Building collapse in Delft, Holland

For those who wish to criticise the 9/11 truth movement & key peace campaigners

Moderator: Moderators

Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

For a change, can you answer some questions (as above)? Then I will happily reply to your latest rant.

Could you also state whether or not you have read the NIST report(s)?

Who mentioned Steven Jones?

How can it be ok for you lot to quote/link Conspiracy sites but not OK for me to link Debunking sites?


I will await all your answers.

Cheers
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:For a change, can you answer some questions (as above)? Then I will happily reply to your latest rant.

Could you also state whether or not you have read the NIST report(s)?

Who mentioned Steven Jones?

How can it be ok for you lot to quote/link Conspiracy sites but not OK for me to link Debunking sites?


I will await all your answers.

Cheers
Wibble, are you not prepared to back up the quotes you post? What is the point in you posting them and me responding if you then avoid following them up?

As I have said previously, I don't want to waste my time here and I really have got better things to do than read quotes from the NIST FAQ (a line of which has been my signature on another forum due to the exceptionally weasel words) and the so called physics of that Debunking site, which I remember reading way back in time and laughing then.

So, Wibble, which explanation do you like for the high basement temperatures? Do you accept that the NIST report, that you love so much, does not explain the phenomenon at all? Yes or no please.
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

For goodness sake KP50, this like talking to a petulant teenager. Of course I believe the NIST they are experts in their field. And besides, common sense dictates that there are going to fire and high temperatures for a long period of time after such as huge incident. It is not exactly rocket science!!!

Do you have examples where there have not been high temperatures underground after similar events?

I dont need to back up the quotes, my sources are clear they are the official sources!!!! What is not clear is your sources and evidence? You just saying "i dont believe NIST etc" counts for nothing. Where are your sources?

And besides, what I and NIST etc think is completely irrelevant if you and the truth movement have some sort of document detailing how the high temperatures can only be accounted for by thermite. So where is this document?

(I am of course helping you out be completely ignoring the fact that you would also have to prove how vast quantities of thermite could have been secretly purchased and the precisely placed, and wired for ignition in the WTC without anyone noticing.)

And why should these posts be wasting your time if all you have to do is show the Truth movements version of events rather than asking lots of repeat questions? Surely you can just cut and paste this paper from one of the many truth movements experts? Where is this document?
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:For goodness sake KP50, this like talking to a petulant teenager.
You mean I'm not agreeing with you? It is called debate, Wibble.
Wibble wrote:Of course I believe the NIST they are experts in their field.
Yet again I have to say - do you actually read the words I write? I asked you whether you accept that NIST did not provide any explanation of the high underground temperatures. That means - and please read this carefully - there is nothing from NIST on this issue to believe or disbelieve.
Wibble wrote:And besides, common sense dictates that there are going to fire and high temperatures for a long period of time after such as huge incident. It is not exactly rocket science!!!
Right - so disperse office fires high up in a tower which are then spread over a wide area will automatically cause massive underground temperatures down to the lowest basement levels of the tower? Is that what you are saying is common sense?
Wibble wrote:Do you have examples where there have not been high temperatures underground after similar events?
Please point out a "similar event" then we can check.
Wibble wrote:I dont need to back up the quotes, my sources are clear they are the official sources!!!! What is not clear is your sources and evidence? You just saying "i dont believe NIST etc" counts for nothing. Where are your sources?
See above regarding your lack of comprehension skills - I'll repeat it on the off chance that you understand it this time. Please show me the detailed explanation that NIST provides as to why the temperatures underground were so high.
Wibble wrote:And besides, what I and NIST etc think is completely irrelevant if you and the truth movement have some sort of document detailing how the high temperatures can only be accounted for by thermite. So where is this document?
It is a binary argument Wibble, if the scenario that you and NIST have - office fires and a gravitational collapse - cannot possibly cause these high temperatures then something else must have happened. Now I could say it was due to Martians firing laser beams and bouncing them off the moon but that still doesn't make your scenario any more possible does it? It is common sense to suggest that there was a mechanism for causing such high temperatures in the lower levels of the basement.
Wibble wrote:And why should these posts be wasting your time if all you have to do is show the Truth movements version of events rather than asking lots of repeat questions? Surely you can just cut and paste this paper from one of the many truth movements experts? Where is this document?
I ask repeat questions because you never answer them. You are yet to post a coherent explanation for this phenomenon - I'll ask you again, which of the many "scientific" explanations on the debunking page do you want to run with, then we can debate it.
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

KP50 you are still failing to provide any other explanation for these temperatures. Why do you keep avoiding the question?
Right - so disperse office fires high up in a tower which are then spread over a wide area will automatically cause massive underground temperatures down to the lowest basement levels of the tower? Is that what you are saying is common sense?
Office fires? How the hell are these just office fires? 2 airliners with a large quantity of fuel on board hit them. They were not just "office fires".

