911 Pentagon Video Released

[Xarog]

I don't recall siding with any camp really. There are somethings I find harder to believe than others though, I will concede to that.

Sorry, I misattributed something to you that someone else said. I hope you'll accept my apology.

 

[icyrus]

Sorry, I misattributed something to you that someone else said. I hope you'll accept my apology.

No problem

 

[mooK]

You assume we had any respect left for you

Um, no I don't you idiot. What makes you think I did? What I said has no bearing on the respect you hold for me (or lack thereof). And since when is Xarog and you considered 'we', he's not really backing you up on your conspiracy theories more so than he's been criticising Ignacio's debating style.

See, this is what kinda annoys me about you, 70% of your posts are based on crap you fabricate in your minds eye, and then post the first thing that pops in your head.

 

[pupa]

Um, no I don't you idiot. What makes you think I did? What I said has no bearing on the respect you hold for me (or lack thereof). And since when is Xarog and you considered 'we', he's not really backing you up on your conspiracy theories more so than he's been criticising Ignacio's debating style.

See, this is what kinda annoys me about you, 70% of your posts are based on crap you fabricate in your minds eye, and then post the first thing that pops in your head.

Well that's what you see on this forum a lot don't you! Specially the name calling and assumptions. Stop criticising the person and stick with the angle off attack then you will score higher points as none do at the moment

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Well that's what you see on this forum a lot don't you! Specially the name calling and assumptions. Stop criticising the person and stick with the angle off attack then you will score higher points as none do at the moment

LOL pupa I must say you make me laugh dude!
Allow me to quote a few extracts from this thread concerning how you don't criticise the person and instead choose to criticise their argument.

What makes You guys such Anti USA Assholes? None of you know anything anyway that's why you have so much time to waste here, arguing about everything Anti USA! SHAME! When you are pro USA you are a racist, in the eyes of the race zealots here.

YOURE ALL F@KING COOKOO! NUTS, NUTTERS, FRUITCAKES, LOONEYS, LOONS, MENTALISTS AND ALL THOSE AKA AS THE INSANE

Again a lot of Bull! ask Bush he will tell you the truth and yet you wont believe him! or am I wrong? I think most of your guys will grovel in his presence, but he will look at you as South African with the disdain You deserve!

I am not commenting on any particular poster. Only to these so clever freaks on this forum that debate against their better judgement! Fools as they are like so many here in Africa! Everything said about USA or what USA say is always either nonsense, racist or an conspiracy. So lame! Yet they grovel and beg for funds and investment so the can be more corrupt. [sic]. Disease of Africa, all in the genes! IMHO. Take what you can get for free and bite the hand that feed You! These conspiracy theory's of 911 is so worn out already! Typical of the South Africans that debate it so many years after the effect.

I agree about the special Olympics comment, As it is a sports event for "lame ducks" (not without respect) it refers to this forum with, as I stated, all the "lame ducks" (without respect) that post here that do not know what they are talking about!

It seems you were commenting about Yourself, You do phrase everything as you see it in your simple mind, so I agree with you, you must be correct about your retardation as you were one of the prime players here. About the crime levels do not bluff yourself, Go look at statistics per capita and population and feel proud! At least there they do what is needed to do, here the GVT and the police is lame ducks or as you put it part of their own special olympic's

Yes those were the only contributions you made to this thread, and reading that I must say that it's really tackling the 9/11 issue without resorting to personal attacks You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence proving contrary to any information provided by the "NUTTERS, FRUITCAKES, LOONEYS, LOONS, MENTALISTS" as you put it

 

[Xarog]

Highflyer

Well that's what you see on this forum a lot don't you! Specially the name calling and assumptions. Stop criticising the person and stick with the angle off attack then you will score higher points as none do at the moment

(My bold) - why k@k pupa out for what he already admitted? Doesn't seem very fair.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Highflyer

(My bold) - why k@k pupa out for what he already admitted? Doesn't seem very fair.

