you allude was reached. You then claim the steel thermally EXPANDED (a function of temperature and time) and as a result PULLED in the outer columns (while losing 90% of its strength). What kind of malarkey contradiction are you peddling? This is not even rocket science, it makes no sense from a logical perspective. I already went over the silliness of your actual pancake theory so I won't go over it again. Do you understand now?
Then why is this thread under the "Conspiracy Theories" forum???? My post make all the sense in the world. It's you conspiracy nuts who don't want to accept reality. I never "alluded" that the steel in the WTC reached any certain temperature. I just posted a graph showing the relationship between temperature and weakness of steel. Why is this theory based on steel expansion "malarkey"?
It is you lacking any guts to meet people and you who runs from it as a coward They have no such saying in Pittsburgh and you simply made it up on the spot like most of your bogus claims. It does not even make any sense considering the distance between the cities and no connecting rivers
I have no idea, I didn't start this thread and I'm not in charge of this forum. But I sense that any thread about 9/11 would automatically be moved to this section of the forum. In fact I posted a few times that 9/11 should have its own section and be removed from the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the forum. The event itself was a major defining event of our generation. Although there are many theories surrounding the event, the event is by definition a conspiracy fact not a theory. It does to you but not to the rest of the world. It is unscientific, contradictory and illogical. I have noted to you that the second part of your theory (the pancake "collapse") is not even supported by NIST, the government agency tasked with investigating the "collapse". Once again, the destruction of the 3 towers is reality and its analysis is a scientific one. It has nothing to do with "conspiracy nuts". You would like to characterize it as such only to try to ridicule anyone who disagrees with your personal collapse theory. It doesn't make your theory any more credible or real and only serves to undermine your own credibility. But you used it to try to support your own theory, otherwise why would you have posted that graph? Thermal expansion is fact based on physics and has specific applications that can be calculated. That part is not "malarkey". Your theory that uses thermal expansion as one initiating factor in the "collapse" of the WTC on 9/11 is combined with other factors that are contradictory and therefore make no logical or scientific sense. But you certainly have the opportunity to prove that your theory is realistic if you can provide a valid and verifiable scientific experiment that supports it. It's your theory so you have the burden of proof. Please by all means, try to prove your theory. And for bonus points, prove that it actually applied to the WTC towers on 9/11. You have the floor.
Have you ever heard of the Ohio River champ? Again, you are totally ignorant and clueless. I will be in Pittsburgh on Thursday the 15th of June. If you really live there, let's meet for a drink on Friday. However I think you are a phony and a troll who has never even been to Cincinnati especially since you were totally unaware of the Ohio River which runs from it's source in Pittsburgh where the Allegheny meets the Monogahela to form the mighty Ohio which runs right through downtown Cincinnati, Louisville, and all the way to Just north of Memphis where it meets the Mississippi. Maybe the 9/11 commission denies the existence of the Ohio River also. You have demonstrated to everyone here that you are a phony troll. Thanks
No I have proven you a liar and the only troll. When you grow up and move out of moms basement come look me up and leave crying like any dishonest internet wanna be troll You fit the destricption of troll I do not you cannot even get that correct
Didn't you say that there is no River that connects Pittsburgh to Cincinnati? I moved out of my mother's house in 1971 champ. I am originally from The Pittsburgh area, McKeesport to be exact, but I have lived in Los Angeles since 1965. Even though I left over 50 years ago I still remember that if you take a boat down the Ohio from the Burgh you will eventually end up in Cincinnati. Like I said, let's meet for a drink n Cincy Friday June 16. I will drive down from Pittsburgh. I do not believe that you are from Cincinnati because anyone who is knows about the Ohio River by second grade. I think you are a phony troll who has never even been to Cincinnati.You are really a riot champ. Thanks for the laughs.
Can you cite the passages in the Warren Commission and the 9/11 commission that deny the existence of the Ohio River.....lol
some of these guys come out here to wack their noodle in public. Here is what really happened, there is only one way to create what we seen on that day.
An animation based on known physics factors is one thing, a live experiment that can reproduce the effect to a large degree is even more convincing. In this case I'm certain at least 2 or 3 floors can be constructed in a similar manner to the WTC tower, using similar materials and heated to similar temperatures over a similar period of time and observed to see what really happens. I'm sure such an experiment would be costly but well worth it considering the US government readily wastes $trillions on just sheer losses by the Pentagon (likely outright theft). In any case I asked him to prove that his theory has any factual basis via any live experiment that may already exist. It is his claim, his burden of proof. Without any proof, it's just a theory that strongly suggests multiple contradictions and not the "reality" he likes to claim.
Of course. They're not completely stupid, they are experts and they know they're full of s-h-i-t. They've been exposed by many experts in fine detail. I don't even understand how they thought they could get away with their junk science. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/
I understood that many years ago. So far, you have not made the case, and neither has anybody else, that the floor beams expanded due to heat. It is a theory, and nobody has been able to put a number on it or otherwise prove it. I acknowledge that it seems to be somehow a possibility, but the fact of the near universal collapse of the structure seems to work against that theory.
Like this?: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-40269625 The thermal-expansion-total-building-collapse-in-seconds theory in action. Oh wait, they're still waiting for that. Maybe by tomorrow? Or maybe not.
Was that building's support structures impacted and weakened by a 179,000 kg object that was traveling at nearly 500 mph which produced 4,364,863,291 Joules of kinetic energy? No? I thought not.
Was WTC7's support structures impacted and weakened by a 179,000 kg object that was traveling at nearly 500 mph which produced 4,364,863,291 Joules of kinetic energy? No? I thought not. Still waiting for you to prove your thermal expansion collapse theory with a valid experiment that can be reproduced (see "scientific method"). How is that going? What about that pancake collapse theory that turns pancaking buildings into dust in a few seconds, any progress on that experiment?
It is positively hilarious how silent they become when high rises burn and do not collapse as happened at WTC. The official NIST explanation is shown, for the umpteenth time, to be pure poppycock by this London fire.
There have been well over 40 severe high rise fires before and after 9/11, including the North Tower in 1973. There were at least 4 or 5 in the last 2 years with fires much more severe than any of the 3 WTC towers. One was hit by rockets on multiple occasions, not one collapsed and that one is in use today. So much for the thermal expansion disappearing into dust pancake collapse theory.
Apples and oranges. The Grenfell Tower was made of pre-cast concreate slabs, not steel beams and girders.
So you're saying pre-cast concrete slabs are much better at holding up buildings during infernos? If that's true, what about those 40+ steel frame high rise infernos that stood? Also apples and oranges because those fires didn't happen on 9/11?
