Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remember the old 2006 argument that the blackness of the smoke from the WTCs was a sign they were oxygen starved.

Well I was just watching CNN, and they were describing an explosion in Houston, apparently out in the open, and now it was producing dark black smoke that could be seen for miles.

Just thought it was interesting...lol

TAM:)

Yeah, but if you remember your organic chemistry (*sniff* Mine was waaaaay back in (gasp!) 1989!! :cry1), "starvation" can technically mean nothing more than the lack of properly stoichiometric amounts being available right exactly at the point where some of the "fuel" is oxidizing. Doesn't mean there's not oxidation at all (it may simply be incomplete), nor does it say there's not enough airflow overall, whether to specific points on the burning mass or to the mass as a collective whole. On top of that, it sure as hell doesn't say anything about the rate of combustion or the temperature of the burning mass. That is strictly a matter of the energy available and the rate of the specific fuels (or materials... whatever you wanna call it) burning. On top of that, color is also way more dependent on the fuel being combusted, and heterogenous material burning cannot be tied down to a single color of smoke.

But you of course knew that already. I'm sort of riffing for any new posters that might be hanging about. :w2:
 
I updated my 9/11 crackpot index ;)

When you clicked on "Submit" in order to compute the score and then announced that to the truther, he/she will ask on what criterias you evaluated him/her.

That's why I added a <TEXTAREA> box in which you can copy and paste all these on a forum. If the truther denies the criterias you have chosen, he's certainly lying.

To get to the new 9/11 Crackpot Index, follow the link in my sig.
Enjoy ;)
 
Yeah, but if you remember your organic chemistry (*sniff* Mine was waaaaay back in (gasp!) 1989!! :cry1), "starvation" can technically mean nothing more than the lack of properly stoichiometric amounts being available right exactly at the point where some of the "fuel" is oxidizing. Doesn't mean there's not oxidation at all (it may simply be incomplete), nor does it say there's not enough airflow overall, whether to specific points on the burning mass or to the mass as a collective whole. On top of that, it sure as hell doesn't say anything about the rate of combustion or the temperature of the burning mass. That is strictly a matter of the energy available and the rate of the specific fuels (or materials... whatever you wanna call it) burning. On top of that, color is also way more dependent on the fuel being combusted, and heterogenous material burning cannot be tied down to a single color of smoke.

But you of course knew that already. I'm sort of riffing for any new posters that might be hanging about. :w2:

yah...ok...we'll go with "me knowing all that"...lol

My Organic Chemistry was in 1993, so I, like you, have little more than vague memories of it.

TAM:)
 
With 2010 sneaking up on me quickly, my calendar for the first quarter of the year is filling up fast. Can somebody please let me know if the truther revolution is slated for sometime in Q1. I would like to pencil it in. Wouldn't want to miss that circus.
 
With 2010 sneaking up on me quickly, my calendar for the first quarter of the year is filling up fast. Can somebody please let me know if the truther revolution is slated for sometime in Q1. I would like to pencil it in. Wouldn't want to miss that circus.
I believe they're shooting for Q3, 2011. No sense rushing things and being the 10th anniversary and all.:o
 
I updated again my crackpot index.

Now with little thumbnails to paste right in the truther's face:
testimage_en.php
:D

Follow my sig to get blah blah blah
 
I updated again my crackpot index.

Now with little thumbnails to paste right in the truther's face: [qimg]http://gilou82.free.fr/CEC/testimage_en.php?t=184&n=bardamu[/qimg] :D

Follow my sig to get blah blah blah
Our buddy Bill Smith (as we know he believe it all)


 
Yet again the Iraqi's put paid to the Iraq was invaded for the oil claims of the TM by awarding contracts to Statoil/Lukoil, Shell and Petronas.

No cheap oil for the Cheney crime clan.
 
Yet again the Iraqi's put paid to the Iraq was invaded for the oil claims of the TM by awarding contracts to Statoil/Lukoil, Shell and Petronas.

No cheap oil for the Cheney crime clan.

I am simply switching to the botched robbery theory.
Believing that oil was the reason for invasion have no connection with being a truther.:)
 
Yet again the Iraqi's put paid to the Iraq was invaded for the oil claims of the TM by awarding contracts to Statoil/Lukoil, Shell and Petronas.

No cheap oil for the Cheney crime clan.

I hadn't heard that. Have you got a link? Someone needs to update Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_(2007)

ETA: nevermind, I just discovered this thing called the interweb machine.
 
Last edited:
*** Rather than go seriously off topic I will post this here in the general discussion thread.***

9/11 is exactly like man made Global Warming Twinstead, It's a great big lie maintained by just a few hardcore liars who have hijacked science but with the unmissable help of people such as yourself.(assuming that you are not one of the hardcore of liars yourself of course)

But as the lie of man made Global Warming is exposed like we see happening all around us so too will 9/11 be exposed. They were made in the same mould- 9/11 and the man made Global Warming thing. Huge lies both.

Check out this documentary to see indisputable evidence that man made Global Warming is the huge lie that I have described. The other parts of the documentary will be on the youtube page. 9/11 is exactly this kind of lie. Watch it soon. It won't last. It never does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGj-gSZkUMI&feature=related part 3/8
 
Last edited:
9/11 is exactly like man made Global Warming Twinstead, It's a great big lie maintained by just a few hardcore liars who have hijacked science but with the unmissable help of people such as yourself

Yet this "few" is more than enough to counter the pathetic showing put up by the "truth" movement. Why is that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom