IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th February 2013, 06:00 PM   #201
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
debunked by your wood stove

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So you're saying you believe the USGS maps to be accurate?
Your saying your believe your missile fantasy based on nonsense?


You were debunked by your wood stove. That was funny. Your undefined fantasy on this thread debunked by your wood stove.

Last edited by beachnut; 10th February 2013 at 06:01 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 06:20 PM   #202
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
So without any molten steel, nor molten concrete to prove the existence of "really hot fires", we're left with the USGS images as proof.

Can anyone come up with more evidence to prove the WTC was wiped out by "really hot fires".

No? Big surprise, moving on...
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 07:30 PM   #203
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
...Only molten steel is prof of really hot fires?

That's not right, that's not even wrong.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 07:44 PM   #204
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
No? Big surprise, moving on...
Buhhhh...bye!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 08:56 PM   #205
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So without any molten steel, nor molten concrete to prove the existence of "really hot fires", we're left with the USGS images as proof.

Can anyone come up with more evidence to prove the WTC was wiped out by "really hot fires".

No? Big surprise, moving on...
No, no, don't go yet! Where's the punchline? I'm sure you have a point you want to make...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 09:22 PM   #206
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
So far we have the molten concrete horsepucky attributed to the NYPD who weren't just 'mistaken', they actually took the time to create a glass-enclosed museum exhibit which explained to American school children that the "fires were so intense the concrete melted".

And from the dauntless FDNY:

Quote:
These candidly shaken macho guys recall scenes still haunting their nightmares two years after 9/11 - a 4-foot-high pile of bodies hurled from the towers, finding faces that were ripped from heads by the violence of the collapse, and heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.
http://web.archive.org/web/200609250...vies/19574.htm
Well, since we know the rivers of molten steel never happened, we can pretty much guess they were just as full of CaaCaa about the four foot pile of bodies and the faces ripped from heads.

So at this point I'd like to ask the true believers a question - what DID they tell the truth about?
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 09:25 PM   #207
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
No, no, don't go yet! Where's the punchline? I'm sure you have a point you want to make...
The point is; where is the proof there were hot fires?
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:09 PM   #208
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
...Only molten steel is prof of really hot fires?

That's not right, that's not even wrong.
Can you please translate that for me?

Where is the proof of "really hot fires"?

We already know where the rumor came from - we already know the FDNY and NYPD fabricated molten concrete, rivers of molten steel, piles of bodies with faces ripped off their heads, breathing people in the dust in the air, etc. We already know these ridiculous rumors were propagated by not just the authorities, but by the faux "9/11 Truth Movement" as well.

So I ask again, given that they have been "mistaken" about so much, what proof can you provide that the fires were "really hot"?
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:17 PM   #209
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So without any molten steel, nor molten concrete to prove the existence of "really hot fires", we're left with the USGS images as proof.

Can anyone come up with more evidence to prove the WTC was wiped out by "really hot fires".

No? Big surprise, moving on...
FYI: The fires in the pile were caused by the collapse. Most of the fires before were probably snuffed out during the collapse (one of the very few things your theory may have gotten right)
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:23 PM   #210
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Can you please translate that for me?
What's unclear? Your objection is invalid because you don't need molten steel or melted concrete (not something I'm even sure is possible to start with) as evidence for really hot fires.

Originally Posted by Yankee
Where is the proof of "really hot fires"?
I'm going to make a shocking revelation for you: I don't know. I honestly don't have the first clue. But unlike you I'm not going to make up baseless accusations because of my ignorance on it.


Originally Posted by Yankee
So I ask again, given that they have been "mistaken" about so much, what proof can you provide that the fires were "really hot"?
So they've made simple errors and it's indicative of a Grand Conspiracy?
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.

Last edited by Mudcat; 11th February 2013 at 12:12 AM.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:47 PM   #211
fess
Graduate Poster
 
fess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,425
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So far we have the molten concrete horsepucky attributed to the NYPD who weren't just 'mistaken', they actually took the time to create a glass-enclosed museum exhibit which explained to American school children that the "fires were so intense the concrete melted".

