Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

Status
Not open for further replies.

olosto

New Member
Burning building , explosions video, you can hear the explosions. All 50 floors of the building were completely burned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hSPFL2Zlpg

now here is the same building the day after.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sO7uLtfUZY

Don't gimme any of this "Chaos theory" bullshit, or well it was built different, cuz this is only one of MANY fires in highrises I can link that never fell.

You can't explain shit, anyone that watches this has to be asking themselves what really happened. ITS OBVIOUS the fires didn't take down the buildings, nor did the impact, nor did the combination of both. AND ALL OF YOUR THEORIES EXPLAIN NOTHING ABOUT BUILDING 7, you side step and obfuscate that building and avoid any discussion whatsoever on it, because those 2 little fires could not have done jack shit to the salomon bros building. No matter how much drivel comes out of your mouth to try and convince anyone otherwise is pointless, no one believes you. Its an inside job whether you want to admit to it or not, your own government killed those people and they got off scott free and will probably never have to face up to it. They did it with impunity to push their agenda, the same agenda since the first Bush. The New World Order. Global Governance.
Listen nutjob. Was the space very confined like WTC? No? Hmmm

Was it hit by a fucking plane high up in its structure? No? No sheared supports from impact? No 10 floors above it pressing down with cut and comprimised reinforcements? No? Hmm...

So you still have no paraell with WTC 1 and 2.. You have yet to show a highrise of similar construction being hit by a plane of similar size.. I have 2 examples that say it falls.. Again prove me wrong with cites and experts that don't wear tin foil hats.

I posted a video where it shows the building giving way - bending then collapsing. I see no explosive work just the frame of a building that appeared to be giving way as if it was melting..
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Media Smearing of Truth Movement Reaching a Crescendo
Despite recent breakthroughs, media continues to paint 9/11 truthers, others as dangerous terrorists

Recent months have seen numerous breakthroughs for the truth movement in the corporate media, from Fox 26's interview with Richard Gage of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth to 9/11 Press For Truth beingaired on local television in Colorado to coverage of this year's Bilderberg conference in major British newspapers. Despite these positive developments, however, primetime TV dramas are continuing to portray those skeptical of the official 9/11 story (a clear majority of the American public according to poll afterpoll) as deranged terrorists who are likely to commit acts of violence.
Like I said the corporate propaganda tool is very good at brainwashing people ... the bushwhacked on this forum serve as excellent examples to that fact.:neutral:
Can you imagine if some "Truther" was able to get evidence of the truth and all involved were made to be accountable? They just cannot have that, it would ruin everything they have worked for. Much easier to give you a "Terrorist" label so then (Because of the Patriot Act) you lose every single right you have. the Gubbermint can just lock you up in Guantanamo for daily torture, never charge you and hold you until you either die from the physical punishments, or from old age. All they have to tell anyone is that you are a "Domestic Terrorist" and thats the end of it...and you. There is no Habeus Corpus for terrorists.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Listen nutjob. Was the space very confined like WTC? No? Hmmm

Was it hit by a fucking plane high up in its structure? No? No sheared supports from impact? No 10 floors above it pressing down with cut and comprimised reinforcements? No? Hmm...

So you still have no paraell with WTC 1 and 2.. You have yet to show a highrise of similar construction being hit by a plane of similar size.. I have 2 examples that say it falls.. Again prove me wrong with cites and experts that don't wear tin foil hats.

I posted a video where it shows the building giving way - bending then collapsing. I see no explosive work just the frame of a building that appeared to be giving way as if it was melting..
And here we go again, completely and totally sidestepping the question and the whole issue. Ostlo you do know 3 ( THREE) buildings all mysteriously fell that day right? Or were you oblivious to this fact? Well Im waiting for your answer.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
The stuff that happens with comets and such is much much hotter.. This only needed to impart about 700 degrees of temp to completey render the steel useless at a strustural component. That is in addition to the 1000 degrees plus that gas fire provided.

I am glad tho that you have finally come around to admitting that the impact of the jet and the fire caused the collapse of the building.

Hey we got two exapmles of building that will topple when hit by a jet.

Got any building collisions where a similar size jet at that similarly sized building and did not cause a building collapse?

I got two examples that say it topples after an hour or two after the collision..
Wait, did someone say it lost 100% of its rigidity at 1000f or are you just making shit up again. There was a chart posted that showed the loss of stregnth at 1000f. I believe it was about 50%..

