Why was ground zero so hot for so long?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I can't stop laughing, sorry, but all of this is based on extremely loose science...and i would guess a very vivid imagination on you guys part...which makes it easy to see how you can believe the imaginative narrative which you love so much.

The paper you posted is complete theory, indeed...and certainly is a very rough attempt to explain what the writer thinks in advance " That the towers were collapsed due to impacts and fires".

Are you serious ?? Imagine taking someone with knowledge of physics without knowing about 9/11.. and getting them to write up equations that would account for this.. never happen..

And as to your friction , do you see anything having friction at any point ?? I dont see anything rubbing together, or even smashing together.. how could it, pieces on top of something are not going to have much friction since the floors are smashing against one another... sigh
edit on 18-11-2010 by GrinchNoMore because: Friction




posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GrinchNoMore
 


You can continue to laugh, and remain ignorant of science, and physics....(and risk having others laugh at YOUR ignorance)>..

,,,or, you can read, study and learn the science and physics. NOT just from event on 9/11, either. Do some research. Don't you remember that energy cannot be "destroyed"? It is always conserved, in one way or another. I forgot, also, to point out the heat of FRICTION< as part of the total overall, in the collapse sequences.

Back to the WTC....here, read:

www.911myths.com...


Ive got a good read for you too

www.amazon.de...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290134600&sr=8-1



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Were plenty of things to burn

Fire loads were estimated at about 4 lbs/sq ft. In case you didn't know each floor of WTC was over 40,000 sq fr
Do the math if you are capable....

Thats 160,000 lbs (80 tons) for each floor times 110 stories times 2 buildings equals 17, 600 tons of fuel concentrated in relativity small area

In addition most modern office furnishing are synthethics which are derived from petroleum and burn with 50-
100% more heat energy per pound that organics (wood, paper cloth - 12000-16000 btu per pound vs 8000

Enough to sustain fires for long time - debris at WTC burned for 3 months

Here is enginneering report

Rather doubt you will read it.......

wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Were plenty of things to burn

Fire loads were estimated at about 4 lbs/sq ft. In case you didn't know each floor of WTC was over 40,000 sq fr
Do the math if you are capable....

Thats 160,000 lbs (80 tons) for each floor times 110 stories times 2 buildings equals 17, 600 tons of fuel concentrated in relativity small area

In addition most modern office furnishing are synthethics which are derived from petroleum and burn with 50-
100% more heat energy per pound that organics (wood, paper cloth - 12000-16000 btu per pound vs 8000

Enough to sustain fires for long time - debris at WTC burned for 3 months

Here is enginneering report

Rather doubt you will read it.......

wtc.nist.gov...


Thats quirky except they did not pull out burning plastichairs out of the rubble, it was the steele that was burning red hot.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by benoni
was it yet another one of 9/11's "never seen before...never seen afterwards" coincidences??

All buildings have gas lines running under them, yet Ive never seen an accident site being doused with water months after the fact....

I cannot recall a single incident which created such a large and deeply piled debris field. That means that many lines would have been severed, and possibly severed in multiple locations, making it a long and difficult process to find, extinguish, and shut them down. I believe that just building 7 by itself had an underground substation, and several of the buildings had various fuel storage tanks.


Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
Yea right, lets find some evidence of fires being started because of gravitational energy, or lol "kinetic".

You had multiple sources of heat generation, including the rapid compression of air.
Rapid air compression generates such extreme temperatures that it has been used since ancient times to start fires:


Wikipedia: Fire Pistons
Rapid compression of a gas (known as adiabatic compression) increases its pressure and its temperature at the same time. If this compression is done too slowly the heat will dissipate to the surroundings as the gas returns to equilibrium with them. If the compression is done quickly enough then there is no time for equilibrium to be achieved and the absolute temperature of the gas can suddenly become several times that of its surroundings, increasing the original room temperature of the gas to a temperature hot enough to set tinder alight.


Additionally, as a couple of other members have mentioned, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes forms. In this instance the tremendous amount of potential energy stored in all that weight being held at that altitude would have been released into heat, and sound. If you do not understand the potential heat that can be achieved from exerting force on even a simple piece of metal, then try bending a wire cloths hanger back and fourth a few times and see how hot it can become. You can easily cause the metal to become hot enough to burn your skin, through simple friction:


Ask a scientist: Heating from bending metals
When you work on the metal, bending it, the energy that you spent on it
has to go somewhere. It can either be stored in the metal or show up in
some form of energy. In most materials, the work (also called energy) that
you do on the part causes its molecules to rub against each other and
produce heat (just as you when you rub your hands against each other to
warm them). So, the metal gets warm. If you then leave it for a while, it
would cool down to the same temperature as its environment by giving up that
heat to its surroundings.

Ali Khounsary, Ph.D.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Severed Gas lines and confined space would mean explosions. There were explosions prior to the collapse, not after. Nanothermite has been found, Id be curious to know how it is different to your regular thermite. Can it do something regular thermite cant?
edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Thats quirky except they did not pull out burning plastichairs out of the rubble, it was the steele that was burning red hot.


You cant be that dense....

How do think the steel got so hot in the first place ? Magic? Pixie Dust?

How about fires.....?

What do you think fueled the fires?

How about office furniture from 2 110 story buildings...

Is reason did not pull any "plastic chairs" from rubble - one the building collapse chopped fragile items into small
pieces

Two what survived being chopped was then burned......

Had FDNY guy tell me largest piece of such debrsi he saw was half of telephone handset



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Thats quirky except they did not pull out burning plastichairs out of the rubble, it was the steele that was burning red hot.


You cant be that dense....

How do think the steel got so hot in the first place ? Magic? Pixie Dust?

How about fires.....?

What do you think fueled the fires?

How about office furniture from 2 110 story buildings...

Is reason did not pull any "plastic chairs" from rubble - one the building collapse chopped fragile items into small
pieces

Two what survived being chopped was then burned......

Had FDNY guy tell me largest piece of such debrsi he saw was half of telephone handset





Yes gas and confined spaces would have meant explosions, or at least, yes fires, but it did not look exactly like an oversized barbecue with flames raging inside it. It looked more like the steele itself was whats red hot not the plastic burning the steele. There were not any open flames and admit all that rubble they would have had a tough time to burn for a month. Then there is the fact it is the longest structural fire by a loooong stretch. There isnt any building that burned nearly as long. So id be really curious about that nantothermite that has been found, what can it do, how is it different than regular thermite?
edit on 18-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

reply to post by Cassius666
 


Underground gas fires can burn quite efficiently without exploding for long periods of time:

Underground Fires that Burn For Decades

Sometimes a fire just won't go out. Uzbekistan is home to a place called Darvaz, nicknamed by locals "the door to hell." It's a semi-underground gas fire that's been burning nonstop for 35 years. Find out why, and see some close-up pictures of this hellmouth after the jump, plus another fire in Pennsylvania that has also been burning underground for over 30 years.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Cassius666
There were not any open flames and admit all that rubble they would have had a tough time to burn for a month. Then there is the fact it is the longest structural fire by a loooong stretch. There isnt any building that burned nearly as long.

It was a subsurface smoldering fire:

en.wikipedia.org...

Subsurface fires: Fires occurring many meters below the surface are a type of smouldering event of colossal magnitude. Subsurface fires in coal mines, peat lands and landfills are rare events, but when active they can smoulder for very long periods of time (months or years), emitting enormous quantities of combustion gases into the atmosphere, causing deterioration of air quality and subsequent health problems. The oldest and largest fires in the world, burning for centuries, are smouldering fires. These fires are fed by the oxygen in the small but continuous flow of air through natural pipe networks, fractured strata, cracks, openings or abandoned mine shafts which permit the air to circulate into the subsurface. The reduced heat losses and high thermal inertia of the underground together with high fuel availability promote long-term smouldering combustion and allow for creeping but extensive propagation. These fires prove difficult to detect, and frustrate most efforts to extinguish them.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
GrinchNoMore and Defcon are owning this thread in my opinion. The first one sees this office furniture line for the massive pile of bullcrap that it is and the other is giving you the clear explanation to answer the OP's question. The hilarity and (buzzword) ridiculousnouss never ceases on ATS and especially in this forum. Its the greatest example of banging your head against a wall trying to get adult (maybe) human beings to open their eyes to the most obvious farce, fraud, lie, possibly in human history (obvioulsy I'm talking about official story supporters). Only the non-existance of god or the real existance of aliens are equally important mysteries that could have the same impact on our lives, that is why this site is here.