Spread over a large area? Please explain that one for me?

Maybe I am wrong here, but didn't the twin towers collapse? And didnt all the burning debris end up in the basement area? Did you expect all the fires to go out when the towers collapsed? You really are clutching at straws here but that's nothing new.
I asked you whether you accept that NIST did not provide any explanation of the high underground temperatures.
They dont need to provide an explanation of something that is common sense to99% of the world population.
It is common sense to suggest that there was a mechanism for causing such high temperatures in the lower levels of the basement.
I see you agree. Mechanism = 2 airlines hitting said towers

Just because you dont believe something does not make it any less true.
Please point out a "similar event" then we can check.
See below
if the scenario that you and NIST have - office fires and a gravitational collapse - cannot possibly cause these high temperatures then something else must have happened.
If you are saying this then what are you comparing it with? Where is your proof that this is not a valid explanation?? Where?

You still have not stated whether you have read the NIST report yet?

Still waiting for your document explaining how these temperatures were caused by thermite?

Can you even disprove this quote from NIST
Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Please just quote the quantity of thermite needed to bring down the WTC? Can you even manage that?

Any chance of you answering a question in any detail some time? Simply stating I don't believe NIST/you/Bush etc is not a valid answer.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:KP50 you are still failing to provide any other explanation for these temperatures. Why do you keep avoiding the question?
You haven't provided an explanation though have you Wibble? Despite your insistence that it is common sense, you haven't put through any theory that can possibly account for it. Quick summary - fire way up high in a tower block, reports of molten metal deep in the WTC basement.
Wibble wrote:Office fires? How the hell are these just office fires? 2 airliners with a large quantity of fuel on board hit them. They were not just "office fires".
They were fires in an office, hence office fires. The whole floors were definitely not ablaze and the fuel used to start the fire was long since burnt off.
Wibble wrote:Spread over a large area? Please explain that one for me?
The debris from the towers was spread over a large area hence the fires were. Observation of the collapses shows that the debris didn't all come straight down, the survival of firemen in the North Tower proves that the mass of the building did not come straight down onto them. You need more information than this?
Wibble wrote:Maybe I am wrong here, but didn't the twin towers collapse?
Chalk one up for Wibble, well done.
Wibble wrote: And didnt all the burning debris end up in the basement area?

All? Of course it didn't, what a ridiculous statement.

And IF all of the debris did come straight down, none of the fires could have reached the basement levels given there were at least 80 floors of non-burning tower to jam in first - or did you forget that?
Wibble wrote:Did you expect all the fires to go out when the towers collapsed?
I expect any fires to be close to the surface and to be of a moderate temperature.
Wibble wrote:You really are clutching at straws here but that's nothing new.

I'm trying to look at the observed evidence, you appear to want to broad brush it.
Wibble wrote:They dont need to provide an explanation of something that is common sense to99% of the world population.

OK so now you change your tune to stressing the NIST report as the ultimate authority to admitting they haven't provided an explanation. Took a while, but that's progress I suppose.
Wibble wrote:I see you agree. Mechanism = 2 airlines hitting said towers

Just because you dont believe something does not make it any less true.
You're still quite happy with fires 80 stories up causing huge temperatures deep underground? You might want to pause and think about that one for a while.
Wibble wrote:If you are saying this then what are you comparing it with? Where is your proof that this is not a valid explanation?? Where?

You still have not stated whether you have read the NIST report yet?

Still waiting for your document explaining how these temperatures were caused by thermite?

Can you even disprove this quote from NIST
Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Please just quote the quantity of thermite needed to bring down the WTC? Can you even manage that?

Any chance of you answering a question in any detail some time? Simply stating I don't believe NIST/you/Bush etc is not a valid answer.
Do I need to use the same level of detail as you Wibble with your "it's common sense" approach. I've repeatedly asked you for an explanation and all I get is "it's common sense". That isn't an explanation is it? This is just one very small part of 9/11 and you are floundering already.

