I have an iron fireplace stove, and you don't want to touch it when it is burning ...
Again, with the apples and oranges.
A small fireplace stove is a VERY small, confined space.
The Twin Towers were massive 100+ story buildings with megatons worth of steel, and a relatively small fire in an isolated loction.
The tower in Venezuela burned for 15 hours, destroyed 20 floors, but the building did not come down.
BECAUSE it is not a small stove.
And besides that, if fire can get THAT hot ... then why doesn't your stove melt?
You don't seem to appreciate the "stove" effect of a closed burning environment
And you don't seem to appreciate that this was NOT such a situation.
No closed environment. There was a big, gaping hole in the side, letting heat escape. Do that with your stove and see what happens (if you don't burn your house down -- lol).
There would have been a MASSIVE amount of heat from any jet fuel burning that was IMMEDIATELY released from the environment due to that huge hole in the side of the building.
Not anything close to a "things burning in an enclosed stove" scenario at all.
Structural steel loses strength with high temperature. It makes the building progressively weaker.
Any loss in strength is minimal, relatively speaking, as the structure is designed to send the heat away, along with the big, gaping hole on the side.
Venezuela. 15 HOURS ON FIRE.
Building did NOT come down.
So, your theory is not valid.
I don't think you have any idea of the heat released by and the burning temperature of combusting aluminum.
The jets were made of aluminum.
The steel skyscrapers were not.
There was an explosion from the aircraft impact, and there would have been a huge release of heat energy OUT the building (remember the fireball?) ... in an instant.
The remaining fuel would have burned, but not to the point of melting the steel structure.
No evidence of "thermite".
There was plenty of evidence of thermite. Steel beams were cut in clean 45-degree angles, as they were falling from the sky. Molten metal still flowed WEEKS afterwards. That does not happen in your standard "fire."
This is the fact that everyone omits, because they are not used to the idea of burning aluminum
My dad owned a foundry, which included making aluminum castings.
Aluminum is molten at about 1,000 degrees F.
Those fires were never at that level of temperature. And even if they were, again the steel would transfer the heat.
Even if you had a few areas of flooring break down, the core columns would have stood -- but they didn't because they were brought down with explosives/incendiaries.
Iron melts at about 2,000 degrees F, which is the basic ore used in making steel.
Plus, steel beams in buildings are usually coated with fireproof material, though I dont' know the specifics of those buildings.
Who says the hijackers could not fly the planes?
The guys who gave them flying lessons said that. One of them said, "Those guys could not fly ... AT ALL."
There is ZERO chance they could have made those maneuvers.
Shortly after 9/11, there were several pilots with 20 years and 30 years experience flying those types of aircraft. In some cases, some of these pilots had flown those EXACT aircraft -- as in those very same planes that were used in the event. Some of them were Air Force or Navy fighter pilots before flying the airlines.
They attempted to duplicate those maneuvers in a flight simulator.
NOT ONE pilot could do it.
NOT ONE.
The fact is that they did fly the planes.
No, that is not an established fact.
Those planes were more likely flown by remote computer program.
As I said, one of the members of Project for a New American Century owned such a system.
No special "maneuver" is required to point it at a building at a far distance and just ride it in to the collision.
That might be true for the North Tower plane, but not the South Tower plane, which came in at an extreme bank and angle to hit it at the last moment.
Plus, IF a plane hit the Pentagon (rather than a missile and/or bomb inside the building) ... then THAT maneuver would have been unthinkable for even a trained figher pilot, as the ground effects would have made it extremely difficult to keep a JUMBO JET just a few feet off the ground ... not to mention the extreme banking turn just before impact.
Guys who can't control a Cessna ... CANNOT do that.
As I said, even experienced pilots trying to duplicate it could not do it.
Radar tracking establishes ...
Radar tracking establishes that the PLANES did what they did, but says nothing about IF there were any pilots doing it.
Airplanes in level flight are designed to be self-stabiiizing and not need intensive pilot input
Thta is what you are missing. Only the plane hitting the North Tower would meet that description. The others did not.
Drone planes only add another elaborate conspiracy to explain away, for which there is no evidence.
Evidence cannot be generated when there is no investigation.
