I understand this, but the people I'm referring to were on the same floors as where the fire was burning. They were in quite close proximity to the fires which were burning at 1000 degrees (I can't remember the number), but wouldn't the heat have killed them almost instantly?
as a kid we had parties in gravel pits. we'd build a big bon-fire and set up a few kegs and most of the school would show up. not once did someone die instantly or burn up while standing next to this massive fire.
to answer your question scientifically; the open windows were sucking in the cooler outside air during the chimney effect thus shielding them from the intense heat. the same as a campfire burns up and draws air from the base to feed the fire. the more air; the hotter the fire. those people were standing in a wind tunnel of cooler fresh outside air.
As for the campfire, you I'm sure the bonfire was hot, but not hot enough to take down a building like the WTC. As for the chimney effect, you could be right, but I still think that the heat from within would be much too hot to counteract the cooler air from outside. I'm not necessarily in the camp that believes its a conspiracy, but I do have suspicions.
I understand this, but the people I'm referring to were on the same floors as where the fire was burning. They were in quite close proximity to the fires which were burning at 1000 degrees (I can't remember the number), but wouldn't the heat have killed them almost instantly?
For all we know, and I know it sounds horrible, but those people who were hanging out windows could have had there skin melting off of them. No one was up there with them, so we really don't know what the conditions were like. I'm sure it was burning them while they were up there, that's why many choose to take their chances jumping then staying close to the fires.
For all we know, and I know it sounds horrible, but those people who were hanging out windows could have had there skin melting off of them. No one was up there with them, so we really don't know what the conditions were like. I'm sure it was burning them while they were up there, that's why many choose to take their chances jumping then staying close to the fires.
Its possible, but I don't recall anyone jumping with burning clothes. I'm sure it was hot as hell, but not as hot as I would expect considering the magnitude and intensity of the fire.
As for the campfire, you I'm sure the bonfire was hot, but not hot enough to take down a building like the WTC. As for the chimney effect, you could be right, but I still think that the heat from within would be much too hot to counteract the cooler air from outside. I'm not necessarily in the camp that believes its a conspiracy, but I do have suspicions.
if you strike a wooden match and hold your finger over it; will you get burned? from that little fire??? if you light a pine log (same material as the match) on fire; does it burn hotter than the match? no; pine burns at approx 2000 degrees. now start a fire in a wood stove. when you open the door the fire blazes and burns hotter. like a blacksmiths bellow or blast furnace. the fuel burns at a constant but the air forced into it raises the temp.
any fire at all will burn flesh. even a little match.
Its possible, but I don't recall anyone jumping with burning clothes. I'm sure it was hot as hell, but not as hot as I would expect considering the magnitude and intensity of the fire.
take a piece of metal; let's say rebar (concrete reinforcement) about 3 feet long. heat the center with a torch until red hot. you can still hold the ends and bend the metal in half.
As for the campfire, you I'm sure the bonfire was hot, but not hot enough to take down a building like the WTC. As for the chimney effect, you could be right, but I still think that the heat from within would be much too hot to counteract the cooler air from outside. I'm not necessarily in the camp that believes its a conspiracy, but I do have suspicions.
I understand this, but the people I'm referring to were on the same floors as where the fire was burning. They were in quite close proximity to the fires which were burning at 1000 degrees (I can't remember the number), but wouldn't the heat have killed them almost instantly?
At my school we douse a boat in zippo fluid (tons and tons of it) and we spray paint it for home coming. Then we light it on fire. And I mean a pretty big boat, probably 15 feet long, 10 feet wide usually.
Not as hot as jet fuel, but a pretty big flame and added chemicals makes it bigger and hotter than the average fire.
No ones ever melted there.
if you take a block out of the bottom of a jenga tower does it fall straight down or fall towards the side w/ the block missing? even if it leaned to a side then came straight down would be more believable instead of the middle buckling then coming straight down. .....
so can you plz explain why it fell straight down instead of a long post about periods and question marks?
JENGA AGAIN!?!?! I can't believe you are STILL trying to equate the structure of sky scrapers to a JENGA PILE!!!!
it would still not fall at free fall speed straight down buckling in the middle. you are claiming it fell b/c it was weakened...that would mean it would give way then go...not just -poof- come straight down.