Lowering my game to a standard that he would understand

 

[pupa]

LOL pupa I must say you make me laugh dude!
Allow me to quote a few extracts from this thread concerning how you don't criticise the person and instead choose to criticise their argument.

Yes those were the only contributions you made to this thread, and reading that I must say that it's really tackling the 9/11 issue without resorting to personal attacks You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence proving contrary to any information provided by the "NUTTERS, FRUITCAKES, LOONEYS, LOONS, MENTALISTS" as you put it

Typical again everything out of context that is how South Africans do it! When did I get involved? what was said before it? where did I refer directly to you or any person in nic or name, I called nobody names directly I talked it general. Maybe you have not yet highlighted my Sig Dude? Try it!

 

[pupa]

Lowering my game to a standard that he would understand

Now see that's what you resort to again direct reference, thus the thought would remain mutual I believe, Get a wake up sonny, Life is going to pass you by, before you know your looks will be altered like mine, On your intellect I have no advise, that's your personal problem!

 

[Highflyer_GP]

You have a sig? Sorry didn't notice it
Anyway the point is that you're preaching about tackling a persons argument instead of tackling the person. Yet you fail to do so, instead using the opportunity to promote your anti-SA view

 

[pupa]

You have a sig? Sorry didn't notice it
Anyway the point is that you're preaching about tackling a persons argument instead of tackling the person. Yet you fail to do so, instead using the opportunity to promote your anti-SA view

Nope I attacked the views represented here regards to the USA as tibby put it the drivel on poor USA and Bush! then because you do not like it you start your cr@p and name calling and references. Stop now Boy! Grow up!

 

[Prometheus]

I'll never understand this. Could someone explain? Links, theories and "facts" aside - if the evidence that the "official story" is a lie is so sound and undeniable; if the official reports are so wrong that they have been "torn to shreds" then why is the debate consigned to internet message boards and conspiracy sites?

Sorry for not getting to this sooner - no, I haven't forgotten - was just too wrapped up in ignacios ad hominems and will now no longer respond to them. The reports have been "torn to shreds" by their inaccuracy. They illustrate how the fire reached temperatures of above 800°C in order to weaken the steel structure. The reports state that the fire couldn't have exceeded 1000°C and that it was even unlikely that it reached this temperature. It's a scientific fact that steel melts at about 1500°C. Melted (Liquified in official terms) steel was found weeks after the incident at the bottom basement pile of rubble, not the top rubble where the fire was. The reports doesn't even try to explain this. The firepersons had never seen something like this from only a office/fuel fire. It doesn't take a scientist to realise that they aren't taking everything into account.

Why is there no public outcry? What isn't the government being help responsible for it? Why are countries that would love to show up the current US government not using this as a bargaining chip? Iran for example.

Maybe because no one is really blaming them. In order to prove something one way or the other you need evidence. The US government has all the evidence. The have the video tapes from the Pentagon "crash". They are only releasing 1 frame per second videos from two of the most obscure cameras they could find. Both cameras recorded what appeares to be some kind of ring on the outside of the frame so they were probably inside the building. The class through which they recorded is splashed with mud. Even if they recorded when something went by you would probably not be able to see anything. The gas station camera video was confiscated and never seen again. US is playing the whole pack of cards by itself.

I understand that people will believe whatever they want, but such evidence, if its as sounds as the people backing the conspiracy theories make out, should hold up in court right? Why have there been no cases?

The same could be said for JFK. An inquiry has yielded "the likelyhood of a conspiracy". One court case. Don't know who was really on trial there. Nothing ever became of it. You can't prove a conspiracy in court. You must have all the facts which are usually controlled by the government involved and who wants to believe that their government is worse than the terrorists.. And conspiracy doesn't automatically implicate the government.

I'm not looking for a flame war or more links to "facts". I'm hoping someone can answer why this hasn't left the realm of conspiracy theory.