And from the dauntless FDNY:



Well, since we know the rivers of molten steel never happened, we can pretty much guess they were just as full of CaaCaa about the four foot pile of bodies and the faces ripped from heads.

So at this point I'd like to ask the true believers a question - what DID they tell the truth about?
I think the comment about “rivers of molten steel” was more of a journalistic statement than that of a firefighter. Can you show me an interview of a firefighter where he mentions a river of molten steel?
__________________
My boss told me to stop procrastinating. I think I will… tomorrow.
fess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:48 PM   #212
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
There were 220 acres of office materials to burn in the debris pile. The heat energy of the office material would be equal to more heat energy than the heat of 15,000 TONS of thermite; is that enough heat for your fantasy claims on 911. Not counting the cars and stuff in the basement. Cars burn hot, but you don't do education stuff.
Where is the evidence of this burning office debris? I didn't see anything other than a cloud of dust. Why do you assume all 220 floors were fully occupied? Have you checked? I have and they weren't, so no, there were absolutely not 220acres of office materials. Some floors looked like this:



But some like this:



And only if we take at face value what the authorities say - the same fellas who are telling us the ground was super-duper hot for a long time. But alas, even their "fully occupied towers" is a sham:

Quote:
33 Firms Said To Be Operating in the South Tower of the World Trade Center Were Unknown to Dun & Bradstreet
http://stevenwarran.blogspot.com/201...-in-south.html
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The debris pile was as high as 1273.15 Kelvin. Why can't you do chemistry and fire science?
Why can't you name your sources?

Still, there is this interesting post about why the fires could not get so hot.

Quote:
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
Quote:
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
So again, can you tell me where you get your wild figures for the heat? NYPD, FDNY, or FEMA by any chance? Can we compare their models to the link above? Where do you get your figures?


Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Oh, that is right... you despise education.


You come to a debate no 911, unarmed.
I don't despise anything but I'm sure our ideas of education differ greatly.

This isn't a debate.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You can't define your purpose of this thread besides hate of NYPD, and you have added FDNY to your list of bad guys.
No, stop projecting and pay attention - because the only proof of "hot fires" comes from the authorities who have twice been exposed "fibbing" about this very crime, why would you accept their word about anything else without first checking the facts?

Last edited by yankee451; 10th February 2013 at 10:50 PM.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:51 PM   #213
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by fess View Post
I think the comment about “rivers of molten steel” was more of a journalistic statement than that of a firefighter. Can you show me an interview of a firefighter where he mentions a river of molten steel?
Like a foundry, like lava from a volcano.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBNkw2Vvi28
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:54 PM   #214
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
FYI: The fires in the pile were caused by the collapse. Most of the fires before were probably snuffed out during the collapse (one of the very few things your theory may have gotten right)
Very good, then why was the ground so hot for so long if the fires were out before the building hit the ground?
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 10:56 PM   #215
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Your saying your believe your missile fantasy based on nonsense?


You were debunked by your wood stove. That was funny. Your undefined fantasy on this thread debunked by your wood stove.
This thread is about the NYPD and moten concrete.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 11:14 PM   #216
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
What's unclear? Your objection is invalid because you don't need molten steel or melted concrete (not something I'm even sure is possible to start with) as evidence for really hot fires.



I'm going to make a shocking revelation for you: I don't know. I honestly don't have the first clue. But unlike you I'm not going to make up baseless accusations because of my ignorance on it.




So they're made simple errors and it's indicative of a Grand Conspiracy?
"Simple" errors that sent us to war for 11 years. You are very forgiving.

They lied about the fires, they lied about the concrete and they lied about the steel. The ground was NOT hot, it was impossible for it to be that hot, so what we're looking at is clear evidence of conspiracy. FEMA, the NYPD and the FDNY were behind the "hot fires" ******** which wouldn't have gotten any traction without the bogus maps from the USGS. This conspiracy is obviously not limited to those agencies though, just look at Judy Wood and the rest of the controlled opposition loons who we are led to believe are the "truth movement".

Edited by LashL:  Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.


Then there's the media that broadcast cartoon jets doing the impossible who worked hand in fist with the government squawking heads, perpetually reminding us who our enemies are, telling us who to hate. And finally there's the military that launched the missiles and launched invasions without batting an eye.

