NYC World Premiere. Firefighters, Architects & Engineers: Expose the Myths of 9/11

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: pteridine

That's ridiculous.

Ridiculous is energy beams from space, thermite, quiet demolitions, hologram planes and other such alternative explanations for the obvious cause of collapse. Underground fires burn as long as they have fuel and air. Note that they did go out after a few months when they ran out of fuel.
I ask again: how would you explain the heat signatures?

Your sentence is loaded with strawman arguments. I never said anything about energy beams. However, thermite is an alternative answer that only fits. To think simple office fires could continue to exists for 4-months under 130,000 of tons of crushed concrete and steel is beyond fathomable.

a reply to: FlySolo

Lol, no, thermite isn't even close to being an answer. That's not how thermite works

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Sorry to break it to ya, but the consensus was in a long time ago.

a reply to: FlySolo

Only from completely clueless folks who don't know anything about thermite. But, lets go with your theory, where did the several hundred tons of thermite come from? Because that is what it would take to keep a fire burning that long. So, where did it come from?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: FlySolo

Only from completely clueless folks who don't know anything about thermite. But, lets go with your theory, where did the several hundred tons of thermite come from? Because that is what it would take to keep a fire burning that long. So, where did it come from?

You're too easy. It takes several hundred tons of thermite to keep the fires going? But you claim office fires can do the same as several hundred tons of thermite? Do you see the oxymoron in your statement? Thermite can't do it but office fires can?

Calling me clueless yet you have no idea what you just said. lmao

originally posted by: FlySolo

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: pteridine

That's ridiculous.

Ridiculous is energy beams from space, thermite, quiet demolitions, hologram planes and other such alternative explanations for the obvious cause of collapse. Underground fires burn as long as they have fuel and air. Note that they did go out after a few months when they ran out of fuel.
I ask again: how would you explain the heat signatures?

Your sentence is loaded with strawman arguments. I never said anything about energy beams. However, thermite is an alternative answer that only fits. To think simple office fires could continue to exists for 4-months under 130,000 of tons of crushed concrete and steel is beyond fathomable.

So you propose thermite as the demolition agent or do you think it was in addition to all those silent explosives?

Thermite absolutely doesn't fit. Thermite reacts much faster than a slow underground fire. The amount of thermite would have to be very large; you are confusing temperature with heat [caloric output]. All that is needed is a source of fuel [office supplies and furnishings], an ignition source[fires already burning], and enough air leakage to maintain combustion.

Centralia, PA is an underground fire that has been burning since 1962 en.wikipedia.org... and could burn for another 250 years.

a reply to: pteridine

You send me a link of a coal fire and tell me it's the same as office fires buried for 4 months. Keep em coming, the both of you because you're making me feel smart.

a reply to: FlySolo

No, I know that thermite burns, and then its done. It doesn't burn for months. It burns and then is exhausted. For it to keep a fire going for months, there would have to be hundreds of tons of the stuff underground. Which, there wasn't. There was, however tons of office furniture in the Towers and tons of combustible items in the shopping plaza underneath the complex, fed by air from the tunnels.

So, again, how did the tons of thermite get into the pile?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

In order for a conventional fire to stay for months, it would need to travel in search of fuel/oxygen. It didn't. A chemical reaction fire does't need to do that, and stayed in one place, which it did.

a reply to: FlySolo

So it should be easy for you to explain where those tons and tons of thermite comes from. A four month long chemical reaction......it should be easy to explain how all that thermite got there.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

First of all, it wasn't tons and tons. That was you and your little partner's strawman thrown in there. Just a few hundred pounds is all.

eta: you do realize, 4 million gallons of water was used in the first 10 days, 36 million gallons on three-months. No conventional fire in the world requires that much water. Beyond belief man.

a reply to: FlySolo

A few hundred pounds, would have been exhausted in a matter of hours. Your idea is that there was a few hundred pounds that brought down the Towers and then burned for months? Nope, not how thermite works. So, again, where did the tons of thermite come from?

Its not a strawman, its reality.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

So again, why did the fire not travel?
So again, why was 36 million gallons of water needed?
So again, why did you send a coal link as an answer to office fires?

a reply to: FlySolo

I didn't send a link about a coal fire, and the fire, was in the bottom of a debris pile surrounded by a concrete box. But, thank you for mentioning the water.......its just one more indication there was no thermite involved.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: FlySolo

I didn't send a link about a coal fire, and the fire, was in the bottom of a debris pile surrounded by a concrete box. But, thank you for mentioning the water.......its just one more indication there was no thermite involved.

Wrong

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam. [Answers.com]

Again.

a reply to: FlySolo

And again, with the amount of thermite needed for your beliefs to be accurate, the firefighters would have been parboiled by the steam. So, again a fail.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: pteridine

You send me a link of a coal fire and tell me it's the same as office fires buried for 4 months. Keep em coming, the both of you because you're making me feel smart.

I sent the link so you could be made aware that underground fires existed. You seemed to be unaware of the possibility. The conditions are the same: Fuel, air, and ignition source. The fire burns slowly and stays hot in an insulated containment.

Thermite produces LESS heat per unit mass than burning paper and plastic so much greater weights of thermite than the combustible contents of the WTC would be necessary to produce the heat equivalent. Thermite reacts faster than paper burns so lasting for months is not likely. Thermite would have to be kept together in bulk as it is a physical mixture. If it were scattered about, it wouldn't react.

I'm sure you feel smart every day.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

50 meters deep, not on the surface you realize? And who's to say there wasn't steam? I remember seeing steam/dust/smoke coming out of there for months on tv. So, before I answer anymore of your questions, I want you to answer mine.

1. Why did the fires not travel in search of oxygen/fuel?
2. Why was 36 million gallons of water needed?
3. Admit water can not put out thermite

a reply to: FlySolo
"1. Why did the fires not travel in search of oxygen/fuel?" The fires had oxygen. They burned until there was no fuel left. If you claim that the buildings fell straight down, how far would the fires travel horizontally?
"2. Why was 36 million gallons of water needed?" To try to extinguish the fires. This is very difficult with underground fires as per Centralia. Not all of the water may have been applied to the fire.
"3. Admit water can not put out thermite." OK. Once thermite starts reacting, water will not extinguish it easily.

a reply to: FlySolo

You still haven't answered my question. But, to humor you...

1. Hundreds of tons of combustibles at the bottom of the pile, with air fed into the bottom from a number of tunnels into the bathtub. No need to travel.

2. Fire, consuming clothing, books, people,...the tons of combustibles found in the pile...takes a lot to put out.

3. Only an idiot would use water to try and put out a metal based fire like thermite.

But since there was not this magical supply of thermite, #3 is irrelevant.