New Video: 9/11 Mysteries

Originally posted by Muaddib

There was both, light and black smoke.

I can't argue that.

But this is where you start to lose me.

Then when the second plane crashes into tower 1 you see in the initial blast a lot of black smoke which combines with the smoke of tower 2.

And I always thought Tower 2 was hit second?

Edit: I only bring this up because you stated that because the video had 1 or 2 errors in it that we shouldn't listen to it. Well, I just found an error in your post, so by your logic, I shouldn't listen to a word you have to say.


[edit on 10/12/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Mauddib

Originally posted by bsbray11
Prove it.

The towers fell....

Wow, how much more ignorant can you get? I guess you're cool being this inept and foolish so long as those checks from the DoD keep coming in, am I right? You've done nothing but spout the same blanket debunk rhetoric that thousands of people before you have with no new evidence or alternetive viewpoints to consider.

I'll keep you off ignore for a little while longer just to see how silly this debate becomes.

Originally posted by Griff

Bolded by me. So, we have black smoke....which you say is indicative of a fire that doesn't have high enough heat to burn organics. Correct so far?

How can hydrocarbons don't have enough heat to burn "organics", when they have low entropy?....

Hydrocarbons are all substances with low entropy (meaning they hold a lot of energy potential), which can be released and harnessed by burning them.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hydrocarbons have many impurities, chemical elements, and they can also contain VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), and most often in fires there is not enough heat, or oxygen since hydrogen gets most of the oxygen, to burn the organic chemicals, or the chemical elements... there is quite a bit of difference between your attempt at trying to downplay what I was saying, which only shows your ignorance on the facts, and what i was saying.

The thing is that "all hydrocarbons" burn incomplete... which is what bsray is twisting around. There will always be impurities of some kind in hydrocarbons, some can be invisible, such as carbon dioxide, but depending on the hydrocarbon being burned, and what impurities, organic chemicals it has, it would leave large trails of smoke, such as jet fuel which will burn leaving trails of black smoke.

You would need temperatures to reach probably 1000C- 2000C or more to burn some of these organic chemicals.

For example, heating coal to 1000C would release ammonia, benzole, sulphur and tar, and heating coal at that temperature, would not burn off those impurities, it would only release them.

Originally posted by Griff

But this same fire can lower the strength of steel? What temperature do organics burn at again? What temperature does it take to lessen the strength of steel significant enough for failure? Seems to me like you can't have it both ways. Thanks for rienforcing what BsBray11 has been trying to tell you.

black smoke=cooler fire

white/clear smoke=high temperature fire.

....that statement shows only ignorance....

Incomplete
Incomplete combustion happens when there is an inadequate supply of oxygen for combustion to occur completely. The reactant will burn in oxygen, but will produce numerous products. When a hydrocarbon burns in air, the reaction will yield carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, and various other compounds such as nitrogen oxides. Incomplete combustion is much more common and will produce large amounts of byproducts, and in the case of burning fuel in automobiles, these byproducts can be quite unhealthy and damaging to the environment.

en.wikipedia.org...

Burning hydrocarbons will most often than not leave trails of smoke because hydrogen reacts first with oxygen in a fire, using most of the oxygen, while the rest of the chemicals get the leftovers of oxygen, plus what i mentioned above.

[edit on 13-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by BrokenVisage

Wow, how much more ignorant can you get? I guess you're cool being this inept and foolish so long as those checks from the DoD keep coming in, am I right?

Wrong, and again it shows that people like yourself have nothing substantive to back your arguments with, which leaves you only with the same tactics so many people use around here, insulting those who disagree with you...

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
You've done nothing but spout the same blanket debunk rhetoric that thousands of people before you have with no new evidence or alternetive viewpoints to consider.

Actually I gave quite a few facts, the only one spouting the same debunk rethoric and idiotic comments around here is you....

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
I'll keep you off ignore for a little while longer just to see how silly this debate becomes.

Put me ignore if you want for all i care, more power to you i guess...

Originally posted by Griff

And I always thought Tower 2 was hit second?