You seem to be the one obsessing with thermite here. Certainly thermite would do the job of raising the temperature of the steel very high so as far as the underground temperatures go, thermite is already ahead of your explanation.

And don't you find it sort of strange that NIST comes up with a massive quantity of thermite to weaken the steel in the building yet they seem happy that a moderate fire, that we can all see was no raging inferno, manages to weaken the steel enough to bring the whole tower down?
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

KP50,

There is just no arguing with you is there. The fires in the WTC were not just "office fires" and your failure to except that means any further debate is pointless. Of course, as usual, you offer no proof of why they were just "office fires" other than it suites your blinkered point of view.

Your failure to offer any other explanation whatsoever also leaves little further to debate. Why after 8 years does the Truth Movement have no viable theory on this apparent smoking gun?

Your failure to answer any questions I have set, even simple ones like "have you read the NIST report" suggests you really do not know what you are talking about. Just what are trying to hide?
Certainly thermite would do the job of raising the temperature of the steel very high so as far as the underground temperatures go, thermite is already ahead of your explanation.

How? Just how would it have been done? Why would they put thermite in the basement when the towers collapsed from the top down?

Why are you not offering any calculations of the amount of thermite needed to bring down the towers?

You really do not have any viable explanation at all do you. Just because you do not believe the official story does not make it any less true. The fact is you have not even read the official reports and yet have still dismissed them. Your theories are based purely on some sort of prejudice/hatred/fear to the government or some secret society and have zero basis in fact.

In fact why do you even post on any part of this forum at all? You know it was a conspiracy, you dont need more proof and short of a time machine there is nothing that will change your mind.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:KP50,

There is just no arguing with you is there.
We do seem to have reached an impasse - given you still haven't provided an explanation of those high temperatures, how many posts is that now? I think you are incomfortable because I am pressing you to actually think instead of copying and pasting.
Wibble wrote:The fires in the WTC were not just "office fires" and your failure to except that means any further debate is pointless.
It is just terminology, don't get hung up on it.
Wibble wrote:Of course, as usual, you offer no proof of why they were just "office fires" other than it suites your blinkered point of view.
You mean suits I presume, rather than couches. What sort of proof are you after, we've all seen hundreds of videos, photos, they all indicate that at the time of collapse, the fires were short on flame and high on smoke - do you want to suggest otherwise?
Wibble wrote:Your failure to offer any other explanation whatsoever also leaves little further to debate. Why after 8 years does the Truth Movement have no viable theory on this apparent smoking gun?
And your failure to offer any explanation other than "common sense" shows what then Wibble? Avoidance of the key facts I would suggest - how come you never address the actual temperatures and offer even some theory on those fires 80 stories high causing molten metal in the basements. Go on, give it a shot.
Wibble wrote:Your failure to answer any questions I have set, even simple ones like "have you read the NIST report" suggests you really do not know what you are talking about. Just what are trying to hide?
Whereas I know you don't know what you are talking about.
Wibble wrote:How? Just how would it have been done? Why would they put thermite in the basement when the towers collapsed from the top down? ?
You can't resist? If you can't account for observed evidence you ask a string of meaningless "why" questions as if somehow that changes the actual evidence on display.
Wibble wrote:Why are you not offering any calculations of the amount of thermite needed to bring down the towers?
Why are you not offering any calculations of how those massive temperatures transferred into the basement?
Wibble wrote:You really do not have any viable explanation at all do you.
I am still waiting for yours Wibble.
Wibble wrote:Just because you do not believe the official story does not make it any less true.
That sentence is actually drivel isn't it - the evidence marks the official story as impossible and therefore not true - in many, many areas.
Wibble wrote:The fact is you have not even read the official reports and yet have still dismissed them.
You mean like the NIST explanation of the high temperatures in the basement? Now where is that again?
Wibble wrote:Your theories are based purely on some sort of prejudice/hatred/fear to the government or some secret society and have zero basis in fact.
Now you're getting desperate, if I didn't know better I would think you are trying to goad me there.
Wibble wrote:In fact why do you even post on any part of this forum at all?
It passes a quiet day.
Wibble wrote:You know it was a conspiracy, you dont need more proof and short of a time machine there is nothing that will change your mind.
All the evidence would suggest that it is indeed a conspiracy.

