- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The 9/11 Files: Tucker Carlson
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:25 pm to 3down10
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:25 pm to 3down10
quote:
There was no fire remotely hot enough to reach the temperatures required to do what you are talking. WT7 was NOT hit by a plane, there was no jet fuel or anything else you can cite as a fuel source to reach the temperatures required to melt steel. Especially across the entire building which would be required to make it collapse like that.
Let me do the work for you since you're so obtuse. These are just a few facts that you're either ignorant of or choosing to ignore.
- Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, not hot enough to melt steel (2750 degrees Fahrenheit). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.
- Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. At 1800 degrees F, it's less than 10%
- Spray on fireproofing was knocked off of large sections of steel beams when the planes hit the towers
- Burning jet fuel was the catalyst, but fires were intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper.
- Some pockets of fires burned as hot as 1832 degrees Fahrenheit
- Building 7 and falling debris from the towers: On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out
- Damage was also discovered on the southwest corner and upper stories of WTC 7
- Intense Fire burned in WTC 7 for hours. Many of us watched that live on TV.
- Building 7 was a progressive collapse inward on itself due to weakened supports and trusses caused by the fires. You can watch videos online of the roof beginning to sag and kink moments before it all came down
2
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:35 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
Steel doesn't have to melt to cause the collapse. Good God. You have done zero reading or research into the physics and engineering of all the 9/11 crashes and collapses. If you would have, you'd know this has been explained perfectly, 100% factually, for close to 20 years now.
When I say start melting I mean weakening.
It takes higher temperatures than that and/or longer times at those at consistently higher temperatures for the steel itself to heat up beyond the outer parts of it.
No different than putting a baked potato in the oven at 400 degrees doesn't instantly cook the entire thing inside and out despite the fact the temperature is more than hot enough to cook it.
So no.
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:36 pm to Mister Completely
quote:Speaking of ignoring facts...
These are just a few facts that you're either ignorant of or choosing to ignore.
I guess it was too much trouble for you to click the video I provided in which the person in the building describes bombs and fire in the building BEFORE either of the Twin Towers collapsed.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:40 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
Speaking of ignoring facts... I guess it was too much trouble for you to click the video I provided in which the person in the building describes bombs and fire in the building BEFORE either of the Twin Towers collapsed.
There were no explosives. This has been debunked over and over. But let's not listen to all the world's leading experts in standards, technology, engineering, and physics...we'll go with some dude who thought he heard something and message board user TXTiger.
Do you realize how dumb that sounds or do you just love your opinion so much that you block out reality?
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:50 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
Let me do the work for you since you're so obtuse. These are just a few facts that you're either ignorant of or choosing to ignore.
- Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, not hot enough to melt steel (2750 degrees Fahrenheit). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.
- Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. At 1800 degrees F, it's less than 10%
- Spray on fireproofing was knocked off of large sections of steel beams when the planes hit the towers
- Burning jet fuel was the catalyst, but fires were intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper.
- Some pockets of fires burned as hot as 1832 degrees Fahrenheit
- Building 7 and falling debris from the towers: On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out
- Damage was also discovered on the southwest corner and upper stories of WTC 7
- Intense Fire burned in WTC 7 for hours. Many of us watched that live on TV.
- Building 7 was a progressive collapse inward on itself due to weakened supports and trusses caused by the fires. You can watch videos online of the roof beginning to sag and kink moments before it all came down
Except that's not how fires work. Standing over a fire is much different than standing next to one for example. So when you say "fires can get this hot", it's kind of bullshite because you are mostly talking about isolated pockets.
And those isolated pockets themselves would need to be at critical locations and somehow stay that hot in the same place. Which is not really possible unless you have someone continuing to put a fuel source of some kind on the fire in those single places. The reason they don't fall is because the fuel sources are constantly changing, there is not near enough heat or time in a single area to cause the steel to weaken.
And again, the majority of the heat is NOT going to be going towards the support columns, what you'd likely see would be a floor beam weakening.
You're trying to set this up as if there was this consistent temperature all over the building for these long periods of time and it's bullshite.