Edit: I only bring this up because you stated that because the video had 1 or 2 errors in it that we shouldn't listen to it. Well, I just found an error in your post, so by your logic, I shouldn't listen to a word you have to say.


[edit on 10/12/2006 by Griff]

Yep, i made a mistake, I guess i am human too...but at least i admit when i make mistakes...

Anyways, there is a bit of difference between making an honest mistake... and coming up with, for example, "hydrogen bombs, or mini nukes, were used to blow up the WTC" and other nonsense, or "a firefighter saw two fires in floor 78 and they should have been easy to put out" and then apparently trying to make people believe those two fires were the only ones needed to put out in order to save the towers.... or even claiming that the seismic signals recorded in 9/11 show bombs were used when it doesn't show such thing.


[edit on 13-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Griff

Bolded by me. So, we have black smoke....which you say is indicative of a fire that doesn't have high enough heat to burn organics. Correct so far?

BTW, i don't think you know what i meant by "organic chemicals". here is a list to help you.

www.sciencelab.com...

Originally posted by Griff I only bring this up because you stated that because the video had 1 or 2 errors in it that we shouldn't listen to it. Well, I just found an error in your post, so by your logic, I shouldn't listen to a word you have to say.

Actually there's quite a bit of difference between a hastily written post on a message board and a heavily edited video that claims to be the truth.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Hydrocarbons have many impurities, chemical elements, and they can also contain VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), and most often in fires there is not enough heat, or oxygen since hydrogen gets most of the oxygen, to burn the organic chemicals, or the chemical elements... there is quite a bit of difference between your attempt at trying to downplay what I was saying, which only shows your ignorance on the facts, and what i was saying.

Sorry for my ignorance...but I guess I took what you were saying the wrong way. I thought you said that most often fires don't burn hot enough to burn off these organic compounds? My mistake.

You would need temperatures to reach probably 1000C- 2000C or more to burn some of these organic chemicals.

Source please. I'm not saying you're wrong, but just like you wouldn't take my word for it.....

For example, heating coal to 1000C would release ammonia, benzole, sulphur and tar, and heating coal at that temperature, would not burn off those impurities, it would only release them.

Exactly, so the more black smoke (more impurities), the cooler the fire.

....that statement shows only ignorance....

Please explain what is so ignorant about it. I could say you are ignorant all day without proof. Think anyone would listen?

Incomplete
Incomplete combustion happens when there is an inadequate supply of oxygen for combustion to occur completely. The reactant will burn in oxygen, but will produce numerous products. When a hydrocarbon burns in air, the reaction will yield carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, and various other compounds such as nitrogen oxides. Incomplete combustion is much more common and will produce large amounts of byproducts, and in the case of burning fuel in automobiles, these byproducts can be quite unhealthy and damaging to the environment.

en.wikipedia.org...

Burning hydrocarbons will most often than not leave trails of smoke because hydrogen reacts first with oxygen in a fire, using most of the oxygen, while the rest of the chemicals get the leftovers of oxygen, plus what i mentioned above.

Please explain to me since I am so ignorant how this is an arguement against what I was saying? Even your Wiki article says "incomplete combustion". Hmm..incomplete combustion would be a cooler fire than complete combustion would it not?

I still stand by what I was saying before.

Plane hits-gray smoke (with fuel mind you)

then after a few minutes-black smoke

So, wouldn't that indicate then that the fire went from a more complete combustion to a less complete combustion (incomplete combustion)? Please explain oh wise one.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Yep, i made a mistake, I guess i am human too...but at least i admit when i make mistakes...

Actually first time I've seen you say that.

Anyways, there is a bit of difference between making an honest mistake... and coming up with, for example, "hydrogen bombs, or mini nukes, were used to blow up the WTC" and other nonsense,

Please sight the time stamp where the video goes into hydrogen bombs or mini nukes. I must have missed that part.

or "a firefighter saw two fires in floor 78 and they should have been easy to put out" and then apparently trying to make people believe those two fires were the only ones needed to put out in order to save the towers

The video doesn't state that these fires were the ONLY fires in the building.

