Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Deflect, deflect. Just can't go there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 17 minutes ago, Wilber said: Deflect, deflect. Just can't go there. We know, Wilber, you have made it perfectly clear numerous times that you can't, won't go anywhere near the actual issues, the scientific issues. Why then do you keep embarrassing yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 20 minutes ago, Wilber said: Deflect, deflect. Just can't go there. Have you no reply for Topaz's posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 1 hour ago, hot enough said: No, the proof I provide is that this person who pretends he is "willing to look at research" has not once done so. Nor has he provided any, nor has he encouraged his coterie of equally deluded researchers to actually do some. "the youtube generation." Then get your kids or grandkids to help you. This so called research is no different then the last time Gage started spewing about the AIA was going to take his crackpot theories seriously. He spent months telling everyone about his big meeting at the 2015 AIA convention where he was going to get support of thousands of professionals. It came, and went, and they soundly rejected his crackpot theories. When you have real research to show, then show it. Don't spend the months before hyping it, wait until it is released and then if there is anything substantial there people will listen. If you have problems with reading, then get your grandpa to help you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 24 minutes ago, hot enough said: We know, Wilber, you have made it perfectly clear numerous times that you can't, won't go anywhere near the actual issues, the scientific issues. Why then do you keep embarrassing yourself? The actual issue is two aircraft slammed into the towers with millions watching. Your issue is just conspiracy crap you pick off the web from truther sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, Wilber said: The actual issue is two aircraft slammed into the towers with millions watching.  Okay, Wilber, you have shown yourself to be completely unqualified to even discuss these things. As is Impact because he does the same thing you do, avoid "like the plague" all the crucial, scientific issues, engaging in deception and avoidance. He even supports your abundantly clear and frequent deceptions when he should be, [considering his pretense that he is fair and balanced], pointing them out. I wonder why neither of you have addressed Topaz's posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, hot enough said: Okay, Wilber, you have shown yourself to be completely unqualified to even discuss these things. As is Impact because he does the same thing you do, avoid "like the plague" all the crucial, scientific issues, engaging in deception and avoidance. He even supports your abundantly clear and frequent deceptions when he should be, [considering his pretense that he is fair and balanced], pointing them out. I wonder why neither of you have addressed Topaz's posts. You deny that two aircraft slammed into those buildings and that they were carrying thousands of gallons of fuel? I am no more "unqualified" to discuss the "science" than you, which is to say I am not at all qualified and don't pretend to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Topaz's first post. What does it matter what visas they were on? Topaz's second post. That building was not hit by a 100 ton object traveling 250 MPH, carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel. Do you really think 10,000 gallons of fuel would only cause "small fires on a couple of floors"? You unquestionably glom onto anything that might feed your fantasy without applying an ounce of critical thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 16 minutes ago, Wilber said: You deny that two aircraft slammed into those buildings and that they were carrying thousands of gallons of fuel? I am no more "unqualified" to discuss the "science" than you, which is to say I am not at all qualified and don't pretend to be. You are terribly unqualified, Wilber, as regards the science and just plain reading comprehension. I have never once denied " that two aircraft slammed into those buildings and that they were carrying thousands of gallons of fuel". This is what I said in the first post and a number of times after that. Premise: It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. You say I deny "thousands of gallons of fuel". How on Earth could you write such a thing? This is what I added in a post on the page just before this one. How could there not be Impact, anyone pointing out how off the wall, how totally unrealistic you are being? "Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 10,000 gallons of jet fuel contain about 1.3 billion BTU's of energy. That is 1.3 billion BTU's of energy available that wasn't available in all the other high rise fires you truthers trot out as proof. You still haven't explained how the hijackers co-ordinated their attack with you mythical explosives.  You also assume that a 100 ton object hitting a building at that speed is only going to cause localized damage. Not a particularly good assumption. Edited March 6, 2017 by Wilber Added content 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 38 minutes ago, Wilber said: 10,000 gallons of jet fuel contain about 1.3 billion BTU's of energy.  No Wilber calculations to confirm, no sources to help confirm Wilber's notions. As always, nothing.  Quote THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into 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. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.  ... Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world. "The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes" Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two). Summarizing: 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). Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse. It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media. "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments." Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Why on earth would they assume all the fuel was consumed on one floor? My problem with you is that you haven't shown one piece of evidence that explosives were planted in that building and you won't make the necessary connection between the aircraft and your mythical explosives to be believable. All you have is, I don't believe it was caused by the aircraft so it must have been the government. Just conspiracy twaddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 After reading the life of Barry Obama, knowing what Soros did to his own people during WW2 and the activities of Bill Clinton and 25 people who was associated with them are all dead. Granted Barry isn't as corrupt as the Clintons or Soros, but he had dislike Trump and I believe that he had help find out what was happening within the Trump group through other government agencies like the NSA. Now, IF the proof that was sent to Trump , turns out to be bogus, then it just another attempt to make Trump look like he having a mental break down. Now , my question is how far down the barrel will these people go to take him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 Topaz, what the hell does any of that nonsense have to do with 9/11? