What's the most efficient way to melt steel beams?

What's the most efficient way to melt steel beams?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.4plebs.org/_/search/boards/pol.x/subject/Knowledge Bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Jet fuel

jetfuel and tampered sprinkler systems

Poop.

Skim money off the top during construction by replacing the originally planned beams with those fabricated from a mild steel.

Thermite on Core Columns & Mini-Nukes in the Foundation.

Did a thread on 9/11 a while ago: archive.4plebs.org/_/search/boards/pol.x/subject/Knowledge Bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/

Jet fuel, of course.

alt right tears

Niglets

Hiring a Jew to figure it out for you
Just remember to find one who will work pro bono

Jet fuel works gud I hear. The bonus is that, unlike ANFO, it also turns concrete to dust.

If you're gonna use mini nukes I don't think the thermite is necessary...

>Mini-Nukes
I dont know about that.. how mini you talking about.

not about melting steel beams, but I suppose to check out, the possibility would be that the sheer mass and force of impact, and the amount of floors that were collided with may have dislodged support from the lower to the upper (like sliced it),

and so then vertical beams on the lower half would have nothing tieing them together at the top (point of separation/split)

so when collision took place, imagine vertical beams 3/4 or so up their height are all indented one way, maybe that would then give whats above that indentation a top heavyness.

And then it is just like jenga, once the top becomes loose and separate enough, maybe

I think its really all about the force of impact, and the potential of that to jar the structure from top to bottom.

then the looseness of the top now 'feeling' much more heavy on 'indented' support.

...

SO explain wtc7 then?

Right about the thermite (also possibly shaped charges in certain spots) but the miniest nuke has a yield of 10t TNT equivalent. That would be quite noticeable (for comparison Oklahoma was about 2.3t).

A hunk of one of the towers knocked it on the crown, there was a CIA office fire, and then Lucky Larry decided to "pull it."

And then NIST hid the video of the chunk knocking it until several years later when they were compelled to release the tapes by court order. So there was obviously nothing to hide.

>>thinking that in order to cause twin towns to collapse that the steel beams needed to turn into liquid (melting)

Maybe one day you'll understand

Its supports were weak, lots of heavy material fell on it, and it was near the two buildings that fell the mass of which could have shaken the ground furthering weakening the supports?

To believe that it was wt7 was rigged with explosives, would it be believed that they had to guess and hope that enough debris would fall onto it, to warrant demolishing wt7?

Was it impossible for the buildings to collapse without spreading debris on wt7?

Because if it was not, then they would not have been able to demolish it right, if there was no excuse, if all videos showed it untouched, but then it just perfectly demolish collapsed?

Nano-thermite

you see it could have been planned and set up, but the rigging it with explosives may not have occurred (twin tower that is), it could be true or it could not be, but if it is not true, the idea could have been encouraged to spread as a incredulous discredit of people trying to express and explain the possibility it was set up.

it being demolitioned would just be another, albeit massively big piece of evidence, absolutely seal evidence, so that is why it gained popularity, plus other reasons, but yeah, I guess it could have.

a nuclear detonation

doubt

Dank fuel can't melt jet memes