None. I repeat NONE of the structures fell 'at free fall speed'. None. Why do you continue to state this when it is verifiably false?
again, have you seen a burning house? does it just go straight down all of a sudden or does it weaken then buckle and go down?
Does a house have the weight of 110 stories of skyscraper that it supports?
if you study the film footage; you'll see that the impact ruptured the firewalls. the thousands of pounds of jet fuel burned hot enough to weaken the steel holding the cement floors causing the heavy floors to fall. one floor hit another causing that floor to fall onto the floor below. that weight collapsed the floor below. watch the footage and look at the floors as dominos. you will see one hit the other. nothing like an implosion and nothing like an explosion.
Watch some other buildings falling down and see if they don't fall in the same way as the towers.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
None. I repeat NONE of the structures fell 'at free fall speed'. None. Why do you continue to state this when it is verifiably false?
The buildings fell completely in 10 secs...that's pretty damn close to free fall speed...remember these buildings were 110 stories high! Now what you are saying as verifiably false is something like 1 sec different between a calculated free fall of about 8.5 secs compared to 10 secs of the actual fall. Just admit that these buildings fell very very very fast if we use the pancake effect as the reason for collapse. I think it is reasonable to at least discuss and investigate some alternative theories here...for something to fall that fast some major supports not related to the plane impact zone must have been severed or damaged for the building to crumple so quickly. How this may have occured we don't really have substantial evidence...but it's plausable to consider a theory that involves something other than jet fuel leaking over a large area and weakening steal to cause a pancake effect collapse.
The buildings fell completely in 10 secs...that's pretty damn close to free fall speed...remember these buildings were 110 stories high! Now what you are saying as verifiably false is something like 1 sec different between a calculated free fall of about 8.5 secs compared to 10 secs of the actual fall. Just admit that these buildings fell very very very fast if we use the pancake effect as the reason for collapse. I think it is reasonable to at least discuss and investigate some alternative theories here...for something to fall that fast some major supports not related to the plane impact zone must have been severed or damaged for the building to crumple so quickly. How this may have occured we don't really have substantial evidence...but it's plausable to consider a theory that involves something other than jet fuel leaking over a large area and weakening steal to cause a pancake effect collapse.
Absolutely, especially considering Steven Jones, physics professor at BYU, has a sample which contains some of the constituents of Thermate, a substance used in demolition cutting chargers. He has the sample, has had it tested and has put this info out there for all to see. I think we need another totally independant investigation about the collapse of all buildings on 9-11.
Interesting article. I've said all along that something else happened in the towers.
"I am a doughnut." (live - Berlin, Germany - 11/03/96)
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
Interesting article. I've said all along that something else happened in the towers.
there is evidence that conflicts with the official explanation. until another investigation looks at alternative theories stemming from this evidence, there is no point in arguing about what happened. (at least on this board. i think everyone has been exhausted about it)
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
I heard Ted Kennedy planted all those explosives after a late night bender....just so they could blame Bush in 5 years.....
The monkey that flew out of my ass this morning made: (washed his paws first) grits, eggs (sunny side up) and toast . the coffee tasted kinda shitty tho....
_____________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
- Benjamin Franklin
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.
-Will Rogers
_____________________
there is evidence that conflicts with the official explanation. until another investigation looks at alternative theories stemming from this evidence, there is no point in arguing about what happened. (at least on this board. i think everyone has been exhausted about it)
I'm glad someone else said it. Its actually getting less irritating now and just plain dull.
If it makes you feel better to bitch at me, go ahead. Whatever works.
You give your two cents worth in threads all the time, and I don't jump down your throat. I will ask you to extend me the same courtesy.
If it makes you feel better to bitch at me, go ahead. Whatever works.
You give your two cents worth in threads all the time, and I don't jump down your throat. I will ask you to extend me the same courtesy.
Just pointing out some irony, dude. No bitching.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I guess I am one of those "speak out" types ... I don't like to suffer in silence.
In all seriousness, abook, you get on my case quite often but I still respect you and many of your views. Hopefully the feeling is mutual. Really, my issue with 9-11 posts these days is that they all devolve into the same arguments and counter-arguments. The official government account doesn't quite jive with all the facts, true ... But the conspiracy theories involve even more inferential leaps (IMO). Its not hard to see that Bush capitalized on 9-11 to push a bad political agenda. But that's a separate issue from the validity of these inside job theories, no?
I guess I am one of those "speak out" types ... I don't like to suffer in silence.
In all seriousness, abook, you get on my case quite often but I still respect you and many of your views. Hopefully the feeling is mutual. Really, my issue with 9-11 posts these days is that they all devolve into the same arguments and counter-arguments. The official government account doesn't quite jive with all the facts, true ... But the conspiracy theories involve even more inferential leaps (IMO). Its not hard to see that Bush capitalized on 9-11 to push a bad political agenda. But that's a separate issue from the validity of these inside job theories, no?
Yes, the feeling is mutual but I don't care for the underhanded comments used to discredit topics and never have. Those are the only times I remember 'getting on your case'.
I don't see the other theories as being such a far leap as you do. I think the official one takes a huge leap, itself, no? I'm interested in this topic so i look into it. I don't think it will get GW out of office or even get anyone charged with anything...I would just like to come closer to what I can call the truth.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, the feeling is mutual but I don't care for the underhanded comments used to discredit topics and never have. Those are the only times I remember 'getting on your case'.
I don't see the other theories as being such a far leap as you do. I think the official one takes a huge leap, itself, no? I'm interested in this topic so i look into it. I don't think it will get GW out of office or even get anyone charged with anything...I would just like to come closer to what I can call the truth.
You choose to believe that these alternative theories are more credible, though. You obviously use a different burden of proof than I do. Maybe that is the source of my frustration with this topic. People are starting from wildly different premises and thus little common ground exists.
As for the first part .... Not sure I agree 100%, but hey ... I've seen (and been on the receiving end of) many instances of people dismissing posts and topics. I think I probably do it less than some others do, but I get taken to task for it almost every time. That being said, you DO have a point. It would have been more constructive for me to just post my opinion about the content of the thread, rather than making a generalization. I was being honest ... The topic is at the point for me where nothing new can be said.
Comments
as a kid we had parties in gravel pits. we'd build a big bon-fire and set up a few kegs and most of the school would show up. not once did someone die instantly or burn up while standing next to this massive fire.
to answer your question scientifically; the open windows were sucking in the cooler outside air during the chimney effect thus shielding them from the intense heat. the same as a campfire burns up and draws air from the base to feed the fire. the more air; the hotter the fire. those people were standing in a wind tunnel of cooler fresh outside air.
For all we know, and I know it sounds horrible, but those people who were hanging out windows could have had there skin melting off of them. No one was up there with them, so we really don't know what the conditions were like. I'm sure it was burning them while they were up there, that's why many choose to take their chances jumping then staying close to the fires.
Its possible, but I don't recall anyone jumping with burning clothes. I'm sure it was hot as hell, but not as hot as I would expect considering the magnitude and intensity of the fire.
if you strike a wooden match and hold your finger over it; will you get burned? from that little fire??? if you light a pine log (same material as the match) on fire; does it burn hotter than the match? no; pine burns at approx 2000 degrees. now start a fire in a wood stove. when you open the door the fire blazes and burns hotter. like a blacksmiths bellow or blast furnace. the fuel burns at a constant but the air forced into it raises the temp.
any fire at all will burn flesh. even a little match.
take a piece of metal; let's say rebar (concrete reinforcement) about 3 feet long. heat the center with a torch until red hot. you can still hold the ends and bend the metal in half.
do you have a link with some info?
~Ron Burgundy
Jet fuel burns at 825 C.
You think im trying to prove that there was no attack dont you.
Steel loses 1/2 of its strength at 648 C.
Like some one else said, once those few floors fall, all that added weight.... its going to fall.
Some people are too paranoid.
Aw, dude. They got you too!?
At my school we douse a boat in zippo fluid (tons and tons of it) and we spray paint it for home coming. Then we light it on fire. And I mean a pretty big boat, probably 15 feet long, 10 feet wide usually.
Not as hot as jet fuel, but a pretty big flame and added chemicals makes it bigger and hotter than the average fire.
