GoD stop been a imbecile You talking a household fire here, the example was to prove the 1000 degrees is a myth, so from that 1200 degrees to the next examples 1371 degrees to the furnace all with different circumstances. You are such an arrogant @sshole! no wonder you cannot see light ( See now I do what you were doing, pleasure hey!)Highflyer_GP said:
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
911 Pentagon Video Released
- Thread starter kilo39
- Start date
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
Sorry, delayed post, this thread is moving too fast. Not in the last dozen or so however, but in the previous one I commented on yes. Return to name calling like kook or kookie-eater and I'll stop commenting again.ignacio said:
Highflyer_GP
Honorary Master
pupa said:
Typical. Can't answer a simple question, resort to personal attackspupa said:
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
And you were following his style.mooK said:
Why don't you comment in a proper way then if you think it's crap? Most things probably seem like crap because you don't understand any of it. I look things up that I don't understand before commenting. If I don't know something for sure I say so.
As I said I joined the club. I did proof a normal wood fire can reach up to 1371 degrees in a fireplace, in a Frnace you can get 2000 degrees, what more proof you want, Fact remains you did not read the rest of the post and neither proved the alternates! Just blabbing away. Yes you are right Google is wonderful! You can get the information to proof the point! I did not learn about fire around the campfire!Highflyer_GP said:
Last edited:
Highflyer_GP
Honorary Master
That's not proof, thats heresay. Anyway read the whole read before commenting, as well as LG's thread, everything you're trying to debate has been discussed before. Twice. And I'm not going to repeat anything for the 3rd time if you're too lazy to read
Just for you GP I take it all back, I've found some compelling evidence of what really hit the Pentagon http://www.counterthink.org/019388.htmlHighflyer_GP said:
Just to show how futile these arguments by the conspiracy experts are! But as this was a Fema report it would be again debunked as only another conspiracy!
Last edited:
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
Sorry, the report said you cant do that easily.pupa said:
According to the report you're probably going to need an oxygen tank to do so. Fires look warmer than they really are. When seeing fires on tv I always thought it was over a thousand degrees, but based on this it was only about two thirds of that. Back on topic, either you can do it in a fireplace and the report is bogus or you can't in which case the report doesn't explain the melted (liquefied) steel. The report said it can't be the fire yet the steel was "liquified". What caused the heat.
I want to know how the building collapsed. The report said it was the floors collapsing onto the lower floors. This assumes there was no pivoting or tilting of the top part as it would be impossible for the building to do that. Yet witnesses saw it happening and then everything started to explode. There are forces at work that isn't fully understood. Did they perhaps not take into account some law of physics that is normally negligible, but becomes significant when such a large building collapses. It is after all not everyday that such a large building collapses without planted charges. I didn't automatically jump to conspiracy thinking. The report neglected some very basic observations and is therefor just as good as no report at all. All I am saying as I don't know any more.
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
What are you saying? Can you do it or not. The report says you can't.pupa said:
That's a parody. If you can see a 757 in the images released to the public you can easily also see a flying grilled cheese sandwich. That site says there's 84 confiscated video tapes. Is that true? Where are they? Why are they only releasing a few pathetic frames? People should march down to the Pentagon and demand that they are handed over.pupa said:
And another thing. How did they know about all of them? Seems they really do have spies everywhere.
Last edited:
Read the Fema report in the post I gave prior to that. This one seems a report based on theory of fire with wild assumptions, I know different from experience and before I researched this information said a fire can be achieved a temperature of 1500 degrees with the correct conditions. Its easy to suggest various options and forget a few degrees only +- 500 degrees depending what you want the outcome of the report should be!Prometheus said:
That building with the fuel and content and drafts of air became a superheated furnace IMHO. but nobody stated the steel melted, it got damaged to a point where the structural damage due to the kinetic energy and explosion became to much and it failed taking the rest down as the weight increased together with the kinetic energy of the collapse!
Prometheus said:
How does these conspirators know everything, and yes it is a parody, a Joke, I did not even read it!
Nope PPL should accept it was done by terrorists, and it was a sad affair, There was no conspiracy. It was something bad that happened that altered the perceptions in the world forever!
Last edited:
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Pupa :
This also does not answer why melted steel was found after the buildings collapsed. I *suppose* the kinetic energy might have caused this to happen, but I'm not physicist and thus I wouldn't know how to go about proving it. I do know that the molten core the Earth has was caused by kinetic energy when gravity started pushing all the rock together.