Right now your turn, please please provide an explanation for those high temperatures or else we can stop this right here. How many chances do you need? It is almost as if you are scared of the topic, as if you realise that fires 80 floors up cannot possibly produce molten metal deep into the basements.
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

KP50 you still fail to answer a single question, what a surprise!!!

The temperature in the basement area are as a direct result of the huge fires in the twin towers (you know the ones that caused the collapse?) continuing after the towers collapsed. Its not rocket science to anyone but you!!!
It is just terminology, don't get hung up on it.
Office Fires is not terminology, it is a deliberate attempt by you to downplay the severity of the fires in the twin towers.
offer even some theory on those fires 80 stories high causing molten metal in the basements
Are you suggesting that all fire would have been extinguished by the collapse? I really dont know what you are getting at here.
Why are you not offering any calculations of how those massive temperatures transferred into the basement?
Ever heard of gravity?
the evidence marks the official story as impossible and therefore not true - in many, many areas.
Do you want to back this up? Considering you have not even read the official reports?
the evidence marks the official story as impossible and therefore not true - in many, many areas.
Would you like to offer some evidence rather than stupid questions?
It is almost as if you are scared of the topic
Why would I be scared of the topic? You are the one that has not answered a single question nor offered any other explanation for the high temperatures. You have not even read the official reports!!
What sort of proof are you after, we've all seen hundreds of videos, photos, they all indicate that at the time of collapse, the fires were short on flame and high on smoke
Just what are you trying to get at here? More clutching at straws.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:KP50 you still fail to answer a single question, what a surprise!!!

The temperature in the basement area are as a direct result of the huge fires in the twin towers (you know the ones that caused the collapse?) continuing after the towers collapsed. Its not rocket science to anyone but you!!!

....

Ever heard of gravity?
I am waiting for you too offer an explanation, all you say is

"It isn't rocket science"
"It's common sense"

That isn't proof of anything other than your avoidance of offering up any viable explanation. All you offer are distractions from your avoidance of my simple question, which I have patiently repeated over many posts.

So it is gravity is it. Did gravity force the towers to invert as they came down so the fiery bits went to the bottom and the non-fiery bits to the top? Is that what you mean by common sense? What mechanism was in place to transfer those fires from 80 stories up into the lower basements - and then increase in temperature massively?
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

KP50 you are clearly just taking the piss now. Please stop asking such stupid questions all the time!! Its like having a discussion with a 7 year old who's had too much caffeine!!

Can you actually answer some questions for a change?
eogz
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by eogz »

Behave the pair of you, its like waching a boxing match that never actually starts.

Sorry, but i'm interested in what you both have to say, whether or not I agree.
User avatar
Pugwash
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: Buckinghamshire
Contact:

Post by Pugwash »

The debate between you centres on heat pockets found within debris of the WTC long after its collapse, n'est-ce pas?.

The best explanation I have found is given by FEMA itself..
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

While I have have some knowledge of metallurgy, this analysis is out of my league.
The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
Make of it what you will. What is clear however these heat pockets are not a natural occurrence nor less do they come under the umbrella of common sense.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

eogz wrote:Behave the pair of you, its like waching a boxing match that never actually starts.

Sorry, but i'm interested in what you both have to say, whether or not I agree.
You may notice that Wibble keeps accusing me of being childish and asking stupid questions - note however that he never answers any of the questions and instead resorts to inanities (it's common sense). Having been on this forum a while, I know his tactics only too well and so I became determined that he would actually attempt to provide some explanation for the high temperatures instead of allowing him to rant about thermite all of the time. You may have noticed that he is yet to address the issue of providing an explanation. I wonder why that is.

If he believes it is all "common sense" then surely a simple explanation of the physics is not beyond him?
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:KP50 you are clearly just taking the piss now. Please stop asking such stupid questions all the time!! Its like having a discussion with a 7 year old who's had too much caffeine!!

Can you actually answer some questions for a change?
Stupid questions? You mean questions such as

"What mechanism was in place to transfer those fires from 80 stories up into the lower basements - and then increase in temperature massively?"

I might only be 7 Wibble, but it seems like you are attacking me to avoid giving me an explanation of this event.
eogz
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 2:07 pm

Post by eogz »

I get you KP50, it seems all rather pointless eh?