And there wasn't any investigation.
The debris from the fallen structures was quickly shipped off to China, never to be seen again.
This is where the conspiracy theories turn into flights of fancy
"Muh conspiracy theory !!!"
Police detectives engage in conspiracy theories every day when they are trying to solve a crime, if they think more than one person was involved.
Conspiracy = 2 or more people who agree to do something illegal or immoral
Theory = a working hypothesis to try to explain something
"Conspiracy theory" does NOT mean "fake."
It means that if the "official narrative" does not adequately explain what happened, based on known facts, then it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations
his is where the conspiracy theories turn into flights of fancy, not an actual theory ...
Average Joe does not have law enforcement authority to investigate and demand answers.
Ergo, speculation replaces narrative when those who do have that authority lie about what the so-called "evidence" shows.
Investigating people who engage in conspiracy is a valid pursuit. Just look at all the fraud being uncovered -- and that was pretty much all done via ... CONSPIRACY.
So, don't dismiss something that is a valid concern. You come across as dismissive due to ignoring some of the evidence when you do that.
If you have a closed mind on the subject and don't want to accept the factual information I have provided about combustion chemistry and physics,
You haven't proven a damn thing.
All you did was make CLAIMS ... like "muh Covid" and other "science" that is obviously false.
I have no need to continue this conversation. Adios.
Of course ... the true sign of one who is close-minded.
Look, I have no time for protracted dueling manifestos. If you can't fix on a key point or two, give up. You don't even think your objections through. The reason my stove does not get hot enough to melt is not only that the fire is wood not kerosene (lower flame temperature), but, like my kerosene-fueled furnace, does not melt also because the fire is not being burned at adiabatic conditions. Lots of air being used as diluent. So, you are not interested in learning, just in throwing up ignorant objections.
I've made molten aluminum in junior high metal shop, and the amount of evaporation at that temperature is trivial. Raise it up higher and it becomes rocket fuel. Or are you going to argue that solid rocket motors do not use aluminum as fuel? (Propellant chemistry and combustion are my Thing.)
The trouble is, pal, I do know what I am talking about. You think you know what you are talking about. There is a difference. I haven't looked at the "official narrative" at all, simply in order to confute that stupid accusation. In fact, I have some doubts about it in the details.
As for conversation, I am too inclined, and am more charitable toward the other party than I should be. Good that we agree. I don't expect to hear from you.
Again, with the apples and oranges.
A small fireplace stove is a VERY small, confined space.
The Twin Towers were massive 100+ story buildings with megatons worth of steel, and a relatively small fire in an isolated loction.
The tower in Venezuela burned for 15 hours, destroyed 20 floors, but the building did not come down.
BECAUSE it is not a small stove.
And besides that, if fire can get THAT hot ... then why doesn't your stove melt?
And you don't seem to appreciate that this was NOT such a situation.
No closed environment. There was a big, gaping hole in the side, letting heat escape. Do that with your stove and see what happens (if you don't burn your house down -- lol).
There would have been a MASSIVE amount of heat from any jet fuel burning that was IMMEDIATELY released from the environment due to that huge hole in the side of the building.
Not anything close to a "things burning in an enclosed stove" scenario at all.
Any loss in strength is minimal, relatively speaking, as the structure is designed to send the heat away, along with the big, gaping hole on the side.
Venezuela. 15 HOURS ON FIRE.
Building did NOT come down.
So, your theory is not valid.
The jets were made of aluminum.
The steel skyscrapers were not.
There was an explosion from the aircraft impact, and there would have been a huge release of heat energy OUT the building (remember the fireball?) ... in an instant.
The remaining fuel would have burned, but not to the point of melting the steel structure.
There was plenty of evidence of thermite. Steel beams were cut in clean 45-degree angles, as they were falling from the sky. Molten metal still flowed WEEKS afterwards. That does not happen in your standard "fire."
My dad owned a foundry, which included making aluminum castings.
Aluminum is molten at about 1,000 degrees F.
Those fires were never at that level of temperature. And even if they were, again the steel would transfer the heat.
Even if you had a few areas of flooring break down, the core columns would have stood -- but they didn't because they were brought down with explosives/incendiaries.
