| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I am really mystified by this line of argument. There were big fires going on in the buildings, then they collapsed into a pile of debris, giving the fires access to a lot more fuel, and in the enclosed conditions they went on burning for three months or so. Other reactions may also have taken place in those conditions, the sulfidation of steel for instance. The FDNY was in attendance throughout, and if this was unexpected would surely have been saying that they did not understand why the fires were continuing to burn. Instead they seem to have regarded it as quite normal.
On the other hand, thermite burns quickly and fiercely, so how could it possibly keep a fire going for months? That just makes no sense to me at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | I am really mystified by this line of argument. There were big fires going on in the buildings, then they collapsed into a pile of debris, giving the fires access to a lot more fuel, and in the enclosed conditions they went on burning for three months or so. Other reactions may also have taken place in those conditions, the sulfidation of steel for instance. The FDNY was in attendance throughout, and if this was unexpected would surely have been saying that they did not understand why the fires were continuing to burn. Instead they seem to have regarded it as quite normal.
On the other hand, thermite burns quickly and fiercely, so how could it possibly keep a fire going for months? That just makes no sense to me at all. |
so a lower tempreture fire can continue to burn when suffocated and has every resource at its disposal to continue to burn for weeks.
but on the otherhand a much higher tempreture burning substance was unable to cause fires in the rubble and had nothing to survive on inorder to burn for weeks.
i do not know which is true, but you seem to contridict what you expect to happen with a normal fire by explaining away a hotter burning substance as impossible to cause fire or burn for long periods by causing fire to the surronding feul.
what you are basically saying is a potential cause of fire in the basement can do it, whilst saying the potential to cause fire in the basement cannot do it 
| Quote: | | then they collapsed into a pile of debris, giving the fires access to a lot more fuel, and in the enclosed conditions they went on burning for three months or so. |
why is this impossible for thermite/thermate (whatever), but very possible for a normal hydro carbon fire?
due you understand the contridiction?
you seem to be telling two storys which fit your belief rather than anything that actually makes sense.
because if it is possible for a normal fire to burn in the rubble then it surely possible for thermite/thermate. the same as if it is impossible for thermate/thermite to burn in the rubble then it is surely impossible for a normal hydro carbon fire?
both which ever true would have to endure the same condictions and both would have the same amount of feul to burn away on.
however credit where credit is due, at least you gave an explaination and answer to the question rather than just stating the obvious with insults attached. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marky this is simple and obvious. Thermite burns at X temperature. It doesn't burn forever at that temperature, in fact it burns out relatively quickly. Things which catch fire due to thermite would not burn at thermite temperature, they would burn at whatever temperature they would normally burn at. e.g. whether I set a piece of paper on fire with a match or a blowtorch, the paper would burn at the same temperature.
Therefore, when we are talking about what temperature things burn at days later, whether there was thermite or not at ignition is completely irrelevant. The temperature of the fires days later tells you nothing about what started the fire.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Marky this is simple and obvious. Thermite burns at X temperature. It doesn't burn forever at that temperature, in fact it burns out relatively quickly. Things which catch fire due to thermite would not burn at thermite temperature, they would burn at whatever temperature they would normally burn at. e.g. whether I set a piece of paper on fire with a match or a blowtorch, the paper would burn at the same temperature.
Therefore, when we are talking about what temperature things burn at days later, whether there was thermite or not at ignition is completely irrelevant. The temperature of the fires days later tells you nothing about what started the fire. |
i agree, but even you seem to accept that thermate/thermite could cause the fire which would then consume items around it causing a fire which burnt for weeks.
im not saying it was thermate/thermite im just calling into question the qoute below.
| Quote: | | On the other hand, thermite burns quickly and fiercely, so how could it possibly keep a fire going for months? |
like i say if a normal hydro carbon fire can do it then so can thermite which would end up causing a hydro carbon fire.
i admit you cannot prove which was the cause of the fire in the basement.
