Bush's connections and now a possible connection to controlled demo consulting and planning company

page: 3
139
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggins44
The burn temperature of Jet a fuel is 1800f. degrees.

Oooh, sorry. The burn temperature of jet fuel, which is Jet-A kerosene, is 549.5 degrees F:

en.wikipedia.org...

Where's the link to your claim?



Originally posted by riggins44
You caculations do not take into account of the impact temperature which is above 2000 degrees. Remember, mass moving at high speed creates energy.

Oooh, sorry once again. I'll remember your logic the next time a tornado hurls a 2x4 piece of wood through a car door at a 200-300 miles per hour, or a drinking straw through a tree. Those would burn the car and tree at 2000 degrees just from the impact with your logic.

Let's see a link on mass hitting another mass and instantly creating 2000 degree temperatures, thanks.




posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Well done - even MORE info I was unaware of.

I did read that the levels that were hit also contained the computer rooms?

9/11 Planes Flew Directly Into Secure Computer Rooms
www.abovetopsecret.com...
hmmm thread was closed without a decent discussion btw... to the older thread with NO discussion.. just off topic BS...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
_BoneZ_ you rock!

wZn

[edit on 7-3-2009 by watchZEITGEISTnow]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
And another question, what are the odds of the planes hitting the right floors and the right buildings?


Pretty high if the planes were CGI or holograms...

I am certain that with a plan this large, it was not left to chance that some religion-blinded, unskilled "pilots" would actually find the targets, let alone actually hit them.

That would leave WAY too much to chance. So I suspect that we were duped about planes. Virtually ALL of those who reported that day that they saw a plane were from the media. And there are some very compelling scenes in September Surprise suggesting that CGI was used in a number of the shots we saw on TV that day.

To the OP: Awesome sleuthing! Thank you so much for this!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by riggins44
The burn temperature of Jet a fuel is 1800f. degrees.

Oooh, sorry. The burn temperature of jet fuel, which is Jet-A kerosene, is 549.5 degrees F:

en.wikipedia.org...

Where's the link to your claim?



Originally posted by riggins44
You caculations do not take into account of the impact temperature which is above 2000 degrees. Remember, mass moving at high speed creates energy.

Oooh, sorry once again. I'll remember your logic the next time a tornado hurls a 2x4 piece of wood through a car door at a 200-300 miles per hour, or a drinking straw through a tree. Those would burn the car and tree at 2000 degrees just from the impact with your logic.

Let's see a link on mass hitting another mass and instantly creating 2000 degree temperatures, thanks.


Here you go again with you reserch and so eager to point out others calculations. You use the open air temp from wiki and claim that others are wrong, jeeze. So, you are going to stand by your claim that the burn temperature was 549.5 f? That is a hundred degress warmer then cooking a frozen pizza. You are not going to tell us that was temperature of the fireball upon impact.

I know for a fact that the burn temperature of jet A fuel is 1000c. That is just over 1800f. Your wood analogy sucks because the planes were carrying 60,000 pounds of jet fuel. The over all weight is far greater then a 2x4 and moving 300 to 400 MPH. And when the weight is over a 100 tons and the speed only increases the amount of energy release upon impact. Kind of like E=MC2.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by questioningall
 


Thank you. I really hope people take the time to view the documentaries on the 2000 election and how Bush stole the election from Al Gore who clearly won. Makes one wonder what life would have been like for the past 8 years and what the current state of the country would be had Al Gore been president.


Life would have been exactly the same had Gore won. Gore is just as capable of reading from the script and taking orders from his masters as Bush was. (better than Bush, because Bush can't put together a coherent sentence)

You aren't getting the picture, are you? The NWO cabal owns all the horses in the race. It doesn't matter (it has never mattered) which party or candidate wins an election because the final two candidates who emerge are alway sick little puppets who are bought and paid for, and controlled by the NWO.

How could life possibly have been any better had Gore won? Especially in light of the fact that he's on a mission to try to convince the world that CO2 is a pollutant. My god people, can you believe this? It's exactly the same as declaring oxygen to be a pollutant. And to top it all off, Gore has clearly been given his orders and like the obedient puppy he is, came out with his absurd campaign against global warming, which is a perfectly natural phenomenon. His movie is nothing more than a bold faced lie meant to do non other than to justify taxing you even further... for breathing. Because when you breathe, you exhale CO2.

it just saddens me that there are so many people like you who think the world would have been any different had Gore won. You just aren't getting the message, are you?.


WAKE UP PEOPLE! FOR CHRIST SAKE, PLEASE WAKE UP!

video.google.com...

I



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Pretty high if the planes were CGI or holograms...