Iron melts at about 2,000 degrees F, which is the basic ore used in making steel.
Plus, steel beams in buildings are usually coated with fireproof material, though I dont' know the specifics of those buildings.
The guys who gave them flying lessons said that. One of them said, "Those guys could not fly ... AT ALL."
There is ZERO chance they could have made those maneuvers.
Shortly after 9/11, there were several pilots with 20 years and 30 years experience flying those types of aircraft. In some cases, some of these pilots had flown those EXACT aircraft -- as in those very same planes that were used in the event. Some of them were Air Force or Navy fighter pilots before flying the airlines.
They attempted to duplicate those maneuvers in a flight simulator.
NOT ONE pilot could do it.
NOT ONE.
No, that is not an established fact.
Those planes were more likely flown by remote computer program.
As I said, one of the members of Project for a New American Century owned such a system.
That might be true for the North Tower plane, but not the South Tower plane, which came in at an extreme bank and angle to hit it at the last moment.
Plus, IF a plane hit the Pentagon (rather than a missile and/or bomb inside the building) ... then THAT maneuver would have been unthinkable for even a trained figher pilot, as the ground effects would have made it extremely difficult to keep a JUMBO JET just a few feet off the ground ... not to mention the extreme banking turn just before impact.
Guys who can't control a Cessna ... CANNOT do that.
As I said, even experienced pilots trying to duplicate it could not do it.
Radar tracking establishes that the PLANES did what they did, but says nothing about IF there were any pilots doing it.
Thta is what you are missing. Only the plane hitting the North Tower would meet that description. The others did not.
Evidence cannot be generated when there is no investigation.
And there wasn't any investigation.
The debris from the fallen structures was quickly shipped off to China, never to be seen again.
"Muh conspiracy theory !!!"
Police detectives engage in conspiracy theories every day when they are trying to solve a crime, if they think more than one person was involved.
Conspiracy = 2 or more people who agree to do something illegal or immoral
Theory = a working hypothesis to try to explain something
"Conspiracy theory" does NOT mean "fake."
It means that if the "official narrative" does not adequately explain what happened, based on known facts, then it is reasonable to consider alternative explanations
Average Joe does not have law enforcement authority to investigate and demand answers.
Ergo, speculation replaces narrative when those who do have that authority lie about what the so-called "evidence" shows.
Investigating people who engage in conspiracy is a valid pursuit. Just look at all the fraud being uncovered -- and that was pretty much all done via ... CONSPIRACY.
So, don't dismiss something that is a valid concern. You come across as dismissive due to ignoring some of the evidence when you do that.
You haven't proven a damn thing.
All you did was make CLAIMS ... like "muh Covid" and other "science" that is obviously false.
Of course ... the true sign of one who is close-minded.
That's what the Dumocrats do.
And we say ... buh-bye!
Look, I have no time for protracted dueling manifestos. If you can't fix on a key point or two, give up. You don't even think your objections through. The reason my stove does not get hot enough to melt is not only that the fire is wood not kerosene (lower flame temperature), but, like my kerosene-fueled furnace, does not melt also because the fire is not being burned at adiabatic conditions. Lots of air being used as diluent. So, you are not interested in learning, just in throwing up ignorant objections.
I've made molten aluminum in junior high metal shop, and the amount of evaporation at that temperature is trivial. Raise it up higher and it becomes rocket fuel. Or are you going to argue that solid rocket motors do not use aluminum as fuel? (Propellant chemistry and combustion are my Thing.)
You said in your previous comment that you don't want to continue this conversation. So, why are you continuing it?
My perspective: You might THINK you know what you are talking about, but you DON'T really know what the fuck you are talking about.
You clearly have not looked at a large spectrum of evidence and considered anything but "muh official narrative."
So, we are done with this.
The trouble is, pal, I do know what I am talking about. You think you know what you are talking about. There is a difference. I haven't looked at the "official narrative" at all, simply in order to confute that stupid accusation. In fact, I have some doubts about it in the details.
As for conversation, I am too inclined, and am more charitable toward the other party than I should be. Good that we agree. I don't expect to hear from you.