but i tend to lean away from both explainations as i think they are both wrong.
i think a clue is gained by considering what was in the basements. and how people got to work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
for the cause of the underground furnace and pools of molten steel at least.
on top of that a clue can be had from j.woods evidence of melting cars parked along the sides of the roads. it is claimed they were there all along, but i doubt it, i believe they were pulled out of the rubble and placed in streets around new york for a few days at least. which were then photographed and eventually used as evidence for DEW.
the reasons why you'd park the cars around city streets is to wait for them to be collected and took of to the scrap yard whilst keeping them away from ground zero where they would quite frankly be in the way. or whilst they tried to identify the cars owners(lots made it out remember) so they could come and claim any remaining items before the cars were scrapped.
it would be intresting to hear from anyone(who could prove it) who was there that day and who lost a car in the basement, to hear what happened to their car. ie: was they called to come and collect any items in it? or did they hear nothing about their car?
it could well prove where the melted parked cars came from and if it was from the basements then we know what was melting steel and fueling the fires. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marky, what I am saying is that even if thermite was originally used and caused immense heat and fires on the day of 9/11 itself, it could not still be burning days, weeks or months later, because it burns up very quickly. It is rather like petrol, you could use petrol to start a fire, but it would be gone very quickly, and whatever you set light to would generate its own heat after the petrol had gone.
I don't know if you have any experience of using coal fires, but you could either let a coal fire burn out at night or you could "keep it in" as they say, by banking it up with a lot of small bits of coal "slack" so that no flames were visible and air was restricted, and it would smoulder away until the next morning, very hot inside but just smoke visible on the outside. I imagine the fires under the building rubble were rather like that, keeping going for a long time and very hot, but not producing any flame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | marky, what I am saying is that even if thermite was originally used and caused immense heat and fires on the day of 9/11 itself, it could not still be burning days, weeks or months later, because it burns up very quickly. It is rather like petrol, you could use petrol to start a fire, but it would be gone very quickly, and whatever you set light to would generate its own heat after the petrol had gone.
I don't know if you have any experience of using coal fires, but you could either let a coal fire burn out at night or you could "keep it in" as they say, by banking it up with a lot of small bits of coal "slack" so that no flames were visible and air was restricted, and it would smoulder away until the next morning, very hot inside but just smoke visible on the outside. I imagine the fires under the building rubble were rather like that, keeping going for a long time and very hot, but not producing any flame. |
i know what you mean but i still fail to see how thermite cannot cause a fire which then has the same effect.
also i think it is a stretch of the imagination to claim the fire was from the top of the towers and then going on to try and explain a almost impossible scenerio.
none of it matters to me anyway, i have clearly stated i have a different view, but sometimes the failure to admit things but rather clings onto less likely explainations only shows how honest people are.
don't worry i know it aint about truth for most, most just argue a point til the end of time just to be right.
debris landing on cars and igniting petrol is the only plausible none conspirital explaintion for the fires and molten steel, imo most of the molten steel came from the cars and vechiles, rather than mostly beams.
to believe a fire fell 80 storeys and then somehow ended up deep in the basement when there were 80 floors between it and the basement is bizarre. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even if thermite did cause the fire in the first place, it would still burn out quickly, leaving the debris to continue burning by itself. That is why the continuing fires are no indication that thermite was used.
On your other point, fires were burning fiercely on a number of floors, so there would be plenty of burning material falling down that would keep on burning. More floors fell on top of them, providing more flammable material to keep the fires burning, and they would spread to the rubble of the floors below, and indeed the cars in the basement garage. If you think this is almost impossible, then accept that the Fire Dept have never commented that it was strange in any way.
You have a good point that the thin material of car bodies would be likely to melt before the thick structural steel, but remember also that there was a lot of aluminium and lead present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | Even if thermite did cause the fire in the first place, it would still burn out quickly, leaving the debris to continue burning by itself. That is why the continuing fires are no indication that thermite was used.