Stop making shit up or using half truths.. You will be much more creditable..

And huffy.. That was the initial impact. The fires raged untill the building came down, yes avgas burning for more than 5 min buddy, nice try tho.. :peace:

That post still makes no sense and draws no paraells that are useable in this arguement. A totally useless post..
Who do you think is making shit up? YOU THATS WHO. were using your own words against you, you contradict yourself when you say that 700 degrees is all it takes to render steel totally useless as a structural component, IE it can no longer keep its shape or hold any kind of weight.

THEN you come back and say it loses 50% of its strength at 1000. well which is it, which fact do you want to stick with?

FWIW Jets do not burn AVgas, have you not been reading most of the posts? do you even know what AVgas is?

Go dump fuel on a piece of steel, light it on fire and time how long it "RAGES". bet you it won't last more than a couple of minutes. If the fuel is as volatile and hot burning as you say it is, even if it survives the initial fireball, it still isn't going to keep burning indefinitely you know.

Oh one other thing, when you start labeling people as "Nutjob" fuck head, shit for brains tin hat wearer, whatever the name calling, you just become that fat mean kid on the playground that no one would play with.... ohh and you lose all credibility for the remainder of your posts, go find somewhere else to spew your fallacies.
 

olosto

New Member
This only needed to impart about 700 degrees of temp to completey render the steel useless at a strustural component. That is in addition to the 1000 degrees plus that gas fire provided.


I get 1700 degrees when I add that up.. If I was unclear, bite me..

Perhaps its your reading comprehension...

I also cited the chart posted previously. No mystery there, don't try to make something that isn't there into something..

Pardon my avgas reference, instead of jet-a. I get avgas sometimes and it was a slip, my bad, no big deal.. Does not mean the gubberment has me on thir payroll... Or does it? Hmmmm
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
This only needed to impart about 700 degrees of temp to completey render the steel useless at a strustural component. That is in addition to the 1000 degrees plus that gas fire provided.


I get 1700 degrees when I add that up.. If I was unclear, bite me..

Perhaps its your reading comprehension...

I also cited the chart posted previously. No mystery there, don't try to make something that isn't there into something..

Pardon my avgas reference, instead of jet-a. I get avgas sometimes and it was a slip, my bad, no big deal.. Does not mean the gubberment has me on thir payroll... Or does it? Hmmmm

OMG you are actually stating that the temperatures of the fires would combine? LMFAO , hold on gotta breathe again...cough cough...holy shit dude...that there just PROVES without a doubt you have NO idea what your talking about ...NONE...AT ALL! Wow science wasn't your strong point at all was it? Hell why don't we just combine the temperatures of every item that was different, fuel, desk, papers, trash, trash bags, airplane seat, baby bottle, dust, ....on and on near infinity..hey we could just say that all those fires added up to 1 trillion degrees centigrade, 100 times hotter than the surface of the sun.

Well ya pretty much debunk anything you say as existing in reality, cuz only in bizarro world do you add the temperatures of all the items together to come up with a final temp.

Try looking facts up before you spew.

I don't think your on the gubber payroll, I think your probably just a very concerned citizen who loves his country and wants whoever did this to pay. I also think you bought into what the government passes off as reality when its really just propaganda. No one wants to admit that his elected officials are nothing more than tyrants and con artists. Everyone wants to believe that his country is the best, that it holds freedom above all and the rights of the citizen are rarely if ever trampled. Where Liberty is a given and a person does for himself what he wants, where he wants and how he wants as long as he brings no harm to anyone else.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
I have my own opinions about this entire thing. I just have a few things to say..

If the US government didn't have any role whatsoever in any part of the 911 plot, they went completely the wrong way in investigating anything. Lies, blatant ones at that, coverups, obstructing investigators, conflicts of interest, getting rid of evidence, I mean the list goes on and on, I could probably come up with a few dozen different things the entire body of the US government royally screwed up on that day..

Is it ignorance, or is it on purpose? A lot of the actions the government took after the fact makes the entire thing look totally suspicious, as if they used 911 to enact all these policies and change our entire foreign policy. The Patriot Act, getting rid of HC, torture, two wars based on lies... Billions of American taxpayer dollars lost, lost to fight the wars or lost somewhere in the desert stacked in million dollar pallets... Corrupt companies given unprecidented no bid government contracts when years earlier the president of said company is the standing VP... see, shit like that just makes me raise an eyebrow and go "wait, wtf?"...

