Thread in Support of the Official Story

reply to post by galdur


No need to bicker. I just asked a question.

Are you a licensed pilot? Its a yes or no.

y or n

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by fooks

 

I don´t think it´s possible for a kerosene fire to reach 2850F and melt steel. But then I´m not a faith-based 9/11 Liar, just a 9/11 Truther who pays attention to elementary physics.

fyi, don't keep saying kerosene.

i use that stuff to make light and it won't get to 2850F.

10,000 gals of jet fuel is another story.

reply to post by galdur

Well, the guy was claiming that kerosene fire can melt steel which certainly seems to infer that they´re retarded and also he seemed to imply that jet engines created that steel melting temperature in the towers.

Wow. Now not knowing the temperature range of combustion for various hydrocarbons qualifies you as "retarded"? Really, lets stick to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report - any "retards" in there?

The opposite of Truther is Liar, right?

Yes. If someone who seeks out truth is called a "truther" then someone who seeks out lies can be called a "liar". And thats what I do here, seek and point out the lies.

reply to post by fooks


Jet fuel is kerosene.

en.wikipedia.org...

Call a spade a spade.

On that page you will see that you are correct about the burning temperature: Jet fuel burns at no more than 350oC in open air.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by fooks

 

Jet fuel is kerosene.

en.wikipedia.org...

Call a spade a spade.

On that page you will see that you are correct about the burning temperature: Jet fuel burns at no more than 350oC in open air.

And the flame temperature?

reply to post by hooper


You mean the adiabatic flame temperature?

en.wikipedia.org...

The constant volume adiabatic flame temperature is the temperature that results from a complete combustion process that occurs without any work, heat transfer or changes in kinetic or potential energy.

Who would be so gullible as to believe that THAT should be the correct number to use?

It would be like saying a company is successful because it makes a lot of revenue. Kinda missing some important bits aren't you?

reply to post by Darkwing01


So what's the flame temperature for Jet Fuel A?

Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by hooper

 

As far as I´ve been able to tell, you´re the laughingstock of every 9/11 thread you appear on.

Your tactics are pretty tired and predictable.

1st, I would like to see where any official publication *ever* said that flight #77 flew parallel to the ground so that ground effect could even take place- even the eyewitnesses to the impact said it was on a downward angle.

2nd, you have exactly 506 posts and merely 266 stars. That doesn't say much that's positive about your peer reviews does it? Perhaps you should reevaluate your standing on this site before you attempt to denigrate others...

**ATTENTION**

This thread is being watched closely by the staff and any off-topic, rude or inflamatory remarks will be removed. We ask that you please review the following threads:

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions of Use – Please Review This Link.

**POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**,

YOU are responsible for your own posts.

No other warnings will be given before removal of posts and potential loss of posting privileges occurs.

Thank You

ATS Staff

Originally posted by deadmessiah
You are aware that no WMD's were ever found in Iraq, right? The only WMD's discovered were Bush's words of mass deception.

Odd, then, that these powerful conspirators were unable to plant any...

Hooper got a quick question for you:

If the pentagon has nothing to hide why won't they release the video tapes?

reply to post by fooks


wow jet fuel is kerosene.....imagine that....now as for 10,000 gallons of it.....you saw the coverage did you not...I am sure you have if your here arguing it....did you see the fireball....OUTSIDE of the building....so ask yourself....how many gallons of it ignited outside the building.....so does that leave 10,000 gallons of it inside the building.......I guess not then.....also it this KEROSENE was dispersed in fine particulate (vapour) it would have burned off extremely quickly...so what would that actually leave to rush down 90 floors through lift shafts.....

Interesting how truthers get called ridiculous for non critical thinking but then someone comes in and just says what they are being told without any critical thinking.

you got punk'd dude......you have been lied to and you do not think critically.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Hooper got a quick question for you:

If the pentagon has nothing to hide why won't they release the video tapes?

A quick question for you. Video from which cameras ?

Below is an aerial view taken of the pentagon taken 9/7/01. Please indicate the locations of each of the cameras you are talking about.

reply to post by waypastvne


The pentagon security video tapes. Are you telling me the pentagon just has one flimsy video camera to guard the entire pentagon?

reply to post by waypastvne

shall we see...oh look

and hmmm i can see ummm.....nope must be blind.

oh man they even replaced them after the repairs...weird.

reply to post by plube


Sweet, some downfacing domes.

Why do you want videos of empty sections of lawn?

Of course I think the Pentagon should go ahead and release these, but they have no good reason to, and the ones at the corners have no chance of capturing the plane. It's not like they were aimed outwards, they are aimed at the ground. That's why they use shrouded domes.

I never understand the why won't they release the footage claims, when the footage released is just called fake. Gee I wonder why they don't care about releasing more.

reply to post by waypastvne


What a silly picture to present! How can someone see the cameras from an ariel photograph!

One of the most secure buildings in the world and they try to make out they had less security than a favela dwelling!

Here, ariel shot, no plane..



Again, no plane..



And the icing on the cake.. Hole too small, no wreckage in the hole, and more importantly NO FLOOR DAMAGE!




Lagos crash that has just happened, lots of wreckage, as always in plane crashes.









These photos do not lie, people do.

reply to post by kidtwist


I agree, you are lying here by presenting biased evidence. You know there are better shots of the plane at the Pentagon because they have been posted. You know that the hole you posted was deep into the building. You know that the planes travelled at radically different speeds.

So why are you lying by leaving out this information?

reply to post by exponent


Guess that an aluminium plane that desintegrated upon impact with the wall went all the way through 4 more concrete walls...
Oh wait did it not dissintegrate on impact?
Wich one is it fairytalers? Vaporised on impact or through 3 rings? Cant have it both ways...