Can you imagine how future generations are going to treat us knowing that so many of us fell for something so obviously silly? I can hear it now, "Really Dad, you thought planes could knock down buildings they didn't even hit? Where are the other planes or Bin Laden...oh yeah that's right they flew his family out of the country because they were such good friends with the President." That alone is enough to never ever trust someone's judgement ever again. We will be known as the most naive, selfish, and ridiculous generation in human history.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Cassius666

It was a subsurface smoldering fire:

en.wikipedia.org...

Subsurface fires: Fires occurring many meters below the surface are a type of smouldering event of colossal magnitude. Subsurface fires in coal mines, peat lands and landfills are rare events, but when active they can smoulder for very long periods of time (months or years), emitting enormous quantities of combustion gases into the atmosphere, causing deterioration of air quality and subsequent health problems. The oldest and largest fires in the world, burning for centuries, are smouldering fires. These fires are fed by the oxygen in the small but continuous flow of air through natural pipe networks, fractured strata, cracks, openings or abandoned mine shafts which permit the air to circulate into the subsurface. The reduced heat losses and high thermal inertia of the underground together with high fuel availability promote long-term smouldering combustion and allow for creeping but extensive propagation. These fires prove difficult to detect, and frustrate most efforts to extinguish them.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


Oh it wasnt severed gas lines of a sudden? Glad we got that out of the way.
The steele itself was red hot, because it was reacting with something. I cant recall having seen any kind of flame as they dug up the rubble. Chairs paper plastic as the combustible material, your theory just does not hold water. The idea alone to compare a cave that consists of combustible material to a pit full of steele mostly and wet paper in November... But if you think you can produce a picture that shows flames glowing underneath the rubble go right ahead. And I dont know at what temperatures office furniture burns, but I really doubt it burns as high as the temperatures measured. Given the fact that burning paper and burning plastic would produce large ammount of black smoke and a distinct smell of petroleum and not burn hot enough to melt steele, can we move on?

Now if you all can take off your tinfoil hats for a second, I am curious about that Nanothermite they found. How is it different than regular Thermite, what can it do?
edit on 19-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Math is just another language used to precisely communicate. A Schwartzschild radius, and the mathematical expression I used to precisely describe it, is the spherical radius to which a given mass must be shrunk, in a given gravitational field, in order to create a black hole "singularity. For example, to form a black hole, the earth would need to be shrunken into a sphere with a radius of about a third of an inch. I don't think the rubble pile was quite that small, and if you plug the values into the equation, it works out, after a lot of side calculations because the rubble pile wasn't spherical, that the entire rubble pile would have had to compact to the size of a small grape to produce the kind of gravitational field the OP was talking about. The pix I saw didn't show that.
I'll try to get a little less mathy in the future.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Math is just another language used to precisely communicate. A Schwartzschild radius, and the mathematical expression I used to precisely describe it, is the spherical radius to which a given mass must be shrunk, in a given gravitational field, in order to create a black hole "singularity. For example, to form a black hole, the earth would need to be shrunken into a sphere with a radius of about a third of an inch. I don't think the rubble pile was quite that small, and if you plug the values into the equation, it works out, after a lot of side calculations because the rubble pile wasn't spherical, that the entire rubble pile would have had to compact to the size of a small grape to produce the kind of gravitational field the OP was talking about. The pix I saw didn't show that.
I'll try to get a little less mathy in the future.