Litterally, and this is not an exaggeration, thousands of inconsistencies present in the official 911 report.

It just doesn't add up...
 

olosto

New Member
OMG you are actually stating that the temperatures of the fires would combine? LMFAO , hold on gotta breathe again...cough cough...holy shit dude...that there just PROVES without a doubt you have NO idea what your talking about ...NONE...AT ALL! Wow science wasn't your strong point at all was it? Hell why don't we just combine the temperatures of every item that was different, fuel, desk, papers, trash, trash bags, airplane seat, baby bottle, dust, ....on and on near infinity..hey we could just say that all those fires added up to 1 trillion degrees centigrade, 100 times hotter than the surface of the sun.

Well ya pretty much debunk anything you say as existing in reality, cuz only in bizarro world do you add the temperatures of all the items together to come up with a final temp.

Try looking facts up before you spew.

I don't think your on the gubber payroll, I think your probably just a very concerned citizen who loves his country and wants whoever did this to pay. I also think you bought into what the government passes off as reality when its really just propaganda. No one wants to admit that his elected officials are nothing more than tyrants and con artists. Everyone wants to believe that his country is the best, that it holds freedom above all and the rights of the citizen are rarely if ever trampled. Where Liberty is a given and a person does for himself what he wants, where he wants and how he wants as long as he brings no harm to anyone else.
If you did not understand my post, then well, I don;t really care. You don't seem to understand alot of simple things so I will let it pass. Yes, i am saying that in addition to the 1000 plus degree fire that the impact (kenetic energy) only needed to impart 700 exrta degrees of energy and given the energetic impact, it is easily do doable. I understand that you do not have the capicity to understand and that is why you are so willing to accept the far fetched. To you it all has the same probability because you understand none of it. Its ok, :peace:
 

huffy420

Well-Known Member
If you did not understand my post, then well, I don;t really care. You don't seem to understand alot of simple things so I will let it pass. Yes, i am saying that in addition to the 1000 plus degree fire that the impact (kenetic energy) only needed to impart 700 exrta degrees of energy and given the energetic impact, it is easily do doable. I understand that you do not have the capicity to understand and that is why you are so willing to accept the far fetched. To you it all has the same probability because you understand none of it. Its ok, :peace:

No, you dont seem to understand basic physics. You think that extra 700 is that "easy" to obtain? Hahaha! Just missing one key element... A pure compound! Its IMPOSSIBLE for a fire to reach those temps without the aid of pure compound, thus making a controlled burn. Without a pure compound max temps can only reach 1400, which is well under the threshold to melt steel. Idont see why people keep bringing up the fire..... What fire? I see no effin fire!
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Take your fist and punch your hand into your other hand. Did your hand catch on fire? did it even get warm? NO! The kinetic energy from the plane was not enough to raise the temperature of anything even 1 degree, even if it did impart 700 degrees of heat, the heat would be gone as soon as the plane stopped crashing, so less than 1/10 of a second, not even going to be enough time to start any kind of a heat related disaster. You have to get off the kinetic energy caused friction bandwagon, its not good science, the plane was not traveling fast enough to do shit, 500 MPH is not fast, it is very very slow. 186,000 miles per second is fast.

Steel is like a big heat sink, when it gets hot the heat travels throughout the steel structure, it doesn't stay localized to the source. Prove it to yourself, take a large frying pan and put it on the smallest burner you have. crank the burner up to high then come back and see if the pan got hot where it wasn't touching the burner. hot isn't it? its called conduction, and steel does it very well.
 

what... huh?

Active Member
No, you dont seem to understand basic physics. You think that extra 700 is that "easy" to obtain? Hahaha! Just missing one key element... A pure compound! Its IMPOSSIBLE for a fire to reach those temps without the aid of pure compound, thus making a controlled burn. Without a pure compound max temps can only reach 1400, which is well under the threshold to melt steel. Idont see why people keep bringing up the fire..... What fire? I see no effin fire!
So again, how do house fires incinerate bone? All of those pure compounds in the basement?

Do you know how long a thermite reaction lasts?

