For the undying 9/11 JET FUEL ARGUMENT

[William Seger]

11. LOL, sorry I missed this one

> 2000 degrees F? I think they're lying!

So, you think it lost enough strength to fail at LESS than 2000F? I would say congratulations, you finally got one correct, but apparently it was an accident and you don't understand the implication. The point of the experiment was to show the loss of strength in a jet fuel fire, not to measure the temperature of the fire or the steel when it failed. It failed, period. It was just a perfectly predictable demonstration of a fact that's been known for over a hundred, when builders realized they needed to fireproof steel.

> And guess what William. It didn't melt like on 911!

I'm still waiting patiently for any actual proof that there was any melted steel on 9/11. We don't need to explain things that didn't happen, and there was certainly no need to melt the steel to bring the buildings down, which is what this video shows.