re: 9/11 Was A Conspiracy!

quote:

---

I believe this has been brought up several times. The damage caused by the impact of the jets was substantial, but not the cause of the failure. The heat of combustion of Jet Fuel A combined with damage to heat shielding on the supports of the building eventually led to failure.

You are correct, it is basic physics. People who buy into conspiracies don't truly want to discuss the physics, they want to believe in the fantastic story of a shadowy government pulling the greatest covert operation in this history to pull off an attack on its own people.

This thread has gone in circles more times than a NASCAR race and should probably be anchored.

---

There's actually an extensive amount of 'basic physics' researched by real scientist with real Phd's that show the official story is impossible.

You've actually provided nothing specific to support the official story, and the quote you just praised said nothing and provided nothing.

quote:

---

It was one dude at Utah or some shite that was summarily ridiculed and fired because no one that retarded should be allowed to teach people.

---

Bubba Luckett laughs at you.

quote:

---

You shut up, Slope. Sleeping went to a school with "Engineering" in its fricking NAME, you hear me?

---

Slope actually hit the nail on the head, though, even if you are being tongue in cheek.

quote:

---

Sleeping went to a school with "Engineering" in its fricking NAME, you hear me?

---

And graduated Magma Cum Laude

Y'all crazy

quote:

---

Y'all crazy

---

A non-Magmatist will never understand.

quote:

---

There's actually an extensive amount of 'basic physics' researched by real scientist with real Phd's that show the official story is impossible.

---

I don't believe our definitions of "extensive" are the same.

quote:

---

You've actually provided nothing specific to support the official story, and the quote you just praised said nothing and provided nothing.

---

Dude, back up about twenty pages in this thread and I showed you definitive, empirical data regarding the heat of combustion of the fuel in the aircraft and how structural steel loses its integrity at temperatures much lower than what they'd have seen in such a combustion process. (unless I missed it, this was at no point ever addressed by anyone trying to prove that this was not the reason for failure)

And then you have to factor in that there were supports that were damaged or even outright destroyed by the collision, and heat shielding removed by the same collision. This puts the structures under greater load and creates the situation where they will grow weaker and more ductile as they are exposed to the heat.

Then, factor in the gradual failures of supports under the influence of the heat and that other supports would have to continue to bear more and more of the load until you reach the failure of the structure.

I would like to see one credible study that shows how that's impossible. Or at least have you discuss specific issues about any of that. Instead I get references to other people and other studies and a ridiculous level of vagueness that makes it impossible to even see where you are coming from.

I believe you are approaching this issue from a complete non-scientific background and coming at it from a position where you already KNOW the conclusion so you'll twist and contort any fact to fit an agenda and anything else that pops up can be disregarded without ever citing a study. Sorry pal, but that's not how you convince people with an access to knowledge.

If I've got a bad read on you, I do apologize, but please reference actual data/studies instead of being so obscure in the future, for the benefit of everyone in the discussion.

Ross threw the gauntlet down with authority and ST has yet to pick it up

quote:

---

Ross threw the gauntlet down with authority and ST has yet to pick it up

---

That's quite a magmanimous opportunity to prove himself!

He's tracking down leads and gathering sources like Magma P.I.