On your other point, fires were burning fiercely on a number of floors, so there would be plenty of burning material falling down that would keep on burning. More floors fell on top of them, providing more flammable material to keep the fires burning, and they would spread to the rubble of the floors below, and indeed the cars in the basement garage. If you think this is almost impossible, then accept that the Fire Dept have never commented that it was strange in any way.
You have a good point that the thin material of car bodies would be likely to melt before the thick structural steel, but remember also that there was a lot of aluminium and lead present. |
i did'nt say it would be an indication that thermite was used. you seemed to doubt thermite being possibly responible at all. but you have now said yourself, | Quote: | | Even if thermite did cause the fire in the first place, it would still burn out quickly, leaving the debris to continue burning by itself. |
therefore caused by thermite if that was the scenerio, therefore it is possible for thermite to cause fires in the basement, which seemed to be something you were claiming was impossible previously.
regardless it dos'nt matter.
| Quote: | On your other point, fires were burning fiercely on a number of floors, so there would be plenty of burning material falling down that would keep on burning. More floors fell on top of them, providing more flammable material to keep the fires burning, and they would spread to the rubble of the floors below, and indeed the cars in the basement garage. If you think this is almost impossible, then accept that the Fire Dept have never commented that it was strange in any way.
|
just because the firemen did'nt think it was strange that there was fire in the basement, dos'nt mean your theory of a 80 storey high fire overtaking other debris and then burying itself in the basement is correct.
however its your choice if you want to continue to promote that, but don't expect people to believe it when most think it is a bizarre and impossible explaination, and imo they have good reason to think so, its no wonder most do not take your explainations serious, you over complicate the explaination and come up with something bizarre, when the obvious and plausible explaintion has been there all along.
the fire was in the basement because it started in the basement after the collapse and as debris were falling into the basements area.
however you could'nt accept a scenerio where fire started in the basement because you needed to try and prove wrong that bombs in the basement did'nt cause it, so you went with the 80 storey high fire causing it to take the cause away from the basement to prove wrong those you think are 'conspiracy theorists' with a bizarre scenerio which only gave them/me at the time more reason to believe it.
by doing this you missed the obvious explaination which would of been a lot more plausible to believe and much more possible, which would of made explaining this a tad more easier than a fire very high up in a tower with a lot of rubble between it and the basement.
you also say there was many fires, however i find this claim hard to believe also, as there is no sign to be seen of fires anywhere but around the impacted area. and if there were anyother fires they must of been isolated and very small due to no sign of them anywhere. plus even those fires have the problem of a lot of debris inbetween them and the basement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I did not mean to imply that there were fires anywhere but around the impact floors, clearly there were not.
I do not think there was any thermite, and the continuing fires do not provide any evidence that there was, because it would have burnt off quickly.
I do not think the fire floors overtook other floors and buried themselves in the basement, do read again what I wrote.
I think the Fire Dept know a lot more about fires than either you do or I do, and do not seem to think that fires in the rubble pile were caused by anything other than the fires falling down with the building, or that is a bizarre, over-complicated or impossible explanation.
Why would bombs in the basement cause the building to collapse from the top? Now that is bizarre and impossible! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | I did not mean to imply that there were fires anywhere but around the impact floors, clearly there were not.
I do not think there was any thermite, and the continuing fires do not provide any evidence that there was, because it would have burnt off quickly.
I do not think the fire floors overtook other floors and buried themselves in the basement, do read again what I wrote.
I think the Fire Dept know a lot more about fires than either you do or I do, and do not seem to think that fires in the rubble pile were caused by anything other than the fires falling down with the building, or that is a bizarre, over-complicated or impossible explanation.