We can all agree that this was planned and executed by more than one person. So by the definition of the word this was a conspiracy. The terrorists was too stupid to do all this alone as well. So where do we go? Do we blame the people at the airport? Do we blame the person at the gate? Do we accuse the person selling the tickets? Do we blame the people who loaded the cargo? Maybe blame Microsoft Flight Simulator? If this is confusing then well, you are now just as confused as the rest of the world. No one really knows who too blame.

Indeed American's are insular, but this is not a small thing we a talking about that could be dismissed so easily. If the evidence that the conspiracy theorists would have us believe is so overwhelming then surely it would hold up in court?

No one has put forth any evidence. Only theories. At the very least the American public should demand a new investigation with ALL the evidence. The official version doesn't make sense. We have witnesses saying that they saw a plane and military experts saying they saw something like a missile. At this stage it would just be thrown out of any court. We have witnesses and a video showing that the top floors of the tower started rotating and then exploded. We have no theory for why WTC7 also collapsed in the same manner despite no fire damage. If it was really that unstable surely it would have collapsed long ago. We have official reports stating the floors of the twin towers pancaked first but the antenna that was anchored to the steel structure was actually the first to visibly sink. No "published" report takes that into account. There is too many contradictions for a court. A judge or a panel of judge will just look at it all and say. Umm... umm... what are you trying to say here again.

I hope this sattisfies you. It's really the most simple explanation I could come up with.

 

[pupa]

They illustrate how the fire reached temperatures of above 800°C in order to weaken the steel structure. The reports state that the fire couldn't have exceeded 1000°C and that it was even unlikely that it reached this temperature. It's a scientific fact that steel melts at about 1500°C. Melted (Liquified in official terms) steel was found weeks after the incident at the bottom basement pile of rubble, not the top rubble where the fire was. The reports doesn't even try to explain this. The firepersons had never seen something like this from only a office/fuel fire. It doesn't take a scientist to realise that they aren't taking everything into account.

Sorry I don't get Your drift? I can generate that 1500 degrees in a fireplace, with wood fuel, not even aircraft fuel and in a building full of cables, and lots of high volatile items! So what are you saying, why did the buildings collapse then? What is the argument! If you say it was conspiracy, I say BS? If you say the building could not collapse due to the heat, I have seen it on TV the second it happened, So what is the cue here?

 

[mooK]

Well, the popular explanation is that the weakening of the steel beams caused by the physical plane crash in conjunction with the weakening of the beams from the fire caused a weak point to give in.

But the major question now is what caused all the melted metal found if the jet fuel fire was not hot enough to melt steel.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Sorry I don't get Your drift? I can generate that 1500 degrees in a fireplace, with wood fuel, not even aircraft fuel and in a building full of cables, and lots of high volatile items! So what are you saying, why did the buildings collapse then? What is the argument! If you say it was conspiracy, I say BS? If you say the building could not collapse due to the heat, I have seen it on TV the second it happened, So what is the cue here?

OK now we're finally tackling the argument! Pupa claims his fireplace can reach temperatures of 1500 degrees.

In combustion there are 3 types of flames - a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (used in jet fuel) in air is about 1000 degrees, nowhere near the 1500 degrees required to melt steel.

Pupa I challenge you to find proof that a diffuse flame (of which your fireplace and the WTC fire is an example) can reach 1500 degrees. If you can't, please apologise for speculating on such a groundless claim.

 

[mooK]

Settle down, Highflyer

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Settle down, Highflyer

Sorry had a momentum going there

 

[pupa]

OK now we're finally tackling the argument! Pupa claims his fireplace can reach temperatures of 1500 degrees.

In combustion there are 3 types of flames - a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (used in jet fuel) in air is about 1000 degrees, nowhere near the 1500 degrees required to melt steel.

Pupa I challenge you to find proof that a diffuse flame (of which your fireplace and the WTC fire is an example) can reach 1500 degrees. If you can't, please apologise for speculating on such a groundless claim.