Why was ground zero the longest burning structural fire in history?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning.html

Still burning in December. I am just curious how a balmy 800 degree jet A fire burns for 3 months.



PadawanBater:

The manipulation of the people because of the events I take no argument against.

Simple, No need for thermite on the top 25% of the building... It just took a jet impact lol! Thermite used in the basement on the vertical columns (see pic in above post) and prolly at the buildings main joints (towers made in 3 sections). From the words of a demo expert, "You blow its base, and put it in its footprint".

See that big ass fire ball???? THERE IS ALL YOUR JET FUEL!! How hard is this to see people?
Top 25%? Pretty damned small margin for the paths taken by radio control to be accurate don't you think? See how off they were? @ 25% a couple of floors really makes a difference.

That and you can clearly see, in ANY video here, that it was destroyed from the point of impact downwards.

Yes I agree its probably really hot 1000F easy.... but that fire ball isnt going to stay that intense that long. Its going to burn up real fuckin fast. Its just like striking an oxy-acetylene torch full blast and holding to steel for a brief moment then backing it off to a small dirty burn (aka office fire), but just on a smaller scale.... To effectively weaken steel you need intense heat for a LONGER period of time the a matter of seconds, also dont forget the steel is coated in fireproofing!!! For me to cut 1 inch steel (towers had 3 and 4 inch steel) with a torch at work you have to preheat the steel for atleast 30-45 seconds!! Think of what it takes to heat up 4 inch steel. This torch burns as high as 3400C. WAY hotter then a jet fuel fire ball for a few seconds then simmers down to a smolder in 30 min. Im sorry I have way too much knowledge in this field. Its impossible for me to believe FIRE (a weiner cookin fire at that) brought those towers down.
So the bridge fire... that 20 minute open air gas fire which melted steel... It is your contention that jet A burns FASTER than gasoline? So the fireball from the tanker explosion is "sticky"... but the jet fuel... it was more like lighting hairspray?

Would these be the fundamental physics I don't grasp?

Thermite is soley used by the military. So, being that the miltary doesnt demo buildings its going to be hard to find your written docs.
The military uses thermite for "stuff". Not controlled demo. Military uses them in grenades to damage artillery.

Military demos buildings all the time.

There is more civilian use of thermite than military... and yet... demolitions experts don't use thermite for controlled demo either... why is that exactly do you suppose? I mean... it is cheap as hell... you don't even need a permit to obtain or use it... you can carry the components unmixed without danger... why don't demo experts use it?


I know the answer... do you?



Riddle me how thermite does that.

Would this be the pancaking that didn't happen?





Now drama... can you please give me your estimate before I continue?



And if anyone else is bored... I would love to know the purpose for a controlled demo of 7?

I mean... they just pulled 6. What is the point? Why take the risk of exposition in a pointless demo? I think the big towers were enough of an exclamation point. Why even bother?

Occams razor anyone?
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
And if anyone else is bored... I would love to know the purpose for a controlled demo of 7?

I mean... they just pulled 6. What is the point? Why take the risk of exposition in a pointless demo? I think the big towers were enough of an exclamation point. Why even bother?

Occams razor anyone?

You want me to speculate on the motives? Hardly provable, I won't get sucked into that one.

And you want me to estimate how much explosive it takes to bring a building down? I am not a building demolitions expert and cannot attest to the amounts needed. If you want to know how much it takes to remove a tank/APC/Aircraft out of service or if you need to take the top off a hill to create a heli landing area I can give good info on that. I have never blown up a skyscraper so Again I do not care to speculate. I do know its probably much less than you think, since not every floor needs to be dealt with. Perhaps you can fill us in on how much it would need, it already seems like you have an answer ready, please provide factual evidence and not some guess.
 

olosto

New Member
Take your fist and punch your hand into your other hand. Did your hand catch on fire? did it even get warm? NO! The kinetic energy from the plane was not enough to raise the temperature of anything even 1 degree, even if it did impart 700 degrees of heat, the heat would be gone as soon as the plane stopped crashing, so less than 1/10 of a second, not even going to be enough time to start any kind of a heat related disaster. You have to get off the kinetic energy caused friction bandwagon, its not good science, the plane was not traveling fast enough to do shit, 500 MPH is not fast, it is very very slow. 186,000 miles per second is fast.

