Dubai tower survives hours of a tremendous blaze and didn’t collapse like the WTC

Jan 2 2016
Jim Stone

I got banned on a popular forum, and I gotta laugh at the reason why, and can do mega damage to the topic they banned me for, so I will:

This web site gets many times the reads as any forum thread, so I can slay their beasts from here.
Many of you know by now that a tower in Dubai burned. American MSM is burying to what extent it burned. The Mexican press did not. The damage was massive, and the fire burned with intensity for a full 18 hours. And I got banned several places for saying it like it was, in contrast to the WTC.

Obviously people are now comparing this to the WTC. Here is the ammo you need to kill the trolls, This is a main killing point I never heard covered by anyone, and it has now tripped bans in several places:
The WTC did not have bare exposed metal beams. All beams, even those that were and were not covered in concrete as well as fireproofing, had 5/8 inch spray on fireproofing with an R value of 3. An R-value that high would prevent any piece of metal in the WTC from increasing in temperature by more than 25 degrees Celsius even if put directly in a perfect fire for the length of time the fires burned. This is due to the thermal mass of the beams, the heat of the flame, and how well an R value of 3 will block heat. R3 is better than most picnic coolers, which have a typical R-value of 2.5.

The big Achilles heel in the entire 911 ruse that everyone overlooked is that ALL supports in the entire building had fireproof thermal coating on them, and the larger beams had both a very thick thermal coating AND concrete blocking the heat. The large center beams most likely never even had a temperature rise of even 5 degrees in the short time between the jet impacts and the controlled demolition.

You should not feed the trolls with the burning temperature of jet fuel and give them the foothold assumption that the beams actually reached that temperature, clearly, obviously, there is no conceivable way they did and it is far more rational to state that due to the fireproofing and the ability of the metal to conduct the heat away from the flames, NO piece of metal anywhere in the WTC got too hot to touch. And even if the fireproofing got scraped off a few of the beams, the beams missing it would not get sufficiently hot in that short of a time, and would have many many others nearby to take the load even if they did. Bash bash and bash the fact home that people were alive standing on the burning floors as well, there was clearly no inferno to begin with, only a smouldering smoky mess.

My mentioning the fact that the fire proofing alone makes the official story a certified ruse is triggering bans, they are deeply afraid of people knowing that, ARCHIVE AND POST!. If you mention this web site or quote text from here or you will get auto banned on most forums now so you have to say it your own way. But however you do it, from now on, don’t mention the burning temperature of jet fuel, instead focus on how massive the beams were, and the fact that they had a thermal coating on them that would have prevented them from heating up in any meaningful way at all in such a short time.

The jet fuel combustion temperature is their straw man, START RIPPING THE GUTS OUT OF THAT STRAW MAN by constantly referring an R-value of 3, the massiveness of the beams, and the short time the fires burned. Constantly quote “25 degrees Celsius max temperature rise with all factors considered” (in your own words, and circumvent the censor bots by saying 100 degrees, 50 degrees, the real number is approximately 25 degrees but you don’t need it that good to make a point,) the key is to get around the censor bots and to stick in everyone’s memory that due to the thermal coatings no actual metal could have ever even gotten too hot to touch in such a short time according to the official story.

Other good attacks on trolls would be the craters in the basement well after it was all cleaned out, and the melted metal found in the basement. Relentlessly attack the trolls, asking them how jet fuel can melt steel, because all they can do is prove that under ideal combustion circumstances it might weaken it a little but they can’t for a minute state it would ever melt. Drill Drill and DRILL HOME the huge pools of melted metal, and ask them how that happened when jet fuel can’t do that, and then say, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS MUCH MORE TO THIS STORY THAN ARABS AND JETS, THE COMPLETELY MELTED POOLS OF STEEL PROVE IT. Please dear troll, explain the totally molten metal, all details please!

One comment

  • theunhivedmind

    I’ve gone over the controlled demolition of the WTC on numerous occasions. People shouldn’t be just focusing on passenger plane jet fuel or even military-grade solid state rocket fuel (the latter being a part aid to the final demolition). The biggest question should be how can various structural metal girders turn to complete dust which could then be blown away in the wind. Ask the question why radiation clean-up protocols similar to those used over in Chernobyl were used and kept secret. The World Trade Center was pulled and thus demolished using the Emergency Nuclear Demolition Scheme after first weakening the structure aided by solid-state rocket-fuel providing heat close to six-thousand degrees fahrenheit all thanks to Alliant Techsystems (now called Orbital-ATK). The aircraft drones used on 9/11 were precision guided into the buildings by remote control in conjunction with the BEI Gyrochip QRS-11. Please go to the Orbital ATK website and you’ll see the captured photograph I’ve added below of the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar and Pegasus rocket. Please go back over the original footage of the drones hitting the towers and think hard about this photograph especially when you know the solid-state rocket fuel part of the demolition via the elevators. I believe I’m the first to highlight this photograph!

    .·´ ¸.·★¨) ¸.·☆¨)
    ★(¸.·´ (¸.*´ ¸.·´
    `·-☆ The Unhived Mind

Leave a Reply