The problem I have with this is : The designers who made the WTC towers took into account the possibility of a plane hitting the building, in order to make sure it didn't fall down. Now, as far as I know - no one has come out and said that the builders somehow screwed up the calculations, or gone as far as to show where the planners made their mistake. Personally, this is one little conflict I'd really like resolved.
This also does not answer why melted steel was found after the buildings collapsed. I *suppose* the kinetic energy might have caused this to happen, but I'm not physicist and thus I wouldn't know how to go about proving it. I do know that the molten core the Earth has was caused by kinetic energy when gravity started pushing all the rock together.
My bold. The tempreture bit is still speculation.
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
CAN you blame a person? That link was wildly thrown in with one of ignacios posts. We told him it was bogus, but he kept on saying that it was all "published" reports by "credible scientists". Part of his misinformation tactics.pupa said:
Excuse me for stating the obvious here.
By definition it was a conspiracy no matter who committed it. And things aren't black and white as I stated earlier. They might well have had help from someone in the government. There are many villainous people in life that will do things for their own selfish reasons.
ok - so where were we? Looks like there are - how shall I put this - fanatics on both sides... lots of wild stuff last night!Prometheus said:
Let me just address this kook thing here, so we can move on productively. If you and kilo are going to proceed in a responsible manner and don't introduce pure speculation or logical leaps, but rather focus on the "irregularities" or "holes" with the "official version", then, in fairness, you don't deserve the label of kook. Your last summary - while not objective - did not jump to conspiracy theory conclusions, so you can't be called a kook based on that. But, if we continue our thread and hear more about:
nuclear bombs
missiles
JFK
it can only be assumed that you want to take the thread back to untested, unverified, speculative conspiracy ideas... in summary the domain of kooks. So, sure, I will play nicely and try to cut down on the ad hominems if you likewise stick to the facts as we know them without proposing wild-eyed ideas that are at best speculation. Fair enough?
EDIT: won't be spending too much time debunking today... lots of work to do.
Last edited:
Well the sickening thing is if you read some of the USA conspirators theory's it varies from USA GVT bringing the towers down with thermite, demolition explosives and atom bomb, (Sic) that how feeble this argument is.
Simple Planes hit the building, there is a huge fire, the building start collapsing from the top, All the fuel, of cables, tiles, chemicals, Aluminium, whatever get squashed in a few story's basement with lots of material from the top, creating in effect a blast furnace, high temperatures and self consuming. Lots of air ingress from all over creating many mini furnaces. Now this is the biggest experiment of this kind ever, never done would never repeated so there could and would be new science involved! To say it could not it BS because it did!
Simple Planes hit the building, there is a huge fire, the building start collapsing from the top, All the fuel, of cables, tiles, chemicals, Aluminium, whatever get squashed in a few story's basement with lots of material from the top, creating in effect a blast furnace, high temperatures and self consuming. Lots of air ingress from all over creating many mini furnaces. Now this is the biggest experiment of this kind ever, never done would never repeated so there could and would be new science involved! To say it could not it BS because it did!
I find the conspiracy view that the US is responsible for the entire debacle quite silly. And to attack ignacio's debating skills rather unfair.
Some people are exceptional when it comes to using satire and humour in debating, clearly if you dont have a dry sense of humour you would not be able to see it.
Some people are exceptional when it comes to using satire and humour in debating, clearly if you dont have a dry sense of humour you would not be able to see it.
I haven't been keeping track to this thread in the last few days - since my last comment on ignacio's "debating" style. I'll catch up at some point perhaps.
What gets me about all this - is finding this information and making some sense of it is hard work - then you get somebody quipping from the sideline on a score. Or a persons debating style. They make no other contribution except the quips - and the fact they make the quips shows they have not being paying attention to the material presented. As to ignacio - he has been asked repeatedly to stop using the word kook - and here I check in - and the first word I read it kook. Makes me sick - and it certainly has nothing to do with a debating style. Why can't a person have a conversation without slurs? Does this person have some kind of emotional, mental issues - that repeated requests - by the people doing the work on this thread - are ignored? (And worse - I find myself using the same tactics - of abuse - not acceptable.)
Then - once again - I get met by this:
pupa
How does these conspirators know everything, and yes it is a parody, a Joke, I did not even read it!
Nope PPL should accept it was done by terrorists, and it was a sad affair, There was no conspiracy. It was something bad that happened that altered the perceptions in the world forever!
Here is a person making a comment - but they state up front "I haven't read it - too much work" -.
or
neio
I find the conspiracy view that the US is responsible for the entire debacle quite silly. And to attack ignacio's debating skills rather unfair.
Some people are exceptional when it comes to using satire and humour in debating, clearly if you dont have a dry sense of humour you would not be able to see it.