Steel is like a big heat sink, when it gets hot the heat travels throughout the steel structure, it doesn't stay localized to the source. Prove it to yourself, take a large frying pan and put it on the smallest burner you have. crank the burner up to high then come back and see if the pan got hot where it wasn't touching the burner. hot isn't it? its called conduction, and steel does it very well.
Yea.. speed of light is not close to 500 mph but that does not mean the effect is nothing. I don't really know what the purpose of throwing out the speed of light is..

And if you do not understand how kinetic energy works I cannot help you there either. Tremendous amounts of kinetic energy were released when the planes impaced the buildings. If you truely think that little friction or kinetic energy was imparted into the building (heat) then we are at an impass. I am talking about something that is standard physics and you can only say, I don't know physics.. Well, your wrong.. Not going to get into a pissing contest about it but your wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
Examples
Spacecraft use chemical energy to take off and gain considerable kinetic energy to reach orbital velocity. This kinetic energy gained during launch will remain constant while in orbit because there is almost no friction. However it becomes apparent at re-entry when the kinetic energy is converted to heat.
Kinetic energy can be passed from one object to another. In the game of billiards, the player gives kinetic energy to the cue ball by striking it with the cue stick. If the cue ball collides with another ball, it will slow down dramatically and the ball it collided with will accelerate to a speed as the kinetic energy is passed on to it. Collisions in billiards are effectively elastic collisions, where (by definition) kinetic energy is preserved. In inelastic collisions, kinetic energy is dissipated as: heat, sound, binding energy (breaking bound structures), or other kinds of energy.
 

olosto

New Member
Also using the calculations onthat page and on another I found you can calculate the kinetic energy that the impact had. 200,000 lbs (a guess) and 500 mph are huge forces to start with....
 

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
I have my own opinions about this entire thing. I just have a few things to say..

If the US government didn't have any role whatsoever in any part of the 911 plot, they went completely the wrong way in investigating anything. Lies, blatant ones at that, coverups, obstructing investigators, conflicts of interest, getting rid of evidence, I mean the list goes on and on, I could probably come up with a few dozen different things the entire body of the US government royally screwed up on that day..

Is it ignorance, or is it on purpose? A lot of the actions the government took after the fact makes the entire thing look totally suspicious, as if they used 911 to enact all these policies and change our entire foreign policy. The Patriot Act, getting rid of HC, torture, two wars based on lies... Billions of American taxpayer dollars lost, lost to fight the wars or lost somewhere in the desert stacked in million dollar pallets... Corrupt companies given unprecidented no bid government contracts when years earlier the president of said company is the standing VP... see, shit like that just makes me raise an eyebrow and go "wait, wtf?"...

Litterally, and this is not an exaggeration, thousands of inconsistencies present in the official 911 report.

It just doesn't add up...
That's right! I was thinking bout this and you know what? The "truthers" are here asking questions? They/we feel somethings fishy. We have nothing to go on but common sense, past history, connect the dots, gut instinct, science. We have some strong arguments but not as strong as the gov has agianst itself.
I've never really understood why ppl come here who believe the 911 commision. I mean if you believe the official story why come here and argue this stuff? and when you do why not just link the 911 commision sources for your arguments. Seems like they know more than the 911 commision does and are trying to tell us something?

False flags come and go. We know of alot thru history. Is 911 one? I don't know or claim to know. What's more important to me is not the events themselves but ppls willingness to believe everything they are told.

Quick poll!! How many of the 911 truthers believed the official story in the weeks months years after? I know I did. Call me nutjob,wacko or whatever. Just remember those are your words and if you believe that I beg the question. Why are you wasting your time with a nutjob?
 

olosto

New Member
Was it hot nuff.. is 2000 degrees enough?


Flame temperatures in room fires

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.

This is for a standard fire not one caused by thousands of gallons of fuel and no to mention the energy of impact hen the plane with the building..
And....


Flames temperatures of open flames

For convenience, we can subdivide the turbulent diffusion flames from unwanted fires into two types: flames in the open, and room fires. First we will consider open flames.