Lol its okay
throw in all the math you want, just explain it, unless you want to appear misterious.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by budaruskie

Can you imagine how future generations are going to treat us knowing that so many of us fell for something so obviously silly? I can hear it now, "Really Dad, you thought planes could knock down buildings they didn't even hit? Where are the other planes or Bin Laden...oh yeah that's right they flew his family out of the country because they were such good friends with the President." That alone is enough to never ever trust someone's judgement ever again. We will be known as the most naive, selfish, and ridiculous generation in human history.


In my contemporary American history class one day we decided to discuss the 9/11 Report as that had been agreed upon as a class. Being a discussion-oriented university honors class, we got into some interesting discussions. All smart people in such a class with a strong foundation in logic led by a practicing historian. We had divided the report into chunks and were discussing 9/11 when one of our class members brought up an interesting point of dissent from an author known as David Ray Griffin. He had spoken out against the report and the official story of 9/11.

"Fine," we all thought. After all, dissent is good and we had finished analyzing historical essays criticizing Reagan's supposed greatness as well as the presidential administrations of Truman and Kennedy. Differing opinions are always welcome.

Of course then the person who brought up the book mentioned Mr. Griffin had talked about controlled demolition. We all let out a collective sigh.

"What's the author's background and fields of expertise," one precarious girl asked as usually is done in meta-analysis.

"He worked at the Claremont School of Theology," the student replied. We all laughed a little and further went on to discover his area of expertise as having to do with theology, which was quite hilarious considering the unspoken truth that Christian apologetics and similar lines of reasoning are not suited for academic analysis of events.

So one person brought up a video of this guy speaking somewhere and we immediately knew the dreaded secret of his...he was a truther! He believed in controlled demolition, the hijackers being alive, some conspiracy to siphon oil from the Middle East, and the usual truther line of piecemeal evidence.

So then we discussed it and I stepped up to the plate immediately being infuriated at the blatant misconceptions, lies, and misinformation this dangerous individual spread.

I pointed out very calmly that there is a reason why so few experts and academics questions the official story of what happened (at least the parts that are substantive that is). That is because these truther theories this guy spews have been debunked, are illogical, and have no evidence backing them.

I pointed out the example of the WTC towers. Could they have been bombed? It certainly is possible, there was an attack on them in the 1990s. However, truthers assert that they were bombed to bring them down by the government which has more than a few fatal flaws.

First it presumes that the government sits down somewhere and plots to kill Americans on American soil for selfish reasons and that this word carries weight all the way down through the people who are supposed to rig an entire building or two full of explosives without any whistleblowers or moral objectionists. Not only does this go against most humans' ethics it also goes against history's documentation of whistleblowers for every little event and for one this large it is absolutely unbelievable there can be no whistleblowers or people could practically set this up without anyone noticing.

Second is feasibility like mentioned above.

Third is the fact that if bombs were to be used, then the use of planes would be pointless. The government could just have easily (much more so in fact) said a terrorist bombed the buildings to collapse them and be done with it. This added layer of asinine complexity pretty much shoots the bomb theory in the foot.

Fourth, as if the "theory" were not listing already, the assertion that the plane crashes couldn't cause the buildings to collapse has been debunked ad nauseam by materials and structural engineers and the official conclusion has been supported by nearly every major civil engineering organization in the world both governmental and non-governmental.

So concluding bombs were used is a pretty baseless assertion and to you Mr. Person I Quoted, I would tell my kids just the opposite:

"People always want conspiracy theories. It gives purpose to their otherwise meaningless lives and it gives them a cause to believe in that they think makes them 'special' apart from the otherwise 'ignorant' masses. Unfortunately, people fail to realize through either a lack of understanding or learned experience, that human beings make fallacious assumptions every day. Life is governed by heuristic biases and baseless assertions that appeal to various aspects of the human condition. Although conspiracy theories are a fundamental aspect into the human psychological experience, their evidentiary impact from a scientifically methodological framework utilizing inductive reasoning, is pretty much nil considering so many academics and actual experts do not lend them any credence."

I leave you all with quotes from some great minds that have denounced this, in my opinion, rather dangerous opinion of some grand 9/11 conspiracy (I believe it is dangerous because it shows how little grasp some have on the actual process of critical thinking as some of my supporting quotes imply):

- The famous linguist and theoretician, Noam Chomsky:

"the evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless' and while the American government stood to benefit from the incident, 'every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11th.' He argues that the enormous risk of an information leak, 'it is a very porous system and secrets are very hard to keep', and consequences of exposure for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt. He dismisses observations cited by conspiracy proponents saying, 'if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence,' arguing that even when a scientific experiment is carried out repeatedly in a controlled environment, phenomena and coincidences remain that are unexplained."

- MIT professor of engineering (specialty in materials engineering), Thomas W. Eager (he talks about truther darling Steven Jones):

"He's a physicist, not an engineer,' MIT's Eagar said. 'Dr. Jones brought a lot of academic credibility to these arguments, but I've read through his paper and on each point it has not taken me more than five minutes to study it and come up with a credible scientific reply.' For example, the puffs of smoke could have been air and dust generated as pieces of the floors collapsed, or by cement collapsing, which regularly causes horizontal puffs of dust. Eagar also said it is accepted science that the jet fuel burned hot enough in the twin towers to collapse them. 'I haven't seen anything from Dr. Jones or anyone else (in the 9/11 truth movement) that can't be discredited.' Critics say a technical rebuttal isn't worth the effort. They say the truth movement's demolition theory would have required a large group to set hundreds of charges on dozens of floors in three buildings. They say such a conspiracy would require thousands of still-silent accomplices and ignores other data. 'These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method,' Eagar said. 'They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

- Harvard University professors Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule:

"[9/11 truth theories] typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy...those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology..."

Hell, even Bill Maher has this to say about it:

"How big a lunatic do you have to be to witness two jet airliners filled with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, triggering a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think ‘Well, if you believe that’s the cause…'"

Here is a skeptic's website's debunking of the truthers:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Skeptics

And Popular Mechanic's debunking as well:

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Popular Mechanics

Seriously I could go on, what do truthers have to show for their analysis?



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
"it has not taken me more than five minutes to study it and come up with a credible scientific reply"

Yeah, right. I am curious how many of your sources were hired for their opinion. I am guessing they are all Americans too, possibly were all involved in the NIST report.

Have a good read

www.amazon.de...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

But dont trust just those guys, go ahead and ask these slimy evil jewhating truthers what they have going for them.

firefightersfor911truth.org...


But if you want to go on believing, that for the only time in human history a high rise steele structure was collapsed by fire go right ahead.

Also you guys are HIGHJACKING MY THREAD AND I WONT HAVE IT. If you want to discuss something unrelated to the thread title, please do so in your own thread.

Back on topic. Gaslines, that would have meant bright fires, possibly explosions too, burning plastic, that would have meant lots of black smoke and a stench of burning oil, not white smoke. Now Id like to hear more about that nanothermite that has been found. What can it do? How is it different than regular thermite.


edit on 19-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Have a good read

www.amazon.de...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

But dont trust just those guys, go ahead and ask these slimy evil jewhating truthers what they have going for them.

firefightersfor911truth.org...


Of course there are a lot of Youtube truther clips out there and books as well. There are books on why the moon landing was faked too, doesn't mean most scientists believe that.


Originally posted by Cassius666

But if you want to go on believing, that for the only time in human history high rise steele structures were collapsed by fire go right ahead.


Your strategy of ignoring every post I make essentially (this post was made less than a minute or so after I spent over an hour on mine, you couldn't even have read it in that time) and spouting the same stuff over and over again is actually working as it's making it impossible to have any rational debate with you at all.

You still have ignored posts of mine in other threads and continue to make new threads for points that have been answered. That is your prerogative though.