Why would bombs in the basement cause the building to collapse from the top? Now that is bizarre and impossible! |
where did i say bombs in the basement would cause it to collapse from the top? or at all?
have you got a short memory? remember rodriguez hearing explosions? you needed to take the cause of the fire up 80 or so storeys to give no credence to bombs causing the fire in the basement and or thermate/thermite cutting charges at the last moment.
however by doing so you only helped to feul the suspiscion with a bizarre explaination. the fires were caused in the basement. and there are plenty of plausible and reasonible explaintions, if only you could think of them instead of making it up to prove wrong claims you don't really have the answer to, by making up explaination that only strenghtens an inside job postion, but which may be explained in a plausible way if it was'nt for the making up as you go along method.
theres no more for me to add to this debate, unless compelling evidence comes forth that proves there is no way on earth the fire could of started via cars in the basements being overloaded with debris and rupturing feul tanks, then burning like a furnace and melting cars to liquid as well as deforming cars in the surrounding areas.
you will argue any point for the sake of being right and take out of context what people are saying and also try to imply they were claiming something they was'nt just to make yourself seem right.
keep promoting your fire at the impact zone falling down and ending up deep in the basement if you wish.
aslong as you understand that fabricating evidence or spreading disinfo is something you complain about sometimes without justification whilst doing it yourself with your magic fire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We already know that some fuel came down the elevator shafts and that would explain why people were burned in the basement and the lobby smelled of petrol. My impression was that these fires did not last long. Keep in mind this information has now be available for at least five years, yet for all your hard working investigating 9/11, it somehow escaped you.
I find that you are trying to throw random things around and try to imply vague things, then complaining that people "put words in your mouth" whenever they try to piece together your logic.
Its been so many years, your theories and speculations are just as incoherent and random as ever. Doesn't this tell you something?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | We already know that some fuel came down the elevator shafts and that would explain why people were burned in the basement and the lobby smelled of petrol. My impression was that these fires did not last long. Keep in mind this information has now be available for at least five years, yet for all your hard working investigating 9/11, it somehow escaped you.
I find that you are trying to throw random things around and try to imply vague things, then complaining that people "put words in your mouth" whenever they try to piece together your logic.
Its been so many years, your theories and speculations are just as incoherent and random as ever. Doesn't this tell you something? |
if it were true it would. i have been very clear about what i think caused the basement fire. if you want to believe the magic fire from the 80th odd floor did it thats up to you.
and it aint speculation i based it on other information as well as logic and only after eliminating other information. and coming to a conclusion instantly with so many theories knocking about is impossible without first researching and looking into each claim. as well as debating and asking questions to get more leads or see what stands up. are you suggesting i should come along and ask you and take the first answer you give me?
it certainly aint a 5 minute thing to plough through all the information.
by the way ive been looking into it a little over a year, so im not sure were you get 'so many years from'.
if your also suggesting there is no evidence for cars being involved as the area effected by fire, then i'd love to see you explain the partily melted/wilted cars that have no paintwork either on a part of or all of the body.
what caused that? nothing? or being very close to intense heat?
just to add also nothing is stopping you pointing any errors in my conclusions if thats what they are. its a part of the process, anyone claiming to be right all of the time is a liar.
also i saw no so called critics providing me with the information, i had to connect the dots for myself. if it was down to critics you'd be having me belief the 'magic fire theory'
infact i can confirm from experience since mainly ignoring critics i have made a lot more progress in eliminating information than i ever did whilst listening to their weak explainations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the idea that fire in a collapsing building would end up in the rubble leaves you mystified I'd say you are really wasting your time investigating 9/11, but then again I already thought that.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | If the idea that fire in a collapsing building would end up in the rubble leaves you mystified I'd say you are really wasting your time investigating 9/11, but then again I already thought that. |
the question is'nt if it would end up in the rubble, but if it would end up deep in the basement, its quite sensible to expect smoldering debris nearer the top of the pile.
why not explain the process pepik, how do small pieces of debris fall and smash into another 80 floors and keep a constant fire without going out?