No ones ever melted there.
JENGA AGAIN!?!?! I can't believe you are STILL trying to equate the structure of sky scrapers to a JENGA PILE!!!!
The answer to your question is simple.
INERTIA.
None. I repeat NONE of the structures fell 'at free fall speed'. None. Why do you continue to state this when it is verifiably false?
Does a house have the weight of 110 stories of skyscraper that it supports?
Watch some other buildings falling down and see if they don't fall in the same way as the towers.
http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/web/explosive_home/explosive.asp
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
The buildings fell completely in 10 secs...that's pretty damn close to free fall speed...remember these buildings were 110 stories high! Now what you are saying as verifiably false is something like 1 sec different between a calculated free fall of about 8.5 secs compared to 10 secs of the actual fall. Just admit that these buildings fell very very very fast if we use the pancake effect as the reason for collapse. I think it is reasonable to at least discuss and investigate some alternative theories here...for something to fall that fast some major supports not related to the plane impact zone must have been severed or damaged for the building to crumple so quickly. How this may have occured we don't really have substantial evidence...but it's plausable to consider a theory that involves something other than jet fuel leaking over a large area and weakening steal to cause a pancake effect collapse.
Absolutely, especially considering Steven Jones, physics professor at BYU, has a sample which contains some of the constituents of Thermate, a substance used in demolition cutting chargers. He has the sample, has had it tested and has put this info out there for all to see. I think we need another totally independant investigation about the collapse of all buildings on 9-11.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
there is evidence that conflicts with the official explanation. until another investigation looks at alternative theories stemming from this evidence, there is no point in arguing about what happened. (at least on this board. i think everyone has been exhausted about it)
~Ron Burgundy
then he ran to the kitchen and made me a sandwhich
Did you eat the sandwhich? Because that monkey came out of your ass, and unless he washed his hands, it wouldn't be a good idea to eat it
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
the fucker ate it himself. if you cant trust a monkey these days who can ya trust.
The monkey that flew out of my ass this morning made: (washed his paws first) grits, eggs (sunny side up) and toast . the coffee tasted kinda shitty tho....
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
- Benjamin Franklin
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die, I want to go where they went.
-Will Rogers
_____________________
I'm glad someone else said it. Its actually getting less irritating now and just plain dull.
So dull in fact, that you just had to click on this thread and bother replying.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You should be thanking me for giving it a bump, actually.
Whoops ... Damn, I did it again.
Why? It was already near the top of the page.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
If it makes you feel better to bitch at me, go ahead. Whatever works.
You give your two cents worth in threads all the time, and I don't jump down your throat. I will ask you to extend me the same courtesy.
Just pointing out some irony, dude. No bitching.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I guess I am one of those "speak out" types ... I don't like to suffer in silence.
In all seriousness, abook, you get on my case quite often but I still respect you and many of your views. Hopefully the feeling is mutual. Really, my issue with 9-11 posts these days is that they all devolve into the same arguments and counter-arguments. The official government account doesn't quite jive with all the facts, true ... But the conspiracy theories involve even more inferential leaps (IMO). Its not hard to see that Bush capitalized on 9-11 to push a bad political agenda. But that's a separate issue from the validity of these inside job theories, no?
Yes, the feeling is mutual but I don't care for the underhanded comments used to discredit topics and never have. Those are the only times I remember 'getting on your case'.
I don't see the other theories as being such a far leap as you do. I think the official one takes a huge leap, itself, no? I'm interested in this topic so i look into it. I don't think it will get GW out of office or even get anyone charged with anything...I would just like to come closer to what I can call the truth.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You choose to believe that these alternative theories are more credible, though. You obviously use a different burden of proof than I do. Maybe that is the source of my frustration with this topic. People are starting from wildly different premises and thus little common ground exists.
As for the first part .... Not sure I agree 100%, but hey ... I've seen (and been on the receiving end of) many instances of people dismissing posts and topics. I think I probably do it less than some others do, but I get taken to task for it almost every time. That being said, you DO have a point. It would have been more constructive for me to just post my opinion about the content of the thread, rather than making a generalization. I was being honest ... The topic is at the point for me where nothing new can be said.