Because I am talking with the other moderators about that topic now.
Well, i think it would be good of you guys to un suspend him, because it was a completely unjust ban. Sounds like he didn’t even get a warning.
1 Like
Okay, I have unsuspendet him. We will come up with decent rules in the next couple of days.
Good to hear.
Well, please don’t go over board. The freedoms of the troll cave have never harmed this forum, so don’t take them away.
1 Like
I see, I need to get something more fitting to the cave here…
Not really an insult just stating the facts . You like men . Nothing to be ashamed of man .
1 Like
No , you’re just need to leave this thread alone to butcher each other .
Good luck with your rules . Make sure you get them in writing …that way I can burn them 
1 Like
Are you a squatter or something?
Fucking racist, if you don’t throw me a parade and bake me a cake, i’m suing you, and ruining your life. In fact, I’m suing @DrFusselpulli, he discriminated against me.
1 Like
Pretty odd it didn’t collapse the building, seeing how it was built to withstand Flak, while a 7-57 is built out of light weight metal. The building also burned for 40 minutes, which is almost as long as the world trade centers. The fuel also spilled down the elevator shaft, the very thing which allegedly caused the world trade centers to collapse.
for starters the fuel used in the two planes is very different and also you would not get the same explosion on impact that would of structurally damaged the tower in 9/11 case .
as for jet fuel not melting steel . correct but it weakens it to the point it bends , once the structure bends/weakens the weight of the tower would take it down . it was not the steel that snapped it was the concrete that broke away from the steel due to the pressure from the steel bowing , once the supports are gone the building is going down
Ive seen that, and it’s an absurd comparison. He takes a 1 inch thick piece of steel and bends it after its been a pre heated furnace. The steel columns in the towers were extremely thick, not to mention were sprayed with fire proofing material, which was rated to survive a much higher temperature than 1500 degrees ( jet fuel temp). I also challenge you to take some gasoline, pour it in a bucket and see how long it takes for it all too burn up.
The fires only burned for about an hour, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the fuel exploded on impact. By the time the towers actually collapsed, the fires were almost out according to the New York fire fighters.
And where is the explanation for the molten steel that was at ground zero for literally weeks after?
I highly recommend you watch this video, he actually uses columns similar to the ones found in the world trade centers.
the thickness is irrelevant it follows the same principle . also the rod he used is a structural rod that is placed inside the concrete during construction .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:10369, topic:21032”]
which was rated to survive a much higher temperature than 1500 degrees ( jet fuel temp).
[/quote] melting temp yes but at that temperature steel begins to bend as he shows with the heat and the weight of the building the steel girders bent and the concrete begun to break causing the building to fall
1 Like
i highly recommend you watch this one . no expert has ever argued the steel melted completely
Not it is not irrelevant. A thicker piece of steel is going to hold structural integrity far longer than a thiner one. You can test this in your own back yard.
They would have to be under that heat for a decent amount of time for them to bend in half. Fuel exposed to a flame burns up in a matter of seconds, and nothing in those buildings have hot enough burning temperatures to weaken steal.
yes correct but when the heat is spread across the steel completely as it was with the rod and as it would be in the case of 9/11 the principle is the same , also alot more pressure than human strength was placed in them beams . its irrelevant in terms of explaining the argument .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:10373, topic:21032”]
They would have to be under that heat for a decent amount of time for them to bend in half. Fuel exposed to a flame burns up in a matter of seconds, and nothing in those buildings have hot enough burning temperatures to weaken steal.
[/quote] clearly the video i posted shows you’re wrong (second one )
Ive seen it, and i never said the experts claimed the steel melted. I said they’ve never addressed it, in fact a man from popular mechanics who was at ground zero tried to deny molten steel. Even though there is tons of eye witness accounts from fire fighters, workers, along with photographic evidence.
Not to mention that is a very biased test. With the thermite they just pile it up around the steel. The video i linked, show’s the man making a thermite charge that is able to cut the steel column with precision, if a guy with a limited budget in his back yard can make a thermite charge, why couldn’t National Geographic?
It’s called they don’t want to give the thermite argument any credibility.