hot enough

There is currently a two year study of WTC7 being conducted at University of Alaska, Fairbanks. It is scheduled for total completion in May 2017. The study is essentially finished and in preliminary reports, the lead professor/engineer said, when asked by a lawyer, and I paraphrase, Lawyer: On a scale of one to a hundred what are the chances the official NIST story of the collapse of WTC7 is true and accurate? Professor: Zero. Lawyer: If a graduate student of yours submitted such a report would you flunk him? Professor: Yes.

Not a one of the scientists, architects, engineers, ... and me, who find great fault with the US official conspiracy theory and the notions its anti-truther supporters believes or "claim the steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse ... . Rue: "There is also proof to indicate the temperature could not have become hot enough to melt steel". That's precisely the point. Temperatures can never, ever become hot enough to melt steel, or molybdenum, or to vaporize steel and vaporize lead or create molten iron. But these molten metals were all there at WTC; molten metals that never should or could have been at WTC. The alleged hijackers ONLY fuel, jet fuel, cannot reach temperatures close to the temperatures need to have melted these metals. The following link shows pictures of vaporized steel. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf The following link, below, describes the FEMA report in more detail. I. Physical Evidence I-A. The 2002 FEMA Report New York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” [13] Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said: “teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538°C] – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added: “A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.” [15] In discussing “the deepest mystery,” the New York Times story said: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [16] That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F). [17] In fact, Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F [648 or 704°C].” [18] http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

Then, quote your source and provide a link, so people can see that you know what you are talking about. There are numerous style manuals that can teach you how to do that.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

You didn't just pull the "40% longer than free fall out of the air or your ******. You advanced the falsehood, you defend your falsehood.

What I am saying is, It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. Proof one: The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

Why was there a massive debris cloud? Pancake collapses don't create massive debris clouds. The pyroclastic flows illustrate that the towers were blown up. A gravity collapse doesn't hurl 20 ton sections of steel far out from the footprint.

Go read my first post. Quote what you think are the pertinent parts.

Please provide your source.

Go to my first post and read what I wrote.

Wilber, you said you didn't want to talk about it. Why have you changed your mind? Got to my first post and read what I said. Then we can talk.

Not "steak" beams and columns, Rue, STEEL beams and columns. https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf It even has pictures for you.

Nanothermite was discovered and described by many independent scientists. It's mainstream science. Would you like the paper describing it so you can "discuss it"? NIST described free fall for WTC7. Would you like to see that too?

Direct me to the post where you have addressed the issues relating to the science. Remember, the likelihood of NIST's report on the collapse of WTC7 being true is zero. Address these scientific questions, Rue. Psychologists can't explain the science. 1. How did the alleged hijackers cause the eutectic steel found at all WTC sites? 2. How did the nanothermite get there? What is nanothermite? 3. How did the alleged hijackers get nanothermite to WTC7? How did they cause WTC7 to fall at free fall speed? 4. How did the alleged hijackers melt metals that required temperatures up to 5,000F?

Because the alleged terrorists COULD NOT have caused the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7, because the alleged hijackers could not have brought the nanothermite found at WTC, because the alleged hijackers could not have melted and vaporized WTC steel beams and columns, you have to look at the real perpetrators who murdered all these people, then went on to illegally invade numerous countries and murder many hundreds of thousands more.

You fail to mention those same Kurds that the US let, actually arranged for Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons made with materiel supplied by the USA. After Bush the elder had told the Kurds and the ShiiteIraqis that the US would support them in a revolt against Saddam. http://www.alternet.org/story/49864/how_george_h.w._bush_helped_saddam_hussein_prevent_an_iraqi_uprising/

How did the nanothermite get there? How did WTC7 fall at free fall speed? Absolutely impossible! And all you can do is make silly jokes. If the US official conspiracy theory is so water tight, these questions, which no one has yet answered or even addressed over 8 full pages, should be a breeze for y'all to address.

This conversation is not headed where you are too frightened to go, but if you aren't willing to address issues that illustrate the lies, then you can't make claims that you are being fair. I'm very confident in the information I have to provide. Why is everyone so unwilling to discuss it? I am more than willing to look at anything anyone wants to provide in order to resolve the issues. And discuss it.

I have to ask if you can read or at least if you can comprehend what you read. The entire article is about the TAPI pipeline, the acronym T-A-P-I STANDS FOR, from your source, " Turkmenistan- Afghanistan-Pakistan-India, " "... is planned to become operational in 2018. India and Pakistan were originally to get 38 mmscmd each while the remaining 14 mmscmd was to be supplied to Afghanistan. Turkmenistan, which sits on the world's fourth-largest gas reserves, started building its section of the 1,814-kilometre last December, but the three other countries have yet to begin work on their parts of the pipeline. The pipeline will travel 773 km in Afghanistan and 827 km in Pakistan before ending at Fazilka (Punjab) in India.Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/tapi-project-pact-inked-for-36200-mn-investmentstudies_6193081.html?utm_source=ref_article

You mean a clue that the US was more than willing to do business with these people, was willing to wine and dine them in the US, was willing to take them on US tours, was willing to produce school books for them that were filled with propaganda for war?

Yet she keeps on pluggin' away.

1. How did the alleged hijackers cause the eutectic steel found at all WTC sites? 2. How did the nanothermite get there? What is nanothermite? 3. How did the alleged hijackers get nanothermite to WTC7? How did they cause WTC7 to fall at free fall speed? 4. How did the alleged hijackers melt metals that required temperatures up to 5,000F? If the US official conspiracy theory is so water tight, these questions, which no one has yet answered or even addressed over 8 full pages, should be a breeze for y'all to address.

No, you haven't. Or you are just too frightened to provide a link. You say I have done no work, that you don't "create things I have no academic expertise in" and you post a long, completely off topic article from some psychology magazine. Then you say again, with no proof offered at all, "I also have presented my own ideas in a separate post". No science from anyone, nothing to address the original argument. Example after example of rudeness, off topic, ... so many site

Direct me to the post where you have addressed the issues. Remember, the likelihood of NIST's report on the collapse of WTC7 being true is zero.

And the fire went out when it became more compact. Please discuss the variables.