The amazing denial of what "conspiracy kooks" really means....
in [Motorcycles]
|
From: Henry on 17 Feb 2007 08:31 Mitchell Jones wrote: > Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: >> Here's an example of a point MJ made that I think is highly >> speculative and most likely impossible. He claimed that spilled >> fuel from the jets burned inside the cores of the towers just as >> hot as an oil fired forge, even melting the massive core box >> columns. Those box columns measured about 4 feet by 3 feet each >> and had 5 inch thick walls. > ***{You have been arguing about this subject long enough to know that > the core columns tapered from the bottoms to the tops of the towers, > and, thus, that the figures you give, above, were not correct at the > levels where the fires occurred. Don't you think you should have said > so? Isn't that a material fact? I believe you speculated that not all the jet fuel burned in the initial fireball, and some may have spilled down the through the central cores. You didn't specify how far down it spilled before it somehow began to burn as hot as a forge or furnace. The main point is your claim that the spilled kerosene in the towers somehow burned as hot as the oil fired furnace you mentioned. That, of course, is impossible. >> The forge not only burns fuel that has been vaporized and the >> air fuel mixture optimized, but oxygen is forced in under pressure. > ***{Standard conditions are assumed. That is the premise underlying > verbal communication. And standard conditions in this case are that if > you say "oxygen" is used, you mean pure oxygen, not air. No, if I meant pure oxygen, I would have written pure oxygen. > And likewise, when you say "forced in under pressure," the implication is > that the flow is out of a pressurized vessel (e.g., a tank containing pure > oxygen). The reality, however, is that room temperature air was blown > into the crucible using a small fan, and yet, despite that, the furnace > (not a "forge") melted iron. Here is a quote: The fan forces air into the furnace under pressure. That condition was not present in the towers. In the furnace, the fuel is atomized with an injector, there is a continuous supply, and the air fuel mixture is optimized. None of those conditions were present in the low temperature, oxygen starved, smoldering, smoky fires in the towers. There may have been some fuel coating the sides of some steel columns, but it was not atomized, the supply was limited, the air fuel mixture was not optimized, and their was no forced air induction. This comparison, along with some others you've dreamed up (glass coffee table) is absurd and quite clearly impossible. >> The other reference concerning home-made furnaces is the following: >> http://www.backyardmetalcasting.com/index.html. Mostly, these furnaces >> do not melt iron. All of them, however, rely on air, not pure oxygen; >> and one of them, designed by Colin Peck, does in fact melt iron. And all >> of the conditions brought together in that design were also present in >> the conditions that existed in the World Trade Center. Not even close. There was no injector to atomize the fuel, which according to your speculation, was merely running down the sides of the steel columns. There was no method to optimize the air/fuel mixture, either. And of course, there was no pressurized source of oxygen to achieve temperatures hot enough to melt steel. And finally, if you look at the photos in your link, the flame in the furnace is bright reddish orange with little if any smoke. In fact, the author comments on how cleanly it burns. Finally, most of the jet fuel burned off in the initial fireballs. The smoldering, oxygen starved, low temperature office fires in the towers had very little in common with the fires in the furnaces you speak of. That comparison is at least as absurd and meaningless as your comparison of steel to glass. I still say you're trolling. Your wild claims are far fetched and easily shown to be impossible. >> A reasonably intelligent, logical person would ask how that could >> have been duplicated inside the towers by spilled kerosene that >> may have run down the sides of some of the steel columns. The >> answer of course, is that it can't possibly be duplicated for >> reasons so obvious that I won't insult your intelligence by explaining >> them. >> That claim is typical of the wild speculation, implausible, and >> and even impossible scenarios we see from followers of the "official" >> conspiracy theory. They must know it's all bullshit, or they wouldn't >> take off running when they're asked very clear, reasonable, and >> logical questions. <g> > ***{This comment is not for Henry, but for others who may find > themselves reading Henry: you are on your own, because I am really, > really done arguing with him this time. It's tough to defend a position that contradicts all the hard evidence, eyewitness testimony, the law of physics, and basic common sense, isn't it? You're forced to speculate so wildly and contradict so much hard evidence, that your "argument" becomes downright comical. <g> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
From: Henry on 17 Feb 2007 08:53 Mitchell Jones wrote: >> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:11:24 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: >> Mitchell Jones wrote: >>> ***{As I've already explained several times, the falling mass of >>> material from the upper part of the tower would be preceded in its >>> downward motion by the leverage effect, which would sequentially pop the >>> attachments to each floor shortly before the falling mass reached them. >> That's more of the wild speculation I mentioned. Not only have you >> not explained what was being leveraged, or what serves as the fulcrum, >> but you haven't identified the massive force involved. We know the >> towers' own weight was nowhere near enough to cause them to disintegrate >> and fall through themselves - especially since the perimeter columns were >> blown hundreds of feet out laterally, so they certainly weren't part of >> this "falling mass". And neither were the concrete floors, since they >> turned to fine power and were spread all over Manhattan. So, the steel >> frame