the biggest piece they found was a part of a telephone keypad according to one fireman, other than that it was vastly steel.
why not explain to me what was burning by the time it reached the basement? fully intact furniture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
heres something that needs considering first. as the tower starts collapsing the weight pushes the fire out of the sides meaning any fire would of been extinguished between the floors. all the air the fire needed to survive was squeezed out as was the fire itself which turns into a puff of smoke.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/134744/9_11_north_tower_floor_explodes/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | I do not think there was any thermite, and the continuing fires do not provide any evidence that there was, because it would have burnt off quickly.
|
Thermite can cut through steel I believe by heating it to an enormous temperature. If this was done on all the main columns of the core, that's a lot of hot steel. How will this steel then cool down, located as it is at the bottom of a pile of debris with no chance of cooling to air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: |
have you got a short memory? remember rodriguez hearing explosions? you needed to take the cause of the fire up 80 or so storeys to give no credence to bombs causing the fire in the basement and or thermate/thermite cutting charges at the last moment.
however by doing so you only helped to feul the suspiscion with a bizarre explaination. the fires were caused in the basement. and there are plenty of plausible and reasonible explaintions, if only you could think of them instead of making it up to prove wrong claims you don't really have the answer to, by making up explaination that only strenghtens an inside job postion, but which may be explained in a plausible way if it was'nt for the making up as you go along method.
theres no more for me to add to this debate, unless compelling evidence comes forth that proves there is no way on earth the fire could of started via cars in the basements being overloaded with debris and rupturing feul tanks, then burning like a furnace and melting cars to liquid as well as deforming cars in the surrounding areas.
you will argue any point for the sake of being right and take out of context what people are saying and also try to imply they were claiming something they was'nt just to make yourself seem right.
keep promoting your fire at the impact zone falling down and ending up deep in the basement if you wish.
aslong as you understand that fabricating evidence or spreading disinfo is something you complain about sometimes without justification whilst doing it yourself with your magic fire. |
It is Rodriguez who has the memory problems, it took him two years to remember that he heard an explosion, he originally said he heard "a big rumble like moving furniture in a massive way."
The jet fuel caused a fireball to go down the lift shafts, and cause havoc in the basement, but there are no accounts of fires continuing to burn down there. I find it very odd that you have such difficulty with the idea that the fires came down with the building, this is what is generally thought. I am not fabricating evidence about this, I have offered no evidence. If I have misunderstood what you say or taken it out of context I apologise, but you are not always easy to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | I do not think there was any thermite, and the continuing fires do not provide any evidence that there was, because it would have burnt off quickly.
|
Thermite can cut through steel I believe by heating it to an enormous temperature. If this was done on all the main columns of the core, that's a lot of hot steel. How will this steel then cool down, located as it is at the bottom of a pile of debris with no chance of cooling to air. |
Yes, where it was cut it would be very hot, but only there. The rest of the column would act as a heat sink, the heat would disperse along the column, which would quickly reach a uniform and much cooler temperature, even if no heat was lost to the atmosphere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | I do not think there was any thermite, and the continuing fires do not provide any evidence that there was, because it would have burnt off quickly.
|
Thermite can cut through steel I believe by heating it to an enormous temperature. If this was done on all the main columns of the core, that's a lot of hot steel. How will this steel then cool down, located as it is at the bottom of a pile of debris with no chance of cooling to air. |
Yes, where it was cut it would be very hot, but only there. The rest of the column would act as a heat sink, the heat would disperse along the column, which would quickly reach a uniform and much cooler temperature, even if no heat was lost to the atmosphere. |
But how does that square with your theory of how fire brought down the twin towers and WTC7 if all this heat was actually being conducted away from the heat source by the steel frame? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: |
have you got a short memory? remember rodriguez hearing explosions? you needed to take the cause of the fire up 80 or so storeys to give no credence to bombs causing the fire in the basement and or thermate/thermite cutting charges at the last moment.