It seems an argument is only worth having if the other person is going to actually communicate rather than react.
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

KP50 wrote: Stupid questions? You mean questions such as

"What mechanism was in place to transfer those fires from 80 stories up into the lower basements
Yes, you have never heard of Gravity? Do you understand the basic rules of combustion etc? It really, really is not Rocket Science!!
KP50 wrote:- and then increase in temperature massively?"
Did the temperature increase massively? Please quote your before and after temperatures and your sources?

Ever wondered why some African Tribes cook their food underground rather than on open fires?

Anyway, let me get this straight.

KP50 has not read any of the official reports and expects me to do all research for him. And I am the bad guy?

KP50 fails to answer a single question I have asked. And Im the bad guy?

KP50 thinks these high temperatures are a bit suspicious and are not explained by the official reports (which he has not read) but fails to offer an other explanation!!!!!!! And I am the bad guy!!

KP50 fails to state sources for his information, ideas, "evidence" where as I have clearly stated I am using the official sources.

Oh and its bad to quote "Debunking Sites" for some unknown reason but the reality is all this has been explained before time and time again. The fact that people like KP50 dont believe all the explanation does not make them any less true. If he has evidence explaining these high temperature in a different way he can post details (as I have been asking him!!!) but he chooses to either hide this evidence away or does not have any (more likely).

I might only be 7
The only thing written by KP50 that I find credible so far!!
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Still no explanation then Wibble? Pretty poor given all the words you just wasted - and what is all that about "the bad guy"? Are you looking to be popular now?

The Maori here in NZ cook large amounts of food in a hangi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangi) where stones are heated in a fire and then placed with food underground. They do however place the stones directly with the food, not on top of the ground above the food as I believe they find the heat transfer is more successful.

Temperatures?
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline. ... 01hotspots
Only an estimate and from 5 days after the event. A few days later, the temperatures recorded had dropped considerably yet fires were still present many weeks later suggesting that the temperature deep underground was much higher in places.

Witnesses?
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline. ... oltenmetal

So weeks and months later there still appear to be fires burning as they cleared the area and worked deeper into the basements.

The highest temperature reached that NIST found when testing the core columns of the towers was 250C. All images seen just prior to collapse suggest there wasn't a raging inferno. Do you want to suggest otherwise?
Wibble wrote:but the reality is all this has been explained before time and time again.
Really? So why don't you just quote from those previous explanations?
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

You still have not bothered to read the Official Reports!!!!! For goodness sake I am not here to compensate for your laziness. Go and read the official reports!!

Additionally, I have already provided a link to some explanations!!!

And you still you have not answered my questions!!! And still you dont understand gravity and basic combustion!! And you have still not offered another explanation for this apparently suspiciously high temperatures. If you dont offer one in your next reply (with an explanation of why your theory fits the events better than the official story) I will take it that you dont have an explanation at all and thats game over.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

Wibble wrote:You still have not bothered to read the Official Reports!!!!! For goodness sake I am not here to compensate for your laziness. Go and read the official reports!!

Additionally, I have already provided a link to some explanations!!!

And you still you have not answered my questions!!! And still you dont understand gravity and basic combustion!! And you have still not offered another explanation for this apparently suspiciously high temperatures. If you dont offer one in your next reply (with an explanation of why your theory fits the events better than the official story) I will take it that you dont have an explanation at all and thats game over.
Repeating myself again - you provided some links to a NIST FAQ that had one line on this topic, if NIST has anything else to say on this matter, please refer me to it as I have never seen it - otherwise we can conclude and agree that the paragraph below is the ONLY mention of it in official reports.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
NIST seems to be saying that the molten steel could be caused by sitting for a long time in the rubble pile - do you think that is possible? How does the period of time make any difference? Does steel melt at lower temperatures if left for long enough? Given what we know about steel, is there any possible rubble pile that will ever be hot enough to melt it? How does the pile reach the 1300C necessary?

I think that explanation is complete bunkum Wibble. Add in that the fires were 80 stories high and it is impossible for the basements to reach the temperatures required.
KP50
Validated Poster
Validated Poster
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:37 am
Location: NZ

Post by KP50 »

On another thread Wibble wrote
Has KP50 disappeared again? There of several threads like this now where he just disappears when the going gets tough.
Where are you Wibble?
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 4:08 pm
Location: Wibble

Post by Wibble »

KP50 wrote:On another thread Wibble wrote
Has KP50 disappeared again? There of several threads like this now where he just disappears when the going gets tough.
Where are you Wibble?
Im still waiting for you do read the official reports and answer some questions for a change. Its a long, long wait.
Post Reply