4 ms·

Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This was due to regular office debris being burnt quickly, thanks to the j

Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This was due to regular office debris being burnt quickly, thanks to the jet fuel that had catalyzed it when it sprayed out into the center and floors above and below the crash site. I read about this in the excellent 9/11 debunk series by Popular Mechanics.

jakeogh 9y ago
PM is correct about the hotspots existing. Here are the AVIRIS files: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines We tried the (UL approved) office debris theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw (yt may axe that chan)
dragontamer 9y ago
Conspiracy theorists will come up with anything to prove themselves correct. For example: > Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This will be evidence for the Thermite that the "Big Bad Government" planted in the towers to make it an inside job. -------- When talking to a conspiracy theorist, do NOT challenge them to a facts battle. You take their facts that they tell you, and you debunk what they're saying individually. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers believe in "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams", so you must FOCUS on this argument. A conspiracy theorist will always, always, ALWAYS "out fact" you. Because their community is making up bull----, they have way more "facts" than you ever will have. You can't win by "breadth" of argument, you can only win with "depth" of argument. NEVER broaden an argument against a conspiracy theorist. That's how they win.
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  I get it now, I will practice that more. But won't you be breadthening the argument by saying the steel was weakened and not melted and then they will ask about how beads of steel were reportedly seen or recorded?
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    > But won't you be breadthening the argument by saying the steel was weakened and not melted and then they will ask about how beads of steel were reportedly seen or recorded? But I didn't say that "The steel didn't melt". All that I said was "Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams". This has two effects: 1. It makes the Conspiracy Theorist more willing to listen to you because you agree to their premise. You have to learn to "pick your battles" so to speak, and "giving your opponent a bone" so that they continue the discussion is rather important. 2. If higher temperatures WERE documented, that doesn't disprove the premise: that the Towers _could_ have collapsed under lower temperatures.

jakeogh 9y ago

PM is correct about the hotspots existing. Here are the AVIRIS files: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/AVIRIS_Flightlines We tried the (UL approved) office debris theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw (yt may axe that chan)

dragontamer 9y ago

Conspiracy theorists will come up with anything to prove themselves correct. For example: > Also there were documented hotspots that were in excess of steel melting temperature. This will be evidence for the Thermite that the "Big Bad Government" planted in the towers to make it an inside job. -------- When talking to a conspiracy theorist, do NOT challenge them to a facts battle. You take their facts that they tell you, and you debunk what they're saying individually. The vast majority of 9/11 Truthers believe in "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams", so you must FOCUS on this argument. A conspiracy theorist will always, always, ALWAYS "out fact" you. Because their community is making up bull----, they have way more "facts" than you ever will have. You can't win by "breadth" of argument, you can only win with "depth" of argument. NEVER broaden an argument against a conspiracy theorist. That's how they win.

tzakrajs 9y ago
I get it now, I will practice that more. But won't you be breadthening the argument by saying the steel was weakened and not melted and then they will ask about how beads of steel were reportedly seen or recorded?
- dragontamer 9y ago
  > But won't you be breadthening the argument by saying the steel was weakened and not melted and then they will ask about how beads of steel were reportedly seen or recorded? But I didn't say that "The steel didn't melt". All that I said was "Jet Fuel probably can't melt steel beams". This has two effects: 1. It makes the Conspiracy Theorist more willing to listen to you because you agree to their premise. You have to learn to "pick your battles" so to speak, and "giving your opponent a bone" so that they continue the discussion is rather important. 2. If higher temperatures WERE documented, that doesn't disprove the premise: that the Towers _could_ have collapsed under lower temperatures.