Moderated The NYPD and Molten Concrete

yankee451 said:
"Simple" errors that sent us to war for 11 years.
Click to expand...

Naive to say the least.

What sent the US to war in Afghanistan was that country's refusal to hand over the ring leader of a bunch of self-avowed enemies of America that hijacked planes and flew them into buildings with the sole aim of committing mass murder, not the words of people who share your lack of science and engineering knowledge.
 
threadworm said:
Naive to say the least.

What sent the US to war in Afghanistan was that country's refusal to hand over the ring leader of a bunch of self-avowed enemies of America that hijacked planes and flew them into buildings with the sole aim of committing mass murder, not the words of people who share your lack of science and engineering knowledge.
Click to expand...

That's what the story is, sure but the evidence indicates something else happened. You're happy with the first story though, clearly.
 
yankee451 said:
I don't understand. What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...


That you begin with belief and only accept evidence that appears to confirm your belief. Where possible you also torture contrary evidence in a way that presents it as favourable to your belief.

You have created an impregnable fortress of ignorance.
 
GlennB said:
That you begin with belief and only accept evidence that appears to confirm your belief. Where possible you also torture contrary evidence in a way that presents it as favourable to your belief.

You have created an impregnable fortress of ignorance.
Click to expand...

I only imply that just because I''m asking you fine people simple quesitons such as about jet wings for example, it doesn't mean I don't already know the answer. You know what happens when you assume.
 
GlennB said:
That you begin with belief and only accept evidence that appears to confirm your belief. Where possible you also torture contrary evidence in a way that presents it as favourable to your belief.

You have created an impregnable fortress of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Flattery will get you everywhere.

I have provided all kinds of evidense and all you provide is derision from the safety of the herd.


Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F). http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...tc/how-hot.htm
Click to expand...

What's wrong with this evidence - don't you self-proclaimed smart people want to challenge the statement that it was impossible for the ground to have hotspots in the range of 1000 kelvin?

How hot would a fire need to be to burn those big stainless steel kettles, walk-in coolers and toilets?
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
What's wrong with this evidence - don't you self-proclaimed smart people want to challenge the statement that it was impossible for the ground to have hotspots in the range of 1000 kelvin?
Click to expand...

What's wrong is that (among other things) it presumes jet fuel was the only source of heat. In fact combustible material within the WTC - furnishings etc etc - greatly outweighed it. Meanwhile 1000°K is around 630°C, and is easily attainable in office fires. This has been pointed out to you in several different ways but you haven't registered it.

As for the toilets, get an old one and drop it a few storeys onto a hard surface. Report back to us on its condition. It's you, and only you, that's wondering how they burned. They didn't.
 
Last edited:
yankee451 said:
Unremarkable that five days after an office fire wiped out three buildings, and even though the fire was visibly burning out and clearly extinguished in the destruction, it was still over 1100 hundred degrees without the benefit of fuel and air?

If you say so chief.
Click to expand...

Wow.

Is this what they teach in school now?

How much experience do you have with fire? Not your oven or charcoal grill, but I mean car/house/building fires?

I already know the answer to this, BTW.

How can you pompously project such an ill-informed opinion on a subject you know absolutely nothing about?

Do you realize how ignorant you sound? This is why no one here can take you the least bit seriously.
 
GlennB said:
What's wrong is that (among other things) it presumes jet fuel was the only source of heat. In fact combustible material within the WTC - furnishings etc etc - greatly outweighed it. Meanwhile 1000°K is around 630°C, and is easily attainable in office fires. This has been pointed out to you in several different ways but you haven't registered it.

As for the toilets, get an old one and drop it a few storeys onto a hard surface. Report back to us on its condition. It's you, and only you, that's wondering how they burned. They didn't.
Click to expand...

So many assumptions without any proof.

You mean flammable stuff like this?

kitchen2.jpg


Gen1.jpg


bathroom1.jpg


bathroom2.jpg
 
yankee451 said:
I don't understand. What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

Pretty obvious.

You're only interested in asking questions that you think you know the answer to. I've inserted an important word extra word there.

You have no interest in asking questions that will give you an answer you don't agree with. You are not interested in the truth, you are interested in proving yourself right. Those two conditions are contradictory.

You are not even interested in proving anyone else wrong, because in order to do that you have to take on board their arguments and ask questions to which you will not know the answer.
 
In short, the WTC was made completely of steel, marble, ceramic.

Nothing flammable at all, guys. I think yankee got us. I'll be resigning my NWO position in a presser later today....
 
yankee451 said:
So many assumptions without any proof.

You mean flammable stuff like this?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/kitchen2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Gen1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bathroom1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bathroom2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I just dropped a burning match in my stainless steel sink and the bugger caught fire. Help!!
 
yankee451 said:
So many assumptions without any proof.

You mean flammable stuff like this?

[qimg]http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/kitchen2.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Kitchens are full of fire hazards, but I doubt you would know anything about that.
 
yankee451 said:
You mean flammable stuff like this?
Click to expand...

No, that's mostly inflammable.

I mean desks, chairs, PCs, paper, files, carpet, cubicle dividers ... stuff like that. The bulk of the WTC furnishings and other general stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom