@Olivier5,
Quote:It's not an insult to say you're profoundly disgusting. It's an observation. You disgust me, and that's a fact. It's like calking Builder a liar: it's purely factual when he lied again and again. As for "truthers", "lunatics" and "idiots", if that's the worst I called you, you should feel lucky.
This is your response to having your arguments shown for what they are. You're no mystery. You're hoping that I will jump off topic and get into a name-calling contest with you. But that's not going to happen.
So let's get back to the topic. Since you said in an earlier post that you looked forward to discussing those physics-defying collapses of the WTCs,
I recall asking you to explain how the energy required to pulverize everything in the building below the impact zone, and the energy required to produce the explosive lateral ejections--as seen in photos and videos of the collapses--still allowed for enough reserve energy to account for a virtually freefall descent through the course of most resistance. Still waiting . . .
Also, I have shown you a video in which a beam situated in a closed environment along with gypsum board, aluminum, steel, diesel fuel, plastic, and crushed concrete was burned for twenty-four hours and yet was not damaged, much less melted. And I assume that you agree that if the guy in the video had put the beam and the fire in a pit and covered it with pulverized concrete, that would not have caused the beam to melt, either. Is that assumption correct?
I have also told you that the fire was only in the upper floors, and that it could not have forced its way through pulverized and compacted cement to make it all the way down into the basement levels where you say it created pools of molten metal and melted girders. Your explanation for this is that "fires are known to spread."
