Pacridge

All my book say about house fire temps is that "it can be 700F at eye level and well over 1000F at even a low ceiling." I can't find anywhere where it's speaks about how far "over" it can get. This is a basic fire fighting manual. Maybe if I had an advanced version?

teacher

To you. That's why I bother. I'm teacher, quite possibly the most obnoxious and weirdest of this site. Everyone has their niche. I'll go watch these latest x-files episode now. Heads up. I think my greatest challenge now is in making a funny top ten out of a serious matter. Nah. It's in me. And see, look how swell buds we are already.

Hey boss man. Is something up with spellcheck or is it the beer?

teacher

A fire fighting manual would be better than NFPA-72. Fire alarm codes and such.

Only in the military can you find folks proud of being called such.


So anyway 1000 degrees is a safe bet. Hot enough for my way. The steel is not turning molten. Just soft enough to sag a little, Enough to shear truss to face bolts. alan? 5/8"? Air flow? Do you think some jet liner sized wholes would suffice? (Rhetoric, of course).

Pacridge

[QUOTE=teacher]Heat, fuel and O2. Really that's all we're talking about. I find it very believable for the heat to increase dramatically based on increased air flow. Even without that- the jet fuels and or Napalm is going to produce a fire hot enough to burn steel. Do a search for "fire at sea forestall" It's a pretty famous Vietnam era Naval fire. I think it would back this up.

teacher

I would think the jet fuel would be quickly consumed. It's real menace being it set EVERYTHING on fire RIGHT AWAY. Accelerate everywhere with plenty of combustibles, O2, and ignition sources. Horrid to think of. Those poor people. And that's why I rail so hard against the mislead. My country did not do such a thing. If I thought they absolutely did then I would break out the scoped 30/30 and see how good the secret service is. One tiny example of our founding fathers vision, that 2nd amendment. It would be my patriotic duty. There's a weird twist eh? Oh watchers of all this is not a threat. Don't kill me.

Pacridge

I think you might be surprised how long it would take for all that jet fuel (JP-5) to actually be consumed. Plus it would quickly, as you correctly point out, ignite everything else. As the fire burns it creates fuel all by itself. The items, as they burn, produce flammable gases. Those gases burn and they tend to burn hotter then the initial item.

Country's don't do anything people do.

teacher

[QUOTE=Christopher Brooks]Pacridge,
The following confession by Silverstein would be part of the evidence motivating Reynolds.

http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Perhaps you might have an explanation for Silversteins comment.

0 for what is the score now? Dunno. All of them. You guys should stop pointing me at these sites. I just use your data against you. Very short clip. Won't pick and choose, just rip all. It starts by saying that 7 was cleared quickly and first. And there were bodies. Are they implying it was cleared quickly to hide evidence? The dolts shot down their own implication the very next sentence. And there were no bodies. Duh. It was cleared quickly BECAUSE there were no bodies to slow work for identification. Then Silvertounge says the FD told him the building was a lost cause because of fire. So let me get this right. At the drop of a dime they rigged this whole building that fast. Your boy states that it was a on the spot decision. Not planned. Lets say for a moment his words are correct. What he is saying is the building was dropped in a controlled fashion. Better that then to fall sideways. Your very "evidence"is in no way even slightly connected to your premise of a conspiracy. Did you watch this clip? English can be a concise language. Or do you purport he speaks with innuendos. Even if 7 was dropped on purpose then at best it was for safety or for this particular guy to get paid. And that would be mighty quick thinking on his part. Which Fire authority? Names, titles or what. Might just have to dig into Silverdude to find out what his reason may be for saying this. Although it always comes down to money, defense of ones actions, or just plain evil. There is always a reason. They couldn't keep Watergate, Whitewater gate, of Iran contra quiet, how could something this big be hushed. Someone would spill the beans just for the money. Sorry Mr. Brooks. (or should I say mini-alan) I gave it an honest look. Not even close. Why do you foil hatters want so fervently to believe this? Again if it were all true that pesky little 2nd amendment you libs so despise would come in handy. Ironic, isn't it?

teacher

[QUOTE]
Burning steel? Or so hot it perpetuates the blaze? I've always wanted to see a wooden pallet (skid) factory go up. Lots of surface area.

teacher

But really the links? How about you come to your own conclusions based on various data and if we doubt some bit we'll ask for reference. Funny I'm never asked to cite references that I recall. How about your way. Link. PBS. Show. NOVA. Why the towers fell. Specifically the comments by the towers head designer. My source: the guy who designed the FRIGGIN BUILDINGS. Your source: An economist. Am I missing something here? Do I just not get it. Name one piece of relevant evidence I have not shot down? Why are you so stuck on this? I gots to know. 5/8"?

Pacridge

I'm sorry. That's just plain funny.