.... or even claiming that the seismic signals recorded in 9/11 show bombs were used when it doesn't show such thing.

Again, was never claimed in the video. Have you watched the video? I'm guessing not. How can you come in here and argue about something you haven't seen yet?

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, i don't think you know what i meant by "organic chemicals". here is a list to help you.

www.sciencelab.com...

You are correct. I was thinking more along the lines of organics...not organic chemicals. See, I can admit fault also. Still doesn't change the fact that when a fire goes from light smoke to dark smoke, it is indicative of a cooling fire.....especially when the fuel was burning while the smoke was lighter.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Actually there's quite a bit of difference between a hastily written post on a message board and a heavily edited video that claims to be the truth.

Or how about multimillion dollar reports by the government that have the exact same errors in them that also claim to be the truth? Is that a bit of a difference?

[edit on 10/13/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Sorry for my ignorance...but I guess I took what you were saying the wrong way. I thought you said that most often fires don't burn hot enough to burn off these organic compounds? My mistake.

I said organic chemicals....

Originally posted by Griff
Source please. I'm not saying you're wrong, but just like you wouldn't take my word for it.....

Source huh?... how about the fact that jet fuel "supposedly burns at it's maximum at 980 degrees celcius, and impurities are not burned off?... Is that proof enough?....

Maximum burning temperature: 980 °C

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Griff
Exactly, so the more black smoke (more impurities), the cooler the fire.

Are you kidding?... It does not mean "cooler fire"....imcomplete combustion means "not all chemical compounds, impurities found in the fuel are burned off".... There is a difference...

Originally posted by Griff
Please explain what is so ignorant about it. I could say you are ignorant all day without proof. Think anyone would listen?

See above.

Originally posted by Griff
Please explain to me since I am so ignorant how this is an arguement against what I was saying? Even your Wiki article says "incomplete combustion". Hmm..incomplete combustion would be a cooler fire than complete combustion would it not?

I still stand by what I was saying before.

Humm, i gueess the "darker and the more the smoke" it must mean the "cooler" the fire is huh?.....

Then i guess that must mean the Buncefield oil depot explosion and subsequent fire must have been the "coldest fire ever" right?.....

i mean, look at how dark and big the black cloud of smoke is from this fire...





Some information and some other pictures from that fire can be found here...

www.defra.gov.uk...

Originally posted by Griff
Plane hits-gray smoke (with fuel mind you)

then after a few minutes-black smoke

So, wouldn't that indicate then that the fire went from a more complete combustion to a less complete combustion (incomplete combustion)? Please explain oh wise one.

If you would have taken the time to look at the video I posted earlier of the WTC attack you would have seen why the smoke became darker. The darker smoke came after the second plane crashed...

Here it is again, almost halfway in the video you will find when the second plane crashes it produces a black cloud of smoke, which merges with the smoke from the first plane crash.

www.revver.com...

BTW, leave your patronizing rethoric for somewhere else.

[edit on 14-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Valhall
.........
Excuse me? Where did I say I need to do anything? You are apparently sure of how everything went. I'm not. Live with that fact.
.

I was making a question, Valhall, you can think whatever you want.

Originally posted by Griff

Or how about multimillion dollar reports by the government that have the exact same errors in them that also claim to be the truth? Is that a bit of a difference?

[edit on 10/13/2006 by Griff]

I guess errors found in government reports is enough of an excuse to exagerate, twist the facts, and propagate lies because some people have a political agenda?....

[edit on 14-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

I guess errors found in government reports is enough of an excuse to exagerate, twist the facts, and propagate lies because some people have a political agenda?....

No, the video did not exagerate, twist the facts or propagate lies. How does haveing the same errors as the official report automatically make the film lying? Why does trying to find the truth become a political agenda? He states in the first few minutes that he is a conservative republican. Why do you assume that he has a political agenda?

BTW, I see what you're saying about the smoke. I was a bit ignorant on the subject. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Then i guess that must mean the Buncefield oil depot explosion and subsequent fire must have been the "coldest fire ever" right?.....

i mean, look at how dark and big the black cloud of smoke is from this fire...

