latest false flag attack?
juan.g71 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 17 14:56:08 PDT 2018
On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:20:19 +0100
Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:
> On 17/09/18 19:51, juan wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 03:24:39 +0100
> > Peter Fairbrother <peter at tsto.co.uk> wrote:
> >> But it didn't need any explosives, hand-positioned thermate, or the like
> >> - the burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC.
> > sure - because when the buildings were designed to withstand a plane crash, nobody was aware that planes have 'fuel' in them.
> The designers simply never considered the combination of impact and
because you say so. Because, again, they never figured out the fact that there's fuel in planes.
> It wasn't required in the 70's when WTC was built - still isn't
> generally required.
> > >nobody realized that "burning jet fuel would do that to a building like WTC"
> Oh yes they realised. Look closely:
> WTC was rated for 3 hours major fire resistance.
> Put that another way - *it was rated so that it _would_ collapse after 3
> (or so) hours of major conflagration*.
source? It doesnt' matter because you know, there was no "major conflagration"
> It's in the design docs.
3 Hours. Source it. Link it. Thank you.
> I guess WTC7 was designed the same way
I guess you are a troll?
> > ...You can see a huge ball of fire when one of the planes(?) hit. Guess what was that fireball? Well it must have been fuel no? Oops, so it didn't burn inside the building.
> That's maybe 50 gallons
and how did you arrive at that number?
> The thick black smoke which came from the building for about 1/2 hour is
> jet fuel burning badly, ie where there isn't enough oxygen.
right - which means burning at very low temperature. And the 'smoke' is, guess what? Unburnt fuel.
> After a
> while the smoke thins, the fuel/air ratio has become more favourable,
LMAO! The smoke thins because...there's nothing else to burn.
> carbon burns to carbon dioxide rather than carbon monoxide giving off
> more heat, and the temperature rises even more.
ha ha - how cute - see above.
> > So how is it that you "know a lot about metal"? Does your knowledge come from teh US military PSYOPS department?
> 10 years of designing alloys. Mostly for rocket engines. :)
Guess what? I don't believe a word you say =)
Also you are an expert on alloys who doesn't have a clue about the most basic laws of physics? Is that why you are ignoring the fact that huge steel structures do not magically collapse AS IF cut into pieces UNLESS they are cut into pieces, with bombs?
> Plus a lot of explosion theory, analyses of several hundred actual
> unintended explosions, and occasionally actually blowing stuff up ...
> > you mean the thermal protection was 'shattered' im the 200 floors of the two towers? OR at best it may have been damaged in PARTS of a COUPLE of floors?
> The latter. The rest of the steelwork in the building was unaffected by
> the impact or the fire.
Well at least we agree on that basic fact. And so since MAYBE, ONLY PART of the insulation failed in A COUPLE of floors, then all the rest of the structure was undisturbed and had no reason to collapse.
> >> The steel never melted, nor did it come close to melting - but there was
> >> a lot of fuel, and the whole of two or so floors was on fire. That's a
> >> lot of heat in one place. The word "inferno" comes to mind.
> > so the whole building collapsed because a couple of floors burned.
> Yup. That's how it was designed, and that's what it did.
> Was the design crap? With hindsight, frankly, yes.
that, or it was blown up. Guess which one is the most likely theory?
Now, humour me. You've been a subscribed to the list for 16 years - but that doesn't mean that you are a 'crypto' anarchist, right? On the other hand, what does the fact that you parrot US military propaganda tell 'us' about your political views?
> -- Peter Fairbrother
More information about the cypherpunks