Thread in Support of the Official Story, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 09:07 AM by Submarines
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


reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 09:39 AM by fooks
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.

edit on 15-9-2011 by fooks because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 09:44 AM by hooper
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 posted on 15-9-2011 @ 09:58 AM 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.


reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 10:07 AM by hooper
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 posted on 15-9-2011 @ 10:53 AM by Darkwing01
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?
edit on 15-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 15-9-2011 @ 12:39 PM by userid1
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...
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



Flight 93 was headed for Building 7
  Posted 13 days ago with 48 member flags
9/11 INTERCEPTED
  Posted 5 days ago with 45 member flags
9/11: The WTC Elevator Key
  Posted 15 days ago with 43 member flags
What are your favorite 9/11 debunking tactics?
  Posted 9 days ago with 17 member flags
Who is the Joker on ATS radio now running their mouth?
  Posted 17 days ago with 13 member flags
Was the government a co-conspirator?
  Posted 19 days ago with 9 member flags
British Police Want Us To Present False Flag Terror Evidence.
  Posted 9 days ago with 8 member flags