Yeah, the no-plane/tv fakery disinfo has been debunked here:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...



Originally posted by Amaterasu
I am certain that with a plan this large, it was not left to chance that some religion-blinded, unskilled "pilots" would actually find the targets, let alone actually hit them.

That's why we have remote controlled and GPS-guided planes.



Originally posted by Amaterasu
Virtually ALL of those who reported that day that they saw a plane were from the media.

Yet there were also independent and home videos made also:

www.youtube.com...

There are several clips there where people react to the plane before it even hits the tower. All those people seeing an invisible plane that makes roaring jet sounds in front of thousands of people. Yeah.....



Originally posted by Amaterasu
To the OP: Awesome sleuthing! Thank you so much for this!

And thank you for stopping by my thread and dirtying it up with the tv fakery disinfo. There are 3 tv fakery/no-planes threads at the top of this 9/11 forum and I've busted more than one disinfo agent purposely perpetrating lies and peddling disinfo about the subject. You should go read my posts in those threads. NPT'ers have no legs left to stand on.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggins44
You use the open air temp from wiki and claim that others are wrong

You said "burning temp" and that's what Wiki says also.



Originally posted by riggins44
You are not going to tell us that was temperature of the fireball upon impact.

You could do a simple experiment and show everyone the real temperature. Go to your local gas station, get some kerosene. Get a thermometer that can read temps over 2000 degrees. Go to your back yard and set the kerosene on fire and let us all know how hot it burns. Very cheap and simple experiment.



Originally posted by riggins44
I know for a fact that the burn temperature of jet A fuel is 1000c. That is just over 1800f.

Just because you proclaim it as fact, doesn't mean it is. I asked you for a source last time. Apparently you have no proof. Which also means, no credibility. Put up or shut up.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   


You could do a simple experiment and show everyone the real temperature. Go to your local gas station, get some kerosene. Get a thermometer that can read temps over 2000 degrees. Go to your back yard and set the kerosene on fire and let us all know how hot it burns. Very cheap and simple experiment.


I'm one step ahead of you.
Before this weird warming trend cranked up around here- I had to go get kerosene, fill the kerosene heater, made of thin metal, and ignite it. I burned my thumb since the battery igniter must have died about 5000 years ago.

Wanna know something? Yup, I ended up with a small scorched spot on my thumb, and the heater- amazingly enough- DIDNT MELT! No matter how much fuel could have been dumped into the building.... only the top layer of it can burn at a time. Which means a controlled flame of a certain temp. If it used up all the fuel at once, sure- temperatures would go up, and fast.

The kerosene heater, which keeps a reservoir of the stuff below it, and like I said- thin metal all the way around- burns for hours, and doesn't even begin to melt! Nothing.

Another example is all those fire fighting classes I had to take in the navy- we were faced with a ROARING POOL of jet fuel! I had a pair of those ugly plastic BC glasses- and was at the front of this little immolative event- say 10-15 feet. My glasses got hot enough to make me have to take them off, yes- but neither them, or me (plastic frames, plastic lenses, and a rubber raincoat on) were harmed, outside of being really, really hot. Oh- and add in summer weather.... 90's.....

I'm still here. Nothing melted or burned off. So- try again on how hot kerosene and JP5 can get, debunking person? *I'll* go with 594.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
I'd be surprised if a duplicate of this thread's info hasn't been seen on this site, but since I'm new I'll play along =)

I don't know the political ties or any background on the following site, but you practically need a degree in Chemistry to keep up; seems very accurate and appropriate.
911research.wtc7.net...

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Also:
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
[from same site]

I hope we get back on track now


[edit on 9-3-2009 by notreallyalive]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   


I know for a fact that the burn temperature of jet A fuel is 1000c. That is just over 1800f.


Interesting statement and attitude given it's totally false... Much better for all of us if you provide links and data rather than "I know for a fact"



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There are thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts, physicists, who have looked at the evidence. Dozens say it was controlled demolition, thousands say it happened the way it was reported.


If you're going to derail, at least bring something new and truthful to the table.

As has been mentioned, 619 (and counting) architectural and engineering professionals and 3219 (and counting) other supporters, including architectural and engineering students, have had the courage to put their names and reputations on the line by signing the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation of 9/11 at www.ae911truth.org...

You are not the first here to make the unsupported claim that thousands of structural engineers, demolition experts and physicists say it happened the way it was reported.

Either withdraw the claim or back it, citing your sources.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive
Much better for all of us if you provide links and data rather than "I know for a fact"

I've asked him twice now to provide links for his 1800F degree kerosene temps when Wiki says 549.5F. I doubt we will see a source.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by notreallyalive
Much better for all of us if you provide links and data rather than "I know for a fact"

I've asked him twice now to provide links for his 1800F degree kerosene temps when Wiki says 549.5F. I doubt we will see a source.