Building fires do not get hot enough to do these things. The same reason I can't put a potato in the oven at 160 for 5 minutes and expect a cooked potato.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:53 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
There were no explosives. This has been debunked over and over. But let's not listen to all the world's leading experts in standards, technology, engineering, and physics...we'll go with some dude who thought he heard something and message board user TXTiger.
Do you realize how dumb that sounds or do you just love your opinion so much that you block out reality?
There are plenty of engineers and such that disagree with the official story, and they always get treated poorly if they speak up.
frick your appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:55 pm to 3down10
quote:
You're trying to set this up as if there was this consistent temperature all over the building for these long periods of time and it's bullshite. Building fires do not get hot enough to do these things. The same reason I can't put a potato in the oven at 160 for 5 minutes and expect a cooked potato.
Holy shite man! You figured it out. Congrats! I disagree with you. You know who else does?
NIST leadership
* S. Shyam Sunder, Ph.D.: Lead Investigator
NIST project leaders
* William L. Grosshandler, Ph.D.: Project Leader, Project 4: Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems ??
* H.S. Lew, Ph.D., P.E.: Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices ??
* Richard W. Bukowski, P.E.: Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices ??
* Fahim Sadek, Ph.D.: Project Leader, Project 2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis ??
* Frank W. Gayle, Ph.D.: Project Leader, Project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel ??
* John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.: Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis ??
* Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.: Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis ??
* Jason D. Averill: Project Leader, Project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications ??
* J. Randall Lawson: Project Leader, Project 8: Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines ???
Other experts
* The team included over 200 professionals, with about 85 of them being NIST staff.
* External experts came from academia and industry, and the investigation also involved collaborators from the Structural Engineering Association of New York (SEONY) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Those are the leaders of the NIST investigation on WTC towers collapses. But it's really cool that you are smarter than them and are more of an expert in the subject matter.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:56 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
Holy shite man! You figured it out. Congrats! I disagree with you. You know who else does?
NIST leadership
* S. Shyam Sunder, Ph.D.: Lead Investigator
NIST project leaders
* William L. Grosshandler, Ph.D.: Project Leader, Project 4: Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems ??
* H.S. Lew, Ph.D., P.E.: Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices ??
* Richard W. Bukowski, P.E.: Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices ??
* Fahim Sadek, Ph.D.: Project Leader, Project 2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis ??
* Frank W. Gayle, Ph.D.: Project Leader, Project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel ??
* John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.: Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis ??
* Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.: Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis ??
* Jason D. Averill: Project Leader, Project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications ??
* J. Randall Lawson: Project Leader, Project 8: Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines ???
Other experts
* The team included over 200 professionals, with about 85 of them being NIST staff.
* External experts came from academia and industry, and the investigation also involved collaborators from the Structural Engineering Association of New York (SEONY) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
Those are the leaders of the NIST investigation on WTC towers collapses. But it's really cool that you are smarter than them and are more of an expert in the subject matter.
Appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Try again.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 9:58 pm to 3down10
quote:
There are plenty of engineers and such that disagree with the official story, and they always get treated poorly if they speak up. frick your appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Go ahead and cite their names, their arguments that are based in fact, the numerous and thorough peer reviews that support them, and the conclusions they reach that prove the NIST was wrong. I'll wait.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:04 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
Go ahead and cite their names, their arguments that are based in fact, the numerous and thorough peer reviews that support them, and the conclusions they reach that prove the NIST was wrong. I'll wait.
I'm not a appeal to authority logical fallacy kinda guy, so I won't be citing people and saying you must accept them.
There have been multiple independent studies done that came to different conclusions. Basically, the only way they can get the building to fall the way it did is by cutting all the columns at the same time.
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 10:05 pm
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:05 pm to 3down10
quote:
Appeal to authority logical fallacy. Try again.
While you're at it, since this is a fallacy to rely on literally hundreds of experts across multiple disciplines of science, please cite their errors in the evidence, facts, and conclusions and offer the correct explanations instead. I mean you're smarter than them so it shouldn't take long.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:06 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
While you're at it, since this is a fallacy to rely on literally hundreds of experts across multiple disciplines of science, please cite their errors in the evidence, facts, and conclusions and offer the correct explanations instead. I mean you're smarter than them so it shouldn't take long.