I question "debating skills" - since when in a debate is it okay to use derogatory language? Since when is using the work "kook" satire and humour/especially if you are on the receiving end?
If people cannot converse without respect there is no point in conversing. The very lack of respect shows the intellect involved.
Here are closeup photos taken minutes after the pentagon crash: Where is the plane? http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/asce_en.html
Some quick quotes for comparison:
The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. The apple is 6 cm in diameter and weighs 100 g. With the observed collapse time we obtain the resistance factor n = 0.16 by using equation (15). The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/energia3.htm
(the good ole number one eyeball, a video camera and some simple addition and subtraction)
2. The failure of the impacted floor system: The explosion following the impact may have destroyed some of the thermal insulation around the steel columns. The 60 tons of flaming jet fuel easily raised temperatures to 1,500° F or more. Exposed to such intense and prolonged heat, structural steel loses rigidity and strength. This may have caused a reduction of the buckling force of the connected 2-3 floor structural system.
(ignacio - official MIT quote - about par for all the documentation - both governmental - and debunker, ie, MIT.)
"Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT"
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&
# Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.
Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)
"In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection," Connor continued. "When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging (pulling) the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down." This phenomenon started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself, he said.
M.I.T. panel participants
-
Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics?
-
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum and energy in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of energy and momentum and the fall-times were not analyzed.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
One credibility the .fi site has above all other - commitment to free information - beyond the trawl of the american government.
Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity. --- Marshall McLuhan
What gets me about all this - is finding this information and making some sense of it is hard work - then you get somebody quipping from the sideline on a score. Or a persons debating style. They make no other contribution except the quips - and the fact they make the quips shows they have not being paying attention to the material presented. As to ignacio - he has been asked repeatedly to stop using the word kook - and here I check in - and the first word I read it kook. Makes me sick - and it certainly has nothing to do with a debating style. Why can't a person have a conversation without slurs? Does this person have some kind of emotional, mental issues - that repeated requests - by the people doing the work on this thread - are ignored? (And worse - I find myself using the same tactics - of abuse - not acceptable.)
Then - once again - I get met by this:
pupa
How does these conspirators know everything, and yes it is a parody, a Joke, I did not even read it!
Nope PPL should accept it was done by terrorists, and it was a sad affair, There was no conspiracy. It was something bad that happened that altered the perceptions in the world forever!
Here is a person making a comment - but they state up front "I haven't read it - too much work" -.
or
neio
I find the conspiracy view that the US is responsible for the entire debacle quite silly. And to attack ignacio's debating skills rather unfair.
Some people are exceptional when it comes to using satire and humour in debating, clearly if you dont have a dry sense of humour you would not be able to see it.
I question "debating skills" - since when in a debate is it okay to use derogatory language? Since when is using the work "kook" satire and humour/especially if you are on the receiving end?
If people cannot converse without respect there is no point in conversing. The very lack of respect shows the intellect involved.
Here are closeup photos taken minutes after the pentagon crash: Where is the plane? http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/asce_en.html
Some quick quotes for comparison:
The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. The apple is 6 cm in diameter and weighs 100 g. With the observed collapse time we obtain the resistance factor n = 0.16 by using equation (15). The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/energia3.htm
(the good ole number one eyeball, a video camera and some simple addition and subtraction)
2. The failure of the impacted floor system: The explosion following the impact may have destroyed some of the thermal insulation around the steel columns. The 60 tons of flaming jet fuel easily raised temperatures to 1,500° F or more. Exposed to such intense and prolonged heat, structural steel loses rigidity and strength. This may have caused a reduction of the buckling force of the connected 2-3 floor structural system.
(ignacio - official MIT quote - about par for all the documentation - both governmental - and debunker, ie, MIT.)
"Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT"
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3721&
# Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.
Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.) Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explosive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation, as seen in cases of acknowledged controlled demolition. (Harris, 2000.)
"In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection," Connor continued. "When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging (pulling) the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down." This phenomenon started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself, he said.
M.I.T. panel participants
-
Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics?
-
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum and energy in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of energy and momentum and the fall-times were not analyzed.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
One credibility the .fi site has above all other - commitment to free information - beyond the trawl of the american government.
Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity. --- Marshall McLuhan
Ecstatic to see you back, old buddy... as you can see I have entered into detente with the conspiracy theorists (CTs) and will attempt to constrain my attacking ways while you all constrain your fanciful fabrications.kilo39 said:
But before we move on - as a test of your character - are you willing to admit you either lied or were misinformed as described in this thread? Do you take back your unfounded accusations of racism levelled at me?