I did not want to respond and bump this thread. Honestly, I can not believe you are still hanging on the wiki open air burn temperature. How can you fly an airplane with the same burn temperature as cooking a pizza? If you figure out how to do this and you will be rich.

So, if I have to prove to you what the rest of the world already knows then here you go. Look at the max burn temperature not the open air burn temp. Wiki left this out. It even does the c to f conversion for you:

www.mepetroleum.com...

Also, here is a wiki question and answer:

wiki.answers.com...

However, I have a feeling that you will not buy anything other then what you are trying to sell. If you seriously believe what you claim then you should have done due deligence. You crack me up with your Bush is an evil genius talk. He would be lucky to successfully make travel arrangements on his own.



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive


I know for a fact that the burn temperature of jet A fuel is 1000c. That is just over 1800f.


Interesting statement and attitude given it's totally false... Much better for all of us if you provide links and data rather than "I know for a fact"


I saved this one for you since you made the "degree in chemistry" claim . Scroll down to the page title "LOC Predictions by Blazetalk" (pages not numbered) and look at the adiabatic flame temperature of jet-A vapors and review the orange and yellow graph. It is possible to get a vapor burn temperature of 2300 kelvin. That come out to a little over 2,000c and over 3,600f. This is from the FAA website. This is not the max burn temperature but the internal engine combustion temperature. This is a little hotter then 549.5f.

www.fire.tc.faa.gov...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggins44

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by notreallyalive
Much better for all of us if you provide links and data rather than "I know for a fact"

I've asked him twice now to provide links for his 1800F degree kerosene temps when Wiki says 549.5F. I doubt we will see a source.


I did not want to respond and bump this thread. Honestly, I can not believe you are still hanging on the wiki open air burn temperature. How can you fly an airplane with the same burn temperature as cooking a pizza? If you figure out how to do this and you will be rich.

So, if I have to prove to you what the rest of the world already knows then here you go. Look at the max burn temperature not the open air burn temp. Wiki left this out. It even does the c to f conversion for you:

www.mepetroleum.com...

Also, here is a wiki question and answer:

wiki.answers.com...

However, I have a feeling that you will not buy anything other then what you are trying to sell. If you seriously believe what you claim then you should have done due deligence. You crack me up with your Bush is an evil genius talk. He would be lucky to successfully make travel arrangements on his own.


Have you putted into your calculations that the Maximum burning temperature at 980°C (1796 °F) is only obtainable with spraying out the fuel
blending in oxygen to make it burn at a higher temptrature?

Pretty much like diesel burns.

To OP, dont let derailing people with no evidence to back up their claim get to you, the truth will come forward somehow.

Really good piece of work you have done on this article.

Best regards.

Loke.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by riggins44
Look at the max burn temperature not the open air burn temp.

Sorry, you fail. Any educated person knows that the max burn temperature would mean under the most ideal conditions. The best oxygen/fuel mixture or inside a jet engine. The fires at the WTC were open-air office fires that had no air pumping into them or compressing them as a jet engine would. Keep trying.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by riggins44
Look at the max burn temperature not the open air burn temp.

Sorry, you fail. Any educated person knows that the max burn temperature would mean under the most ideal conditions. The best oxygen/fuel mixture or inside a jet engine. The fires at the WTC were open-air office fires that had no air pumping into them or compressing them as a jet engine would. Keep trying.



Backing up his statement here myself.

Also, I was lauging when mr. riggins44 said that pizza cooking temperatures, its nice to make a claim like that and its very effective on people wo do not do research, why beacuse you are using faulty logic since the conditions of the temperatures you use are very different.

one is open fire temperatures at so many feet in the air and the other one is in a closed compartment we like to call oven specially made to keep temperatures in a small but effective way to cook.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arsenis
 


People have to make things up to continue to live their comfortable, worry-free lives and to keep from entertaining that 9/11 was an inside job. People tell themselves whatever they have to, no matter how wrong, to make sure they sleep better at night.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by riggins44
Look at the max burn temperature not the open air burn temp.

Sorry, you fail. Any educated person knows that the max burn temperature would mean under the most ideal conditions. The best oxygen/fuel mixture or inside a jet engine. The fires at the WTC were open-air office fires that had no air pumping into them or compressing them as a jet engine would. Keep trying.

As a matter of fact, there is a very specific term for optimal hydrocarbon burning conditions- "stiochiometric combustion."

Stoichiometric combustion



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Kevin Ryan's demolition access research updated:

www.puppetgov.com...





new topics
top topics
 
139
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join