The starting point for discussing this topic can be the work of the late Dr. McCaffrey, who made extensive measurements [4] of temperatures in turbulent diffusion flames. He used gas burners in a "pool fire" mode (i.e., non-premixed) and studied various characteristics of such fire plumes. He described three different regimes in such a fire plume:
  1. Slightly above the base of the fire begins the continuous flame region. Here the temperatures are constant and are slightly below 900°C.
  2. Above the solid flame region is the intermittent flame region. Here the temperatures are continuously dropping as one moves up the plume. The visible flame tips correspond to a temperature of about 320°C.
  3. Finally, beyond the flame tips is the thermal plume region, where no more flames are visible and temperature continually drop with height.
French researchers at the University of Poitiers recently made the same types of measurements and reported numerical values [5] indistinguishable from McCaffrey's. Cox and Chitty [6] measured similar plumes and obtained very similar results: a temperature of 900°C in the continuous flame region, and a temperature of around 340°C at the flame tips. The latter value does not appear to be a universal constant. Cox and Chitty later measured slightly higher heat release rate fires, and found a flame tip temperature of around 550°C. In a later paper [7], researchers from the same laboratory examined turbulent diffusion flames under slightly different conditions, and found peak values of 1150-1250°C for natural gas flames, which is rather higher than 900°C. The above results were from fires of circular or square fuel shape. Yuan and Cox [8] measured line-source type fires. They found a temperature of 898°C in the continuous flame region, and a flame tip temperature of around 340°C. This suggests that such results are not dependent on the shape of the fuel source.
In studying fires in a warehouse storage rack geometry, Ingason [9] found an average solid-flame temperature of 870°C. At the visible flame tips, the average temperature was 450°C, but the range was large, covering 300~600°C. In a related study, Ingason and de Ris [10] found typical flame tip temperatures of 400°C for burner flames of propane, propylene, and carbon monoxide fuels. Sullivan et al. [14] cite Australian studies on wildfire flames, finding that flame tip temperature corresponds to 300°C, while peak values around 927°C can be expected. Heskestad [11] adopts a criterion of 500°C rise as defining the flame tip temperature, i.e. an actual temperature of about 520°C. Taking all of the above information in account, it appears that flame tip temperatures for turbulent diffusion flames should be estimated as being around 320~400°C. For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C.

Note this is all in C? 1200 c = 2192 F


Cite: http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

(Non political I might add...)
 

what... huh?

Active Member
You want me to speculate on the motives? Hardly provable, I won't get sucked into that one.


An interesting take for someone who begins most of their posts with "Why would", "Why did", and "How could".

I also note that that is below the "just for fun" portion I put in suggesting that it was just mental masturbation and didn't really require an answer.

And you want me to estimate how much explosive it takes to bring a building down? I am not a building demolitions expert and cannot attest to the amounts needed.
No... but you are a munitions expert.

Your right I am a munitions expert, I was a combat engineer in the Govt service and have blown up many things with many different types of explosives.
And I am asking the ammount of ordinance required to achieve a task. Surely a munitions expert could make a rough guess.


Surely.
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
So again, how do house fires incinerate bone?
See here folks ... he brings up bullshit that has already been discredited 10 or 15 pages ago ... I've provided info and a link that proves house fires can't incinerate bones ... cremation temperatures are way hotter. This is part of their spin ... they can't fight with facts so they make shit up even when they are busted doing it ... they will continue to do it ... that's how their leaders do it ... so they figure it will work here ... but it doesn't ... no one in their right mind buys the government bullshit story.


Why was ground zero the longest burning structural fire in history?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1634-ground-zeros-fires-still-burning.html
All this does is discredit your bullshit ... this is more evidence that something other than plane impact and office fires brought those towers down.

So the bridge fire... that 20 minute open air gas fire which melted steel...
We've already established the fact that there was nothing unusual about that bridge fire ... and once again you contradict yourself ... in your post ....
Yes... and nobody is claiming that the steel was melted.
See folks he's not consistent in his argument ... his main purpose is to double talk and try to confuse the issue. ... he sees how it works on fauxnews and all the bushwhack are desperate for it to work here ... but it's not going to happen.:bigjoint:

The military uses thermite for "stuff". Not controlled demo. Military uses them in grenades to damage artillery.
and the fact that the military are the only ones with access to nano thermite that can't be made in some cave ... is another indication 911 was an inside job.:sleep:

Would this be the pancaking that didn't happen?
More proof of thermite as far as I'm concerned.
Once again you fail to convince anyone that the obvious didn't happen.:eyesmoke:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top