September 11th conspiracy theories - Page 17

Pacridge · 06-25-05, 12:09 AM

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 · 06-25-05, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Brooks

Pacridge,
The following confession by Silverstein would be part of the evidence motivating Reynolds.

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

So now you get the (now) standard speach. I will watch as much as long as facts rule. I will immeadiatly respond from the gut, on the rip, but I will add this is a link. I can post links that can make the case that the pyramids were built by aliens.

Quote:

Care to comment on why the FEMA investigation was not aware that
WTC7 was remote imploded?

Because it wasn't. Therefor such merits no comment. Is it me? How does one respond to a querry based on falsehoods?

Quote:

teacher, your diatribe may amuse yourself

Quote:

and greatly so

but contains zero substance.

Zero substance? Junior I lay my opinions out step by step. Any and all steps clearly defined and open to scrutiny and debate. You are pointing to links and making broad all emcompasing statements backed up only by your fervour. I'll veiw your pointed to thoughts of someone else. You read MY OWN THOUGHTS (starting at post #103, now there is a diatribe a man can be proud of) and find a flaw. Respond with YOUR THOUGHTS based on the laws of Physics and Chemistry. Find fault and I'll recant or put it into terms you can understand.

Quote:

Perhaps you might have an explanation for Silversteins comment.

More than likely I will. And if it's bunk you'll be taken to school. This is not a heady esotaric nuanced political debate on this one. Science. Like, steel is Iron with about 1% carbon. Like that. Facts.

Quote:

Implosion is a complex and precise task that would require many weeks to
prepare.

Correct. And with many telltale hard to hide results.of such.

Quote:

Hence we have some unanswered questions.

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 · 06-25-05, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PacridgeYou were expecting a fire fighting manual to be a page burner[QUOTE

(oh god)

right?[/font][/size]

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

Quote:

"Turd Chasers" .

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 · 06-25-05, 12:54 AM

[quote=teacher]

Quote:

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).

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 · 06-25-05, 01:11 AM

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 · 06-25-05, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 06-25-05, 02:15 AM

[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 · 06-25-05, 02:24 AM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacridge

[size=3 But after sometime burning at class A&B eventually the steels going to catch, just like on board ship. Then you're going to have a Class D and a whole another animal and heat range.[/font][/size]

[

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 · 06-25-05, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alan

Well Teach, I'll school you. Take notes as there will be a test.

That's the spirit. In your face confrontation with witty word play.

Reynolds is a former Bush insider & Texas A&M professor who has been saying for over a year now that the official 9/11 story is bogus.
Your homework (yes) assignment:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds-arch.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...tccollapse.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/reynolds_clip.mp3

http://www.total911.info/2005/06/for...-official.html

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 · 06-25-05, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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"?

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