and the concrete floors are out of the picture, so what's left to >> make up your building crushing "falling mass"? No comment? >> Your >> comparison of a low temperature, oxygen starved office fire to >> a forge is as far fetched as your previous comparison of steel to >> glass. > ***{Your claim that it was a "low temperature, oxygen starved fire" is > clearly wrong. It's exactly right and proved by the evidence. Your claim of gale force winds and raging infernos is utter nonsense. Photos don't lie. This is what infernos look like: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html This is what the fires in the towers looked like: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcfires9.html The fires in WTC7 were even smaller. The difference should be quite obvious to even the most dedicated and faithful magic fire conspiracy theorists. Kinda weird that =all= steel framed buildings with high temperature raging infernos throughout history easily survived but on 9-11-01 three steel framed buildings with low temperature, smoldering, oxygen starved fires of much shorter duration literally exploded and disintegrated in perfect symmetry and free fall speed, eh? Controlled demolition is quite obviously the only explanation - especially when it's coupled with the dozens of eyewitnesses who testified to seeing, hearing, and feeling multiple explosions as well as flashes traveling around the buildings. And then there are all the photos and videos that quite clearly show massive explosions coming out the sides of the towers. And finally, there's the Bush regime's motive and their claim (in writing) that they need a "New Pearl Harbor" to get the sheeple behind their agenda of preemptive wars, massive military spending, and control of Middle East oil. I do believe you've been trolling us, Mitchell. <g> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
From: Henry on 17 Feb 2007 08:53 P. "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling obsessed: > Hen3ry > he's > Henry > Hen3ry's > him > he > Hen3ry's > Hen3ry's You're obsessing, hiding, and making fool of yourself again, Petie. So you've been exposed a liar and a weak minded fool by one of your many betters. Just accept it and move on or try to better yourself. Providing me with dozens of opportunities to expose your psychotic obsession and your cowardice really isn't helping you - but it is providing some mild amusement as well as some compelling reasons to feel grateful. <g> > It's one of the things that nations commonly do to their citizens. The > original idea of the Constitution was to prevent it from happening for as > long as might be possible, but it looks to me as if our time has run out. > The weakness of any democracy is that once a leader can convince a majority > of the voters that their safety lies in despotism, they will promptly vote > for it. > Then they will refuse to admit that it was a mistake. Petie claims that he voted for Bush. Now he claims that was a vote for despotism. He could be lying again, but whether he's lying or telling the truth, this is just more confirmation of his confused mental state. > (Shrug) Sorry about that. But when you post to Reeky it's "when > in Rome", and we tend to go for the throat. Yeah, Petie "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling "goes for the throat" while hiding behind his killfile. Not unlike like a rabid puppy "going for the throat" by smashing his face bloody on the bars of his cage. <chuckle> -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
From: Henry on 17 Feb 2007 08:57 Mitchell Jones wrote: > Henry <9-11(a)treason.gov> wrote: > ***{In the films I have seen, everything moved down. Nothing moved up. > If you have a reference to a film showing the near side moving up, > please post the link. --MJ}*** Looking at the videos, it does appear that as the upper block tilts, it also moves down. But the question remains, why is the undamaged side exploding and disintegrating at the same rate as the damaged side with all the weight on it? BTW, the video titled "South Tower destruction from south" on this page: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html is quite telling, because it shows the demolition wave traveling down the side of the tower out pacing the debris that's falling beside it. Needless to say, any gravity forced collapse would have to be much slower than free fall speed because of all the resistance it would encounter, but the explosions traveling down the side of the tower are faster than free fall. Obviously, that could only be achieved by timing of the explosives. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for hours on end. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled demolition. http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
From: Road Glidin' Don on 17 Feb 2007 13:20
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:46:34 -0500, Henry <treason(a)bush.gov> wrote: >Road Glidin' Don wrote: > >> At least you're getting it in perspective now. Around here, he's just >> a side show feature some of us prod occasionally for amusement - we've >> kept him on this same track, day-in, day-out, for years. > > Why should I stop exposing parrots of the Bush regime's >impossible magic fire theory as misinformed, and their >comical conspiracy theory as impossible? It's my moral >and civic duty, I'm enjoying it immensely, and I'm exposing >the official theory as impossible nonsense. Besides, I love >wathing folks like yourself run and hide or make fools of >yourselves when you're challenged to defend your mindless >parroting. <vbg> You ever seen that old Canadian comedy called (IIRC) "Kids in the Hall?" They had a character in there who liked to spend his time, framing people in the distance, between his pointer finger and thumb and pretending to squish them. As he did so, he would chuckle with evil delight and say, "Aha! I am squishing you." and then frame another target to do the same thing, saying "I am squishing you too. Oh, that hurts, doesn't it?" While it makes him a pathetic spectacle, it's something he needs, to feel he's a somebody. That sort of sums up your delusions of what your arguments are doing to people. Squish on! -- Home page: http://xidos.ca |