It just reaffirms the fact that your points do no have merit and the only truth you are interested in is within the confines of your own mind.


Originally posted by Cassius666

Also you guys are HIGHJACKING MY THREAD AND I WONT HAVE IT. If you want to discuss something unrelated to the thred title, please do so in your own thread.


Deny ignorance...except when it's your own.

Stop trying to stifle debate, the points I make apply to both what you and that other person said.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Evanescence
 


No they dont. Stay on topic. There are not lots of books why the moonlanding was faked, there are a couple and a lot of books that discuss the moonlanding and overwhelming evidence that the moonlanding did take place, like the pendulum experiment.

There is pretty much only the NITS report that supports the official tale and I dont know of any experts outside of America who support it. There are many sources that call the NIST report bunk even in America, by those who have not been bought off to support it. I talked about the matter to people I have more trust in than some guy on a conspiracy board. Make your own thread and I promise I wont "stifle debate" there. If you want to be the kind of person who keeps disrespecting other posters you will keep being that kind of person and I hope mods will become aware of it. But I guess you will have to do better than namedropping to make your case.

Back on topic. Gaslines, that would have meant bright fires, possibly explosions too, burning plastic, that would have meant lots of black smoke and a stench of burning oil, not white smoke. Now Id like to hear more about that nanothermite that has been found. What can it do? How is it different than regular thermite.

edit on 19-11-2010 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Evanescence
 


First off, I'd like to say to the OP that I am not attempting to hijack this thread and I understand your frustration in this regard because literally every single thread I've ever started on 9/11 ended up the same way. In my own humble opinion I think defcon explained the phenomenon you're asking about pretty early on.

Now I must address Evanescence. You began that last post with a story with words like class, honors, university, and logic which are all things I can relate to because I've also experienced them. Unfortunately, you are missing some pretty big fallacies in your logic, please allow me to explain.


We all let out a collective sigh.


If this is true, which I doubt, then you should all beware of something called social proof, you learn about this in psychology or marketing classes. Its a proven thought killer.


We all laughed a little and further went on to discover his area of expertise as having to do with theology.


Well then, what is your area of expertise might I ask? If it isn't demolition, engineering, aviation, or physics then clearly your opinion is laughable as is the rest of your classmates'; according to your own logic of course. If you want some expert opinions on the matter you could start with college professor of physics Dr. Steven Jones, look at A & E for truth (all college grads I might add), or countless others with more expertise than you, me, or Griffin. Point is, the only pre-reqs for this issue is eyes, ears, brain.


we immediately knew the dreaded secret of his...he was a truther!


Wow, this is one open-minded and thought provoking classroom. That a way to check your prejudices at the door people. Was this a catholic school or something? Apparently, the discussion was to be limited to only one version of events.


So then we discussed it and I stepped up to the plate immediately being infuriated at the blatant misconceptions, lies, and misinformation this dangerous individual spread.


Dangerous huh, like Capernicus dangerous or Martin Luther King dangerous? It certainly is dangerous to point out those things that don't quite make sense, to a certain group anyway.


That is because these truther theories this guy spews have been debunked, are illogical, and have no evidence backing them.


According to you and this is backed up by your proven expertise, right.


First it presumes that the government sits down somewhere and plots to kill Americans on American soil for selfish reasons and that this word carries weight all the way down through the people who are supposed to rig an entire building or two full of explosives without any whistleblowers or moral objectionists.


No, actually it doesn't presume this at all. It does, however, presume that someone somewhere does plot to kill Americans etc. I'd like to point out that the official story presumes this very same thing, only that its a Muslim Dr. Evil who turns out to be the most elusive person in world history with unprecedented powers of foresight and luck. I'd also like to point out that there have been numerous examples of people in high gov't positions throughout the world and its history that have actually harmed people in their own country for selfish reasons. Please ask yourself why you believe that it can happen anywhere else but here. This assumption is the absolute pinnacle of naivety. The only other presumption we "truthers" make is that we aren't being told the truth, which seems pretty reasonable given all of the circumstances.