however by doing so you only helped to feul the suspiscion with a bizarre explaination. the fires were caused in the basement. and there are plenty of plausible and reasonible explaintions, if only you could think of them instead of making it up to prove wrong claims you don't really have the answer to, by making up explaination that only strenghtens an inside job postion, but which may be explained in a plausible way if it was'nt for the making up as you go along method.
theres no more for me to add to this debate, unless compelling evidence comes forth that proves there is no way on earth the fire could of started via cars in the basements being overloaded with debris and rupturing feul tanks, then burning like a furnace and melting cars to liquid as well as deforming cars in the surrounding areas.
you will argue any point for the sake of being right and take out of context what people are saying and also try to imply they were claiming something they was'nt just to make yourself seem right.
keep promoting your fire at the impact zone falling down and ending up deep in the basement if you wish.
aslong as you understand that fabricating evidence or spreading disinfo is something you complain about sometimes without justification whilst doing it yourself with your magic fire. |
It is Rodriguez who has the memory problems, it took him two years to remember that he heard an explosion, he originally said he heard "a big rumble like moving furniture in a massive way."
The jet fuel caused a fireball to go down the lift shafts, and cause havoc in the basement, but there are no accounts of fires continuing to burn down there. I find it very odd that you have such difficulty with the idea that the fires came down with the building, this is what is generally thought. I am not fabricating evidence about this, I have offered no evidence. If I have misunderstood what you say or taken it out of context I apologise, but you are not always easy to understand. |
ive already explained why i think it was impossible for the fire to reach the basement.
i have said numerous times if you want to carry on believeing your theory then do so but that dos'nt mean i have to, and that dos'nt mean your theory is correct or makes sense to many. at the same time it dos'nt mean my theory is correct, however i believe it makes more sense.
i base my theory on observation of the fire going out as the building collapses on it coupled with the numerous amount of dust which would strave any remainer fire ferther. and by bringing together other evidence(for example the cars which could indicate the area of basement which was effected) which when pieced together explains alot and all at once.
heres some components found in cars
For the most part, cars are made up of steel. But there are also several other metals present in a modern car. Here is a (nearly) complete list of these metals and their use.
Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn) :- Steel alloy
Arsenic (As) :- Solder
Boron (B) :- Steel
Niobium (Nb) :- High-strength, low-alloy steel
Silver (Ag) :- Electrical contacts
Magnesium (Mg) :- Aluminium alloy
Lead (Pb) :- Battery
Chromium (Cr) :- Plating
Cadmium (Cd) :- Plating
Nickel (Ni) :- Plating, Stainless steel
Copper (Cu) :- Electrical wiring, radiator
Zinc (Zn) :- Anti-corrosion plating
Vanadium (V) :- Steel
Cobalt (Co) :- Steel
Barium (Ba) :- Engine lubricants
Strontium (Sr) :- Steel
Tungsten (Wo) :- Light filaments
Titanium (Ti) :- Steel, paint
Molybdenum (Mo) :- Engine lubricants, steel
Sodium (Na) : - Grease
Calcium (Ca) :- Oils, greases
Lithium (Li) :- Grease in the door locks
Germanium (Ge) :- Diodes
Gallium (Ga) :- Diodes
Tin (Sn) : - Solder
Antimony (Sb) :- Solder
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1163806
they presume it was steel from beams and not from cars.
there is so much this theory answers regardless of if you think it is true or not. im afraid i have to consider it and find it more believeable than your fire from 80 floors up theory.
lets just agree to disagree and move on. you can ignore information if you wish its your choice, but i will just say again from experience, your explaination has never helped other than to make me think there is something to the inside job theorys due to your bizarre theorys and explainations.
as soon as i ditched critics corner for their opinons i have been able to confidently eliminate certain information that is claimed proves 9/11 inside job when it dos'nt.
on top of that i don't think your arrogant attitude helps either. you know the stance that your more informed than anyone else and you know best and everyone else are just wacko conspiracy theorists who don't have two brain cells to rub together, its either that or you don't like being wrong ever, so you will argue the impossible untill the end of time, and in the process contridict yourself over and over again as you keep moving the goal posts inorder to seem to be correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Marky the poor victim of persecution.