Safety
Any appliance in the living room of a home that operates with temperatures up to 1000°C presents potential safety risks. For woodheaters, the risks fall into two categories: house fires from incorrectly installed or maintained heaters and flues; and accidental burns caused by touching hot surfaces. Woodheaters and flues are designed to operate perfectly safely. However, problems can occur if the appliance is not installed correctly, in other words if it is not installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS2918. This sets minimum clearances from walls and ceilings and minimum requirements for floor protectors. Studies of fire incident reports show that the area where the flue from a free-standing fireplace passes through the ceiling can be a problem if the flue is incorrectly installed and a flue fire occurs. A flue fire is the rapid burning of creosote that has accumulated in the flue. Flue temperatures can reach 1200°C and so proper heat-shielding of combustible materials nearby is essential

Let's consider an example. The actual flame temperature of a wood fire can range from about 900ｰF to 2500ｰF. An "average" fire will commonly be around 1900ｰF. Almost instantly on leaving the flame tip the smoke mixes with other air or smoke, quickly reducing the temperature.

A crushed coal feed with 95% <5 µm size is typical. Combustion temperature in the external cyclone furnaces can be anything from 1650°C to over 2000°C.
Cyclone-fired boilers are suitable for coals with:

a volatile matter content of more than 15% (dry basis);
ash contents between 6 and 25% for bituminous coals, or 4 and 25% for subbituminous. The ash must have particular slag viscosity characteristics, and the maximum temperature at which the slag has a viscosity of 250 centipoise is 13401C for bituminous and 1260°C for subbituminous coals. Ash slag behaviour is critical to satisfactory operation; and
a moisture content of less than 20% for bituminous and 30% for subbituminous coals.

Flue fire in an standard household environment. Give jet fuel to ignite all kinds of materials, cables and other units in a office or enclosed building with high o2 draft and constant fuel the fire can reach much higher temperatures over time, The buildings was burning quiet a while when the collapse started, Nobody claimed the steel melted but it is an possibility, The structure were damaged by bending or the other, weakened and the already damaged parts caved in!

In my fireplace there is a cast iron basket. I once place a blower to ignite the fire at higher temp and the next morning the basket bottom were gone! You want proof with a picture?

In the huge steam boilers generating superheated steam from coal and combustion air the boiler pipes will melt when the water drops away, Also the boiler will explode, were there no geysers or canisters that could explode? Were it a camp fire as You suggest, G@D you so intelligent! do not know what a force draft of air firing combustibles can do? Stop reading your schoolbooks and realise there are other circumstances in life. There must have been a lot of secondary gas combustion in that towers!

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Please provide a source otherwise your argument is groundless. Amazing what kind of information a quick google will bring up.

Flue temperatures can reach 1200°C and so proper heat-shielding of combustible materials nearby is essential

You've actually managed to disprove yourself. Is 1200 the same as 1500? As for your iron basket melting, you left it overnight, for such a small structure. The WTC had 30 minutes before tons of steel melted.

 

[Prometheus]

There was a time when your crew embraced the term and even used it (kilos quotes - must note this in case you get angry) ... but now it is offensive to you... it was just a dismissive joke for your ideas, sorry you can't take it any more.

He was patronising you.

So then - IS it germane or isn't it? You and Kilo would have it that the belief in the JFK conspiracy is a cornerstone to the belief in the 911 conspiracy - so therefore want to keep discussing JFK in this 911 thread (as much as I don't want to). You are trying to make it germane, in fact.

Yes it is. If you don't believe in one of the most widely accepted conspiracies you won't believe in any conspiracy. I don't know why you don't want to answer it with a simple yes or no.

hmmmm - so now you have backed away entirely from what you and kilo built up over all of these days? Why are we even arguing then? Kilo has outlasted you as the truest conspiracy theorist - never backing down and really believing what he had to say - you are now distancing yourself with every post...

I never said there was a government conspiracy. You assumed I said so like I have always maintained.

where is the Prometheus of this post?

I was correcting the statement you made.