Not only does this go against most humans' ethics it also goes against history's documentation of whistleblowers for every little event and for one this large it is absolutely unbelievable there can be no whistleblowers or people could practically set this up without anyone noticing.


Is there something on your computer blocking all of the other threads in the 9/11 forum? If you could see them, then it would be pretty damn easy to find a multitude of whistleblowers and eyewitnesses who noticed. Check your settings brah, you've got to change the "eyes" setting to open.

Frankly, your story is pretty unbelievable just like the official explanation that a plane can destroy a building in the exact same way a controlled demolition does, without ever touching it.



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



Oh it wasnt severed gas lines of a sudden? Glad we got that out of the way.
The steele itself was red hot, because it was reacting with something. I cant recall having seen any kind of flame as they dug up the rubble. Chairs paper plastic as the combustible material, your theory just does not hold water. The idea alone to compare a cave that consists of combustible material to a pit full of steele mostly and wet paper in November... But if you think you can produce a picture that shows flames glowing underneath the rubble go right ahead. And I dont know at what temperatures office furniture burns, but I really doubt it burns as high as the temperatures measured. Given the fact that burning paper and burning plastic would produce large ammount of black smoke and a distinct smell of petroleum and not burn hot enough to melt steele, can we move on?

Now if you all can take off your tinfoil hats for a second, I am curious about that Nanothermite they found. How is it different than regular Thermite, what can it do


Who said it wasnt? What is being said and constantly mentioned is that it was a WHOLE BUNCH of reasons all working together. We have heated to high temperatures steel members that got buried in the collapse, plus thousands of tons of flammable materials all smashed together, plus damaged or destroyed gaslines supplying more fires, plus oxygen supplied from the many pourous areas including subway tunnels, sewers, and other openings to allow air in, plus when steel and iron are heated, they rust more rapidly, and when large amounts of steel and iron are allowed to rust together in a large heap, they can actually heat up and can become fire dangers (look up iron ore ship rust fire danger) plus burning iron can burn for a long time in certain conditions, plus the multiude of buried vehicles with gas tanks, oxygen tanks, and all of their flammable materials in the streets buried and in the garages. We are talking about many many reasons for the long period of high temps in the piles.

Why its not thermite is simple. Therm*te's heat occurs from the rapid reaction of iron oxide and powdered aluminum (plus any extra ingredients depending on the stuff). When the reaction is completed, there is no more energy or materials to keep the reaction going. The "molten" material left over then cools rapidly, and will not stay molten for weeks or months. Also, how does the magic thermite get there to pool in the basement?? That would mean tons and tons of molten metal would have to somehow spill its way down from the top floors affected of the WTC Towers in one flow, completely avoiding all the debris and not being spilled all over during the collapse, ooze its way through the remains of 110 floors of debris compacted down in the pile, and then find a nice place to "pool" itself. Funny how not a single person that survived the collapses in the stairwells or elevator shafts or in the basements ever mentioned a shower of molten metal cascading down the shafts. Also strange how no one noticed pools of molten metal on the surface or squirted out during the collapse.

And then we go onto another Truther problem. Was it demo charges? Was it thermite? Was it magical nano-thermite that explodes silently when applied in microscopic thin layers? Was it nano-paint-on-thermite that was used as a fuse for some silent explosives that somehow didnt detonate during the impact and fires, and then go off flawlessly later? Or was it the nano-paint-on-thermite used as a fuse for some sort of special silent demo charges that use thermite materials that were detonated at very random haphazard times with a final collapse that started quite silently?? Which is it? I have yet to get a single straight answer from any Truther. One second I see one truther argue its demo charges, then in the same breath go and claim it was magic paint-on nanotherimte that did it. Why the jumping around like a Mexican Jumping Bean? Its really annoying, and just goes to show that the TM really has no idea what its arguing, how its done, or what they are doing? Its like a free for all! And then to top it all off, they think the OS is full of holes!





top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join