You know this theory of fires going out when things collapse? You just made it up. You have no expertise in the area and gave no examples of it. It just suited you so you made it up. Your ridiculous argumentativeness and scepticism vanishes and you consider it case closed.
This is why you believe in 911 troof. Because any old nonsense will do, as long as it supports the conspiracy.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | Marky the poor victim of persecution.
You know this theory of fires going out when things collapse? You just made it up. You have no expertise in the area and gave no examples of it. It just suited you so you made it up. Your ridiculous argumentativeness and scepticism vanishes and you consider it case closed.
This is why you believe in 911 troof. Because any old nonsense will do, as long as it supports the conspiracy. |
show me your evidence the fire reached the basement and prove your not just making it up.
why do you keep ignoring and avoiding the information i provide? why not tell me what happens to the fire as the building collapses on it? i did provide a video but as usual liars like you and bushwacker simply avoid information and simply stick to contridicting yourselves and making it up as you go along.
and you know it. as does everyone else, it is plain to see for all as you make things up about people at the same time.
carry on believeing your bizarre theory i will not thank you very much.
i would rather consider something alot more possible thank you.
Last edited by marky 54 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE: if you are not making it up or lieing.
if i can provide reasons and information that fits my theory why the hell car'nt you without contridicting other things you claim about 9/11?
all i know is if you are paid to do this its more a case of lorry and hardy rather than informed opinons and information that provides people with a plausible reason to believe something.
why have i abandoned this area? why is this the first time in a long time? its simple the critics that post here are full of sh*t(well alex dos'nt seem to bad so maybe not all).
you just turn up to belittle people and make up anything you can that says they are wrong, you avoid providing any kind of evidence to prove your case, and are both arrogent. basically everything you do and say ends up having the opposite effect on people.
you turn up tell me im wrong and your right, and thats it. yet i have so far given more reason and evidence that fits my case than you have of yours.
you use this area as a playground to flex your stuff rather than for any serious research that will provide answers to put the issues to rest.
but most of all you hate it when somebody starts giving back the same attitude you give others, and when your accused of being what you accuse others of. maybe that will give some indication as to why your methods and tatics only have the opposite effect. as proved by your stance that regardless of what i provide or say you are adament that you are correct even though im providing a scenerio that would mean no inside job.
quite simply you don't want to be wrong. especially when i start labelling you as a liar or someone who is making it up and telling you your theories are bizarre and you have not got a clue.
what makes you think it works any different on anybody else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | I do not think there was any thermite, and the continuing fires do not provide any evidence that there was, because it would have burnt off quickly.
|
Thermite can cut through steel I believe by heating it to an enormous temperature. If this was done on all the main columns of the core, that's a lot of hot steel. How will this steel then cool down, located as it is at the bottom of a pile of debris with no chance of cooling to air. |
Yes, where it was cut it would be very hot, but only there. The rest of the column would act as a heat sink, the heat would disperse along the column, which would quickly reach a uniform and much cooler temperature, even if no heat was lost to the atmosphere. |
But how does that square with your theory of how fire brought down the twin towers and WTC7 if all this heat was actually being conducted away from the heat source by the steel frame? |
and here is james c pointing out one of bushwackers MANY contridictions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fire did not cut the beams, it heated them up enough that they softened and warped. Read the reports which have been out for YEARS.
