Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sunstealer said:
The date of your linked article is Saturday 3 November 2001 16.31 GMT.

Are you saying that those firefighters, reported on that date, wanted to rescue people? If not, then how is that relevant to Travis's post where he specifically mentions those requiring rescue? Do you think that people could have survived between sept 11th and Nov 3rd?

Are we to add "rescue" to the words you don't understand like onto and into?

Your reading comprehension needs work Red.
Click to expand...

Do you see where I said, "something like this"?
 
I suppose linking the article had more to do with the idea that evidence was lost by not recovering all of the remains in the manner of which the firefighters at the time of those protests had wanted, when it was more an issue of sentiment, trying to get closure by recovering the remains. Though I fail to see where that sort of speculation would be relevant as a response to Travis's question.
 
RedIbis said:
Do you see where I said, "something like this"?
Click to expand...
So you posted an irrelevant link...why?

EDIT: You're still wrong, BTW, in that it's nothing like the hypothetical posed by Travis, other than it's about people being barred access to the collapse scene.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Do you see where I said, "something like this"?
Click to expand...
Rotten Rudy just wanted his city to look normal so that they could all get back to the business of ripping off people's life's savings.

If he had really wanted to milk 9/11 for the maximum effect, he would have been conscripting the unemployed to help dig out rubble.

But, once that stash of precious melts in the basement had been uncovered, he figured that they had accomplished the most important task. He did not factor in anyything like morale aomng city workers.

And yet that dumb sack of fail was in on a monumentally ingenious plot to play the emotions of the American people?

Mind-boggling.
 
It's my understanding that whenever there is the possibility that people might still be alive the firefighters will have the last call on what goes on.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I am rarely wrong.right.
Click to expand...

Edit mine to correct erroneous post.

So tell me what caused the fires under the rubble to last 99 days.
Click to expand...

The fact that there were dry Class A fuels buried under loosely-packed debris, which allowed air to enter from the bottom while letting little heat escape from the top of the pile.

Of course, the same debris that held the heat in kept water out.
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
Edit mine to correct erroneous post.



The fact that there were dry Class A fuels buried under loosely-packed debris, which allowed air to enter from the bottom while letting little heat escape from the top of the pile.

Of course, the same debris that held the heat in kept water out.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. I'd like to hear what your fellow debunkers have to say about your assessment.
 
Travis said:
It's my understanding that whenever there is the possibility that people might still be alive the firefighters will have the last call on what goes on.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true, at least here in America.

**** Rudy and his asshattery.
 
Clayton Moore said:
That's absurd. I'd like to hear what your fellow debunkers have to say about your assessment.
Click to expand...

Why is that absurd? Anyone here will tell you that is correct. Well, except for a few posters here. Ergo, you, maybe our newest truther "friend".

When you cannot put the wet stuff (in this instance, water) on the hot stuff (in this case, fire) it will not burn itself out. 220+ acres of stuff were buried in the piles.

Plus, as the Sargent said, you can't put water on something that is covered in debris.

Here's a neat little tool.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/
 
The fires were indeed known to have been burning for weeks afterwards, and Lefty is correct: There were multitudes of flammables combusting. What's absurd is thinking that somehow that amount of office contents would not be burning after being struck by a jet, burning for nearly an hour inside a skyscraper, then being thrown into a pile so that all those flammables are much closer together.
 
leftysergeant said:
Rotten Rudy just wanted his city to look normal so that they could all get back to the business of ripping off people's life's savings.

If he had really wanted to milk 9/11 for the maximum effect, he would have been conscripting the unemployed to help dig out rubble.

But, once that stash of precious melts in the basement had been uncovered, he figured that they had accomplished the most important task. He did not factor in anyything like morale aomng city workers.

And yet that dumb sack of fail was in on a monumentally ingenious plot to play the emotions of the American people?

Mind-boggling.
Click to expand...

I've never understood the adoration given to Rudy. On 9/11, what he did amounted to telling people to run in the opposite direction of an enormous toxic cloud.
 
Clayton Moore said:
leftysergeant said:
The fact that there were dry Class A fuels buried under loosely-packed debris, which allowed air to enter from the bottom while letting little heat escape from the top of the pile.

Of course, the same debris that held the heat in kept water out.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. I'd like to hear what your fellow debunkers have to say about your assessment.
Click to expand...

So you consider the concept of a furnace to be absurd? Because, as Lefty pointed out, that's essentially what the WTC debris field became.
 
RedIbis said:
I've never understood the adoration given to Rudy. On 9/11, what he did amounted to telling people to run in the opposite direction of an enormous toxic cloud.
Click to expand...
The best thing Rotten Rudy ever did for New York, and the best thing he could now do for America is to stay the hell out of the way and let people who have a clue what they are doing handle it.
 
Clayton Moore said:
That's absurd. I'd like to hear what your fellow debunkers have to say about your assessment.
Click to expand...

leftysergeant is correct, and you are wrong again.
Here is a reasearch suggestion for you:
- Find references on fire science websites that state ranges for the amount (mass, in kg) of combustibles per square meter in ordinary offices, or specifically in the twin towers
- Find out how many spuare meters of office space there were in the twin towers
- Multiply by the first number to get total mass of combustibles
- Find out, or estimate, the average energy density of office combustibles, in MegaJoules/kg (MJ/kg)
- Multiply with the total mass you found in the last step to get total energy release in MJ
- divide by 99 days to get energy release per day; divide further by 24, 60 and 60 to get energy release per second. This is called power, measured in (Mega-)Watt.
- Compare with the typical power output of a car, or a nuclear power plant

Now you have an idea of what raged in that debris pile.
 
Oystein said:
leftysergeant is correct, and you are wrong again.
Here is a reasearch suggestion for you:
- Find references on fire science websites that state ranges for the amount (mass, in kg) of combustibles per square meter in ordinary offices, or specifically in the twin towers
- Find out how many spuare meters of office space there were in the twin towers
- Multiply by the first number to get total mass of combustibles
- Find out, or estimate, the average energy density of office combustibles, in MegaJoules/kg (MJ/kg)
- Multiply with the total mass you found in the last step to get total energy release in MJ
- divide by 99 days to get energy release per day; divide further by 24, 60 and 60 to get energy release per second. This is called power, measured in (Mega-)Watt.
- Compare with the typical power output of a car, or a nuclear power plant

Now you have an idea of what raged in that debris pile.
Click to expand...

But math is hard...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom