You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

24
-10

[–] NotAnOctopus 24 points -10 points (+14|-24) ago 

Where in his reply did did he say anything about jet fuel? Sorry but his answer is spot on.

Now try again.

3
20

[–] trancedj 3 points 20 points (+23|-3) ago 

Can you read? He's clearly talking about WTC buildings 1 & 2. He also mentions jet fuel in the second paragraph. OP is discussing WTC 7.

Now try again.

10
-4

[–] NotAnOctopus 10 points -4 points (+6|-10) ago 

I can read, which is why I understand his response, and why it is correct. You guys don't seem to understand that there is a reason the style of the support structures used in all three buildings was unusual. It was very susceptible to this type of failure and you only need to reach about half of the melting point of a material before it starts to soften. Mind you that is in Kelvin, so even at room temperature you are pretty far along that graph, just about any fire can get steel or iron red hot. The seemingly neat inward collapse was a result of the same unusual construction. The supports were at the outside and were drawn inward as the center of each floor collapsed.

2
3

[–] elitch2 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Again, because of the buildings' design, when one floor collapsed, the weight of the building was transferred to the other floors, which were also being weakened by the burning jet fuel.

Right fucking there. Can you read, faggot?

2
0

[–] NotAnOctopus 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Well I don't really need to argue with you because enough other people have already pointed out on here how stupid 9/11 truthers are. The fact that you are getting mad only strengthens this because you know you don't have an argument.