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 20 minutes ago, Wilber said:  Why on earth would they assume all the fuel was consumed on one floor?  Ask FEMA, the arm of the US government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: Ask FEMA, the arm of the US government. The last paragraph from the link you provided in your OP  Quote  C.6 SuggestionsforFutureResearch The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.  No clear explanation. Has to mean the government co-ordinated the hijacking of four aircraft and setting off planted explosives in the WTC. Only logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, hot enough said: Ask FEMA, the arm of the US government.  Why are you simply relying on FEMA? FYI, this is the primary purpose of FEMA:  Quote The agency's primary purpose is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency  To study and find conclusive explanations that involves science in this scenario, is not its responsibility!  Your own article specifically says:  Quote  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into 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. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.  http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm  It's all based on assumptions!    Edited March 6, 2017 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 22 minutes ago, Wilber said: you haven't shown one piece of evidence that explosives were planted in that building I did, a number of things. How has a bright guy like you missed them all? 1. The human being being explosively ejected from a window of one of the twin towers. One of yours, being exploded out a window opening, by a government that categorically denied there were explosions, despite numerous reports from eye witnesses, reporters, firemen, ... . Do you need the link, AGAIN? 2. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf US, non-commercially available nanothermite/superthermite, a new generation of super explosives. 3. Vaporized steel, eutectic steel, that can only be created by thermite/superthermite ...  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Wilber said: The last paragraph from the link you provided in your OP  No clear explanation. Has to mean the government co-ordinated the hijacking of four aircraft and setting off planted explosives in the WTC. Only logical. Old material, Wilber. You have to keep up to date or you will look the ----. The vaporized steel you saw makes it clear that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTCs 1 and 2 and ESPECIALLY WTC 7. You are entitled to your own opinion but certainly not your own set of miserably informed "facts" Edited March 6, 2017 by hot enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 We were all wrong about those first 8 months of George Bush's Presidency. When we thought he was goofing around golfing, he was secretly meeting with the CIA and his pipeline builder supporters planning this extensive mission. Recruiting double agent suicide terrorists and secretly installing millions of tons of thermite in an active office complex under the noses of over 50,000 workers. With some well planned coordination, they were able to bring down the world trade center and then invade other nations in retaliation. The only thing that didn't work in their plan was they underestimated how long it would take to bring stability to Afghanistan so they could build their pipeline and bring in a very small fraction of the revenue that this whole fiasco cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Â ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Why? From Mr Science Guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING Why? From Mr Science Guy? Probably because whenever we address the science you ignore it. 13 minutes ago, hot enough said: 1. The human being being explosively ejected from a window of one of the twin towers. One of yours, being exploded out a window opening, by a government that categorically denied there were explosions, despite numerous reports from eye witnesses, reporters, firemen, ... . Do you need the link, AGAIN? already addressed, lots of possibilities but most likely is high pressure air cause by collapse of structure. 13 minutes ago, hot enough said: 2. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe or paint chips 13 minutes ago, hot enough said: 3. Vaporized steel, eutectic steel, that can only be created by thermite/superthermite ... I replicated that in my kitchen with a wooden match Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 18 minutes ago, betsy said:  Why are you simply relying on FEMA? FYI, this is the primary purpose of FEMA:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_Agency  To study and find conclusive explanations that involves science in this scenario, is not its responsibility!  Your own article specifically says:  http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm  It's all based on assumptions!    Apparently, you, like Wilber, can't even comprehend the written language, Betsy. You don't even understand how "estimate" and "assumptions" are being used here, what they are actually describing. I suspected as much about you quite some time ago. You are quite the able little cutter and paster, but you know very little about the topics you comment on. Maybe Mr Honest Scientist or Wilber, or ... will explain your profound misunderstanding to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 6, 2017 Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 14 minutes ago, hot enough said: Old material, Wilber. You have to keep up to date or you will look the ----. The vaporized steel you saw makes it clear that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTCs 1 and 2 and ESPECIALLY WTC 7. You are entitled to your own opinion but certainly not your own set of miserably informed "facts" You posted it not me and it draws no such conclusion. No doubt there were many chemical reactions going on in that fire and some of them were almost certain to have produced some kind of explosion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted March 6, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, ?Impact said: Probably because whenever we address the science you ignore it. already addressed, lots of possibilities but most likely is high pressure air cause by collapse of structure. or paint chips I replicated that in my kitchen with a wooden match WOW, Mr Science Guy, that is truly impressive!. "I replicated "that"" [but I was too frightened to present the results from my stunning experiment] Building still standing; no collapse like that is possible. Paint chips can't give the chemical signature of thermite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.