There is no contradiction, you just desperately want there to be one.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | I do not think there was any thermite, and the continuing fires do not provide any evidence that there was, because it would have burnt off quickly.
|
Thermite can cut through steel I believe by heating it to an enormous temperature. If this was done on all the main columns of the core, that's a lot of hot steel. How will this steel then cool down, located as it is at the bottom of a pile of debris with no chance of cooling to air. |
Yes, where it was cut it would be very hot, but only there. The rest of the column would act as a heat sink, the heat would disperse along the column, which would quickly reach a uniform and much cooler temperature, even if no heat was lost to the atmosphere. |
But how does that square with your theory of how fire brought down the twin towers and WTC7 if all this heat was actually being conducted away from the heat source by the steel frame? |
Perfectly. Thermite = very high temperature in small area for short time, steel melts in that area before heat is conducted away to the rest of the beam. Fire = lower temperature in large area for much longer time, much larger area of steel frame heated to point of losing strength, not melting, sagging trusses pull in perimeter frame, as seen on photographs troofers never want to talk about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE: if you are not making it up or lieing.
if i can provide reasons and information that fits my theory why the hell car'nt you without contridicting other things you claim about 9/11?
all i know is if you are paid to do this its more a case of lorry and hardy rather than informed opinons and information that provides people with a plausible reason to believe something.
why have i abandoned this area? why is this the first time in a long time? its simple the critics that post here are full of sh*t(well alex dos'nt seem to bad so maybe not all).
you just turn up to belittle people and make up anything you can that says they are wrong, you avoid providing any kind of evidence to prove your case, and are both arrogent. basically everything you do and say ends up having the opposite effect on people.
you turn up tell me im wrong and your right, and thats it. yet i have so far given more reason and evidence that fits my case than you have of yours.
you use this area as a playground to flex your stuff rather than for any serious research that will provide answers to put the issues to rest.
but most of all you hate it when somebody starts giving back the same attitude you give others, and when your accused of being what you accuse others of. maybe that will give some indication as to why your methods and tatics only have the opposite effect. as proved by your stance that regardless of what i provide or say you are adament that you are correct even though im providing a scenerio that would mean no inside job.
quite simply you don't want to be wrong. especially when i start labelling you as a liar or someone who is making it up and telling you your theories are bizarre and you have not got a clue.
what makes you think it works any different on anybody else? |
What a temper tantrum you do get yourself in!
You have given no evidence whatever about fire in the basement at the time the towers collapsed, and you have simply invented the idea that the fires should go out as the buildings fell, which is not shared by the Fire Dept or anyone else. But if making up your own version of what happened makes you happy, carry on, at least you are thinking for yourself which is more than most here do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | What a temper tantrum you do get yourself in!
|
what temper tantrum? did you read the post whilst shouting or something? try reading it in a calm manner and your preception will change.
if the caps give you the impression of shouting that was not there intention, they were suppose to simply highlight those words.
which have still been ignored, but never mind.
regarding your fire theory i take it your just repeating the information from elsewhere and are unable to think for yourself, if you were able to think for your self you'd work out that when the fire crashed through the floor below it still had to do it again at least another 68 times plus what ever basement levels inorder to end up deep in the basement whilst debris were collecting underneath all the time.
why don't you try explaining the collapse of how you think it happened, this way we will beable to see your logic in the fire effected floors being some of the first debris to enter the basement rather than them being near to the top of the debris pile or in the radius that fell into the street. oh wait a minute, any request for such things or evidence just goes ignored dos'nt it.
nevermind then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mr nice
Validated Poster
Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 103
Location: In a camper
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="marky 54"] | Quote: |
regarding your fire theory i take it your just repeating the information from elsewhere and are unable to think for yourself, if you were able to think for your self you'd work out that when the fire crashed through the floor below it still had to do it again at least another 68 times plus what ever basement levels in order to end up deep in the basement whilst debris were collecting underneath all the time.
|
Nice marky
!This is water tight IMO you got em on the ropes now 
Does one really need to be an expert in the properties of burning office furniture to validate the view that the above quote totally refutes the mouthpieces illogical theory? I think NOT
_________________
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground.
David Icke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