I'm not going to debate your fallacy. Your point is a fallacy, that means it's invalid.
How many covid shots did you get MisterTrustTheExperts?
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:09 pm to 3down10
quote:
I'm not going to debate your fallacy. Your point is a fallacy, that means it's invalid.
The frick?
You asserted this is a fallacy. Please explain why it's a fallacy. You don't just get to declare it's wrong and your proof is "cuz I said so". I put forth the evidence of hundreds of experts and your argument is "nuh uh"
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:10 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
The frick?
You asserted this is a fallacy. Please explain why it's a fallacy. You don't just get to declare it's wrong and your proof is "cuz I said so". I put forth the evidence of hundreds of experts and your argument is "nuh uh"
It's called an appeal to authority logical fallacy. You didn't make an argument, you told me that all these experts had this opinion, they are the authority on it, and thus they are right.
You did not address even a SINGLE point I made. None, not fricking one.
How many covid shots did you get trusting the experts?
A scientist is just as easy to buy as a politician.
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:13 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
How many covid shots did you get MrTrustTheExperts?
Zero point zero. Pure fricking blood.
See I can think objectively and accept conclusions based on fact. It's why I didn't and won't ever get the jab. It's why I believe the NIST explanation of WTC collapse. I've read and done my research (not just what I think I might agree with) to get my own opinion.
Critical thinking is important.
ETA - it's obvious you're not intellectually honest so this debate is over. You offer no proof of what you claim; I submit facts from experts. Not theories or guesses like Covid doctors, but irrefutable facts. You can't and won't challenge one of them with evidence, other than your uneducated opinion. So good luck to you.
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 10:18 pm
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:32 pm to Mister Completely
quote:
Zero point zero. Pure fricking blood.
See I can think objectively and accept conclusions based on fact. It's why I didn't and won't ever get the jab. It's why I believe the NIST explanation of WTC collapse. I've read and done my research (not just what I think I might agree with) to get my own opinion.
Critical thinking is important.
You were the one who just told me to trust the experts at NIST, aka an appeal to authority.
quote:
ETA - it's obvious you're not intellectually honest so this debate is over. You offer no proof of what you claim; I submit facts from experts. Not theories or guesses like Covid doctors, but irrefutable facts. You can't and won't challenge one of them with evidence, other than your uneducated opinion. So good luck to you.
Guy, I made multiple points about fires and how they worked and you refused to address even a single point. You went with the appeal to authority fallacy and then straight to calling me dishonest.
Btw: The actual damage to the steel beams was well beyond just being weakened, nor have we even touched the rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting, all of which points too...thermate or some other type of accelerant.
FEMA included in their report. NIST ignored it completely.
Posted on 10/16/25 at 3:39 am to 3down10
You seem to be one of those that believe everything the govt. tells you is the truth, come on dude... your argument doesn't pass the smell test, you know who killed JFK, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, yet?
I new those planes didn't bring those buildings down when it happened, People in Govt, or people doing their dirty work been Killing people that disagree with THEIR narrative for decades and it is still happening
I new those planes didn't bring those buildings down when it happened, People in Govt, or people doing their dirty work been Killing people that disagree with THEIR narrative for decades and it is still happening
Posted on 10/18/25 at 10:49 am to Mister Completely
quote:You mean, like this...
I guess these conspiracy theorists expect that the plane should have made a cartoon-like "plane shaped hole" in the reinforced concrete/brick/limestone outer wall.
quote:Why are you trying to cover up for the POS that murdered your friend?
A good college friend of mine, Scott Lamana (USN Lt and LSU grad) died inside the Pentagon in the crash. So forgive me when I say Flight 77 conspiracy theorists can eat a dick.
Posted on 10/18/25 at 11:05 am to Tall Tiger
The WTC was an experimental design using way less steel, with the outer skeleton bearing the weight load, which many questioned, even the builders and designers. The windows themselves were meant to bear some of the weight. It was also designed to sway as much as 12 feet in hard winds. People on the top floors could feel the building move. The skeleton was also susceptible to heat.
Posted on 10/18/25 at 11:05 am to 3down10
quote:
Appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Try again.
When you get sick, do you go to the doctor, or consult your neighbor who's a plumber?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News