Re: Re: WTC 7 Explained for the thousandth time!

	Duration: 03:39 minutes Upload Time: 2007-11-10 20:20:09 User: Lungyao1 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day
Description: Video Cam Direct Upload Dude. You make no sence.
Comments
55ella2007k ::: Favorites  2007-11-11 12:57:30 Hi lungyao :) I have actually seen a controlled demolition of a very large building with my own eyes, and there is NO way, that building 7 collapsed on its own. So I agree with you on this one. __________________________________________________
shiningcross ::: Favorites  2007-11-11 13:58:16 Not only that but there are university physicist professors who analyzed it and went on record agreeing with the truthers. __________________________________________________
ThomasLocke1789 ::: Favorites  2007-11-12 06:17:08 Here's the fires you claim not to have seen: VL7bs7K2et4 jtYrArNibHo __________________________________________________
JustThisGuyYaKnow ::: Favorites  2007-11-12 11:33:18 I'm Mr. Open-Minded here, but I have to agree that the damage pictures I've seen and the fire pictures I've seen don't look like it was enough for a total collapse in CD style. Now it could be that the bdg fell that way because of odd construction. Then again there is at least one witness who says he heard the countdown before an implosion. Who knows? __________________________________________________
Lungyao1 ::: Favorites  2007-11-12 13:44:49 of your links 1 has been removed. The other I've seem already, and I'm not convinced. People have used fire on metal for decades and I've never seem steel or metal lose its shape. Not to metion that the Fireproofing asbestos would still remain in place...... __________________________________________________
Balldez ::: Favorites  2007-11-12 15:56:26 911 was an inside job. Here is why. Jet fuel is kerosene and it cannot bet hot enough to weaken steel. If it could get hot enough to heat steel to the breaking point somebody would prove that. The melting point of steel is 2500F Under perfect conditions jet fuel can reach 600F It was probably 400F at WTC. That is not hot enough to weaken steel. __________________________________________________
ThomasLocke1789 ::: Favorites  2007-11-12 19:20:40 A) The second video shows the raging infernos quite clearly. B) The fireproofing would have been knocked off by the planes. C) Steel loses 50% of it structural integrity at 650'C well within the parameters in all the WTC's due not only to the jet fuel but normal offices things that have a high burning temp. like plastic. __________________________________________________
ThomasLocke1789 ::: Favorites  2007-11-12 19:27:21 A) The steel didn't melt. B) Steel loses 50% of its structural integrity at 650'C and there were temps. in the WTC's at a reported 1000'C. C) The jetfuel all though hot enough to totally reduce the structural integrity of the steel on its own caused secondary fires and these fires burned hot because normal office supplies have hot burning temps. __________________________________________________
Balldez ::: Favorites  2007-11-12 22:14:58 Even if it loses 50% of its strength the fuel in that building did not have time nor did it have enough heat in BTU to weaken the steel. Even if it lost 50% of its strength, which it didn't, it would still not be weak enough. A fire cannot topple a building especially building 7. There was not enough heat. No fuel souce in that building could reach over 600F. __________________________________________________
ThomasLocke1789 ::: Favorites  2007-11-15 23:40:33 The fuel was only the accelerant, it lit secondary long lasting and high temperature fires. Furthermore; it would be weak enough, and the temps in the WTC's reached 1800'F it has been proven so your assertion regarding 600'F is a crock and not based on anything except your own imagination, and 1880'F is enough for steel to lose 90% of its structural integirty. __________________________________________________
ThomasLocke1789 ::: Favorites  2007-11-15 23:41:01 EDIT: I meant 50% of it structural integrity at 650'F not C. __________________________________________________
Balldez ::: Favorites  2007-11-15 23:52:35 600 degrees is as hot as jet fuel gets and that is based on chemistry. If it got hotter it would destroy jet engines. Use your common sense. The other thing is the O2 level was low and if you recall most of the fuel was smoldering. Bush did it! __________________________________________________
Balldez ::: Favorites  2007-11-15 23:57:28 even if the steel which was insulated in concrete got to 600F it still would not have been weak enough to fail. Add to that only 10 floors were involved the lower steel was not heated. It could not have gotten hot enough there was not enough O2. It may have gotten to 400. They cook pizzas at 600F and they take 15 minutes. It was too fast and there was not enough heat. __________________________________________________
ThomasLocke1789 ::: Favorites  2007-11-16 11:35:13 You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about jet fuel burns at 1500'F secondly the jet fuel set secondary fires reaching 1800'F, this has been proven by the NIST; furthermore, I take it you base your assertions on the color of the smoke that has also been debunked the color of the smoke has nothing to do with it, and there was plenty of O2 due to those big fucking holes caused by the planes. __________________________________________________
ThomasLocke1789 ::: Favorites  2007-11-16 11:37:09 The outer structural supports were not insulated. Furthermore; jet fuel burns at 1500'F not 600'F you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, and the NIST reported fire temps as high as 1800'F more than enough to cause the collapse initiation, and your claims about O2 and other things are based on nothing except your own imagination. __________________________________________________