Or they all collectively made the same mistake about hot fires that didn't happen.

Last edited by LashL; 11th February 2013 at 06:26 PM.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 11:32 PM   #217
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
cartoon jets doing the impossible
Find one eyewitness from the streets of New York who makes the claim that video evidence is inconsistent with what they saw happen.

Failing that, explain how these "cartoon jets" were inserted into live feeds from multiple angles, then subsequently into every single amateur video of the event.

Every. Single. One. Furthermore that all the video sources match one another based on the positions from which they were shot.


Who did this. How did they do it. These are very important questions. I think that if you do not answer...it means that you cannot.
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2013, 11:51 PM   #218
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
Find one eyewitness from the streets of New York who makes the claim that video evidence is inconsistent with what they saw happen.

Failing that, explain how these "cartoon jets" were inserted into live feeds from multiple angles, then subsequently into every single amateur video of the event.

Every. Single. One. Furthermore that all the video sources match one another based on the positions from which they were shot.


Who did this. How did they do it. These are very important questions. I think that if you do not answer...it means that you cannot.
I challenge you to fine one eye witness who saw a jet enter a steel skyscraper.

What we're witnessing is the power of propaganda in action. People will become belligerent in defending their own indoctrination.

But I digress.

So are we all agreed the fires weren't hot? If not, show me how it was possible.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 12:07 AM   #219
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Reports on Steel show temps as high as 1000C ; science beats fantasy

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Where is the evidence of this burning office debris? I didn't see anything other than a cloud of dust. Why do you assume all 220 floors were fully occupied? Have you checked? I have and they weren't, so no, there were absolutely not 220acres of office materials. Some floors looked like this:
Wow, you don't know who was in the WTC? But you ask a question you can't answer. You never do supply fact, you prefer fantasy.
It is called math, you know, math. You don't do math, you are anti-education. You said so.
Originally Posted by yankee451
... an interview with Jim Fetzer where I said 9/11 has become a psychological struggle, so I'm with you. I'm of the mind that higher education is simply higher indoctrination. There's a reason a doctorate sounds so close to indoctrinate.

I agree, with you 911 is psychological, and you have a failed fantasy.

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Office space with real people murdered on 911.


Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
But some like this:
Really? Prove it. You don't do research, it would be a first.

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
LOL, you debunked your debris pile too small. You are showing the WTC is 95 percent air, even when occupied as above. You can't rent space that is solid concrete and steel. BINGO

You debunk all you post. wow


Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
And only if we take at face value what the authorities say - the same fellas who are telling us the ground was super-duper hot for a long time. But alas, even their "fully occupied towers" is a sham:
The temperatures you posted were real, very hot. But you make up nonsenses.
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Why can't you name your sources?
The steel recovered from the debris pile showed a eutectic (science stuff, you don't do chemical engineering, guess who used your tax dollars to take Chem Eng 101, ME, LOL) with temperatures of 1000C. BINGO, I posted the correct temperature, and researched the steel, while you ask question you don't know the answer to. lol, You are at zero, I am near 1,000,017. Sorry, but education is good, your fantasy is a legacy your grandkids will be sad about.

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Still, there is this interesting post about why the fires could not get so hot.
The fires were hot. You sitting next to your wood-stove? Do you use it? LOL

Your own video debunks you. Your wood stove debunks you, and your wood stove is literally dumber than a box of rocks. Irony, with extra iron.

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So again, can you tell me where you get your wild figures for the heat? NYPD, FDNY, or FEMA by any chance? Can we compare their models to the link above? Where do you get your figures?
From chemical engineering, call science. You do fantasy, I listened in class when I was not sleeping. lol
I got an education, you got fantasy. You are the winner. You paid for my education if you paid US taxes. More irony. Thank you, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I don't despise anything but I'm sure our ideas of education differ greatly.
You are anti-education and it shows as you spew a fantasy so intellectually bankrupt, it hurts my head. What a legacy for you grandkids. I served 28 years, and I think anti-war protest and attitude is good, and part of our right to protest and have opinions... etc

But spreading lies and fantasy on 911, I find to be dumb, immature and nonsense.

Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
This isn't a debate.
No, it is not a debate. You have fantasy, and your wood stove debunks you.
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
No, stop projecting and pay attention - because the only proof of "hot fires" comes from the authorities who have twice been exposed "fibbing" about this very crime, why would you accept their word about anything else without first checking the facts?
Fire burned for weeks, months. You don't do science so you don't understand that your wood stove debunks your latest fantasy.

You now ignore 220 acres of debris burning. Not new for you to ignore reality and lie about 911.

It is funny, the sensors take the temperature at the surface, and the fires buried at the WTC were much hotter than the surface temp.

I got the eutectic which shows temperature, you don't have anything. Why are you evidence free. Your sources debunk you. Why do you hate the police? Did you have problems? Do you use your wood-stove? My wood stove gets up to 1600 F.

lol, got you to post

I watched all your videos, they are all nonsense. I say this a human, and as an engineer, as a pilot, as a retied USAF officer, as a kid who took calculus, chemistry and physics all in high school. What do you say about education?

Originally Posted by yankee451
... higher education is simply higher indoctrination. There's a reason a doctorate sounds so close to indoctrinate.

You hate higher education. Funny, I learned physics, chemistry, and math, in high school, exempted the finals in college, in calculus, chemistry, and physics. You and education don't mix. Or do you want to take back your Internet legacy of anti-intellectualism?

Do you treat mistakes by your kids, the same as the melted concrete? With hate and fantasy? What a legacy.

Last edited by beachnut; 11th February 2013 at 01:07 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 01:29 AM   #220
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Wow, you don't know who was in the WTC? But you ask a question you can't answer.
I usually try to ask questions to which I already know the answers.

So tell me big guy, with all your book-larnin' why do you insist the fires were so hot when chemistry and common sense say it couldn't possibly have happened?

Wanna know what SHOULD have been in those towers (among other things that weren't at the time of destruction):
















Last edited by yankee451; 11th February 2013 at 01:38 AM.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 01:34 AM   #221
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
"Simple" errors that sent us to war for 11 years.
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.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 01:36 AM   #222
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I usually try to ask questionsto which I already know the the answers
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of the issue.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 01:38 AM   #223
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
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.
That's what the story is, sure but the evidence indicates something else happened. You're happy with the first story though, clearly.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 01:41 AM   #224
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of the issue.
I don't understand. What do you mean by that?
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 01:44 AM   #225
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I don't understand. What do you mean by that?
Hey, you're making progress!
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 01:57 AM   #226
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I don't understand. What do you mean by that?

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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 02:05 AM   #227
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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.
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.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 02:16 AM   #228
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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.
Flattery will get you everywhere.

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


Quote:
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
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 by yankee451; 11th February 2013 at 02:18 AM.
yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 02:22 AM   #229
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post

I have provided all kinds of evidense
That is precisely what you have provided!
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 02:45 AM   #230
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post

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?
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 by GlennB; 11th February 2013 at 03:33 AM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 02:51 AM   #231
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I don't understand.
No surprise there.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 07:51 AM   #232
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,757
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 09:42 AM   #233
yankee451
Master Poster
 
yankee451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
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.
So many assumptions without any proof.

You mean flammable stuff like this?







yankee451 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 09:54 AM   #234
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,830
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I don't understand. What do you mean by that?
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.
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 09:55 AM   #235
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,757
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....
__________________
--------------------------------------
Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit!

Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 10:46 AM   #236
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
Like a foundry, like lava from a volcano.
You keep saying that the wings cut through steel like a knife through butter, does that mean the towers were made of butter
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 10:46 AM   #237
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
I just dropped a burning match in my stainless steel sink and the bugger caught fire. Help!!
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 10:55 AM   #238
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
So many assumptions without any proof.

You mean flammable stuff like this?

http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo...7/kitchen2.jpg
Kitchens are full of fire hazards, but I doubt you would know anything about that.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 10:59 AM   #239
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by yankee451 View Post
You mean flammable stuff like this?
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.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2013, 11:02 AM   #240
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
No, that's mostly inflammable.
I couldn't bring myself to nominate this for a Stundie.
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.