You can't compare an oil field fire to an office fire. The fuel burned out in the first 10 minutes (according to official reports). The only thing left in the fire was office furniture and such. The smoke could also have turned black later when the office furniture caught fire (plastics burn with dark black smoke). So, I do agree with you (after you have enlightened me about fire and smoke) that the dark smoke doesn't neccessarily mean a cooler fire.

Let me ask you something though. Wouldn't such an intense fire have broken the windows? I have cracked glass before with a lighter. I didn't see windows busting from this suppossed intense fire?

Originally posted by Griff
You can't compare an oil field fire to an office fire. The fuel burned out in the first 10 minutes (according to official reports). The only thing left in the fire was office furniture and such.

That part of the official report is also wrong, as I was saying, I don't know exactly what they did to put the information they got together, the fuel from a passenger aircraft takes longer than 10 minutes to burn out.

As an example in 1997, in Miami Florida there was a DC-8 cargo aircraft which crashed a few minutes after take off, it slid off 72nd Avenue killing one person who was driving in his car and parts of the wreckage piled in business stores on the other side of 72nd avenue.

You can see some pictures of the crash at the following site, and you can also see the black smoke produced by the jet fuel from the aircraft.
www.rocousa.com...

You have to scroll down a little bit in that site to see the pictures.

Another site with some more information on the cause of the crash and other facts.
aviation-safety.net...

This fire was in the open, and still it burned for more than 10 minutes, and in this one firefighters were able to fight the fire, if it would have been let to burn out it would have taken much longer. As it is it took several hours for the firefighters to put out the fire. The firefighters arrived minutes after the crash, it didn't take them long to get there, but took them hours to put out the fires.

Thousand's of gallons of water and foam were used for several hours.

www.rocousa.com...

Originally posted by Griff
The smoke could also have turned black later when the office furniture caught fire (plastics burn with dark black smoke). So, I do agree with you (after you have enlightened me about fire and smoke) that the dark smoke doesn't neccessarily mean a cooler fire.

Actually looking at that same video I gave you can see that from the impact zone where the first plane crashed there is blacker smoke coming out of it. That fire from the jet fuel started other fires, mostly it appears to have been in the floors above the impact zone, and in those areas you see lighter smoke coming out. There is more furniture, carpets, etc, etc than plastics in an office.

Originally posted by Griff
Let me ask you something though. Wouldn't such an intense fire have broken the windows? I have cracked glass before with a lighter. I didn't see windows busting from this suppossed intense fire?

It did. Even in that video which i gave there is one part, shame there is no time stamp on it so i could point you to the exact place where it can be seen, as whoever was filming zoomed in on tower 1, you can see something floating down and catching the reflection of the sun. It appears to have been a window, or part of a window. BTW, windows in skyscrappers are shatter resistant because of the high winds which constantly blow at that altitute.


[edit on 14-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Griff

Please sight the time stamp where the video goes into hydrogen bombs or mini nukes. I must have missed that part.

I was refering the overall discussion of this topic. The person who has put forth those theories i mentioned knows who I was talking about.

Originally posted by Griff
The video doesn't state that these fires were the ONLY fires in the building.

In the first 7-10 minutes of the video, after we hear the supposed recording from a firefighter, the narrator emphasizes "only two sections on fire, and they could have been put out with two hoses", or something like it... That was an attempt to downplay the extend of the fire and to goat people to believe it should have been easy to put out the fires.

Originally posted by Griff
Again, was never claimed in the video. Have you watched the video? I'm guessing not. How can you come in here and argue about something you haven't seen yet?

I was talking about some of the other theories which have been going around here on this same topic.

Originally posted by Unright
Just search for 9/11 Mysteries DVD.

I think I heard Alex Jones say that he is carrying it too.

It's also on another free site with other major political events and mysteries, ufos, etc. I'll post the link in a little bit. I'm watching South Park on youtube about the 9/11 conspiracies.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, windows in skyscrappers are shatter resistant because of the high winds which constantly blow at that altitute.

I was thinking about this also. I'll have to look up some specs on windows when I get back to work on Monday. I should have some time.