Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.astronomy > #275711 > unrolled thread

If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning?

Back to article view | Back to alt.astronomy

Contents

  If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 12:16 -0500
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 14:09 -0400
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:38 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:51 -0500
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:31 -0500
          Re: Rocky's legal woes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:57 +0000
            Re: Rocky's legal woes "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:16 -0400
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:40 -0500
                Re: Rocky the stalker jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:27 +0000
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:21 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 08:09 -0500
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES + more on his BIG LIES) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:38 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:34 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 15:39 -0500
            Re: More Rocky delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 21:17 +0000
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 21:05 -0500
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-18 14:05 -0500
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Dealing with Michael's BIG LIES ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-21 10:51 -0500
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:02 -0400
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:05 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:25 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:28 -0400
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 11:31 -0400
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:14 -0500
                Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 17:47 -0400
                  Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 22:04 -0500
                    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 23:46 -0400
                      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? 9/11 "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-17 05:01 -0400
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 10:19 -0400
      Re: smoke and fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:29 +0000
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? burfordtjustice <burford@uk.mo> - 2015-09-13 14:27 -0400
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 11:34 -0700
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 13:43 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-13 19:52 -0500
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 22:43 -0400
    Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 19:26 +0000
      9/11 debunkers, debunked - Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-13 16:35 -0400
        Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 16:00 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0100
          Re: Rocky denies reality jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:39 +0000
        Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:36 +0000
          Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 09:11 -0400
            Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 16:03 +0000
              Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:48 -0400
              Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 12:50 -0400
                Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-14 17:05 +0000
                  Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-14 20:43 -0400
                    Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-14 21:15 -0400
                      Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 09:47 -0400
                        Re: How fire works for the ignorant "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 13:13 -0500
                        Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 18:24 -0400
                          Re: How fire works for the ignorant Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 15:32 -0700
                            Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:42 -0400
                          Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 22:36 +0000
                            Re: How fire works for the ignorant "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-15 19:57 -0400
                              Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 00:13 +0000
                              Re: How fire works for the ignorant BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-09-15 20:43 -0400
                    Re: How fire works for the ignorant jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-15 01:20 +0000
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 15:21 -0500
      Re: Rocky's delusions jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-13 23:29 +0000
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid Wills is FULL OF SHIT ) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-14 09:35 -0500
    Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 15:46 -0700
      Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-09-16 09:59 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#275830 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>>> burning afterwards?
>>
>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>
>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or
>>> WTC7.
>>
>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and the
>> flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>
>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
> 
> Have you seen this video ?
> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
> 
> Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA 

And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire? 
 
While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
air is free to enter the fire area.

After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.

Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by criss-
crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and light both.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275882 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>>>> burning afterwards?
>>>
>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>
>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2
>>>> or WTC7.
>>>
>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and the
>>> flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>
>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>
>> Have you seen this video ?
>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?



>
> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>
> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
> to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
> an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
> air is free to enter the fire area.
>
> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>
> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by criss-
> crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and light both.






 Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA


The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and 
misdirection.


If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an office can 
burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
...Go ask the boy scouts


And perhaps explain why this woman could stand in an opening where you 
claimed there was an inferno.
http://www.rense.com/general66/womantrappe.jpg


The Woman At The
Edge Of The Abyss
http://www.rense.com/general66/spainw.htm




No Plane means 9/11 was an inside job

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275916 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>>>>> burning afterwards?
>>>>
>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2
>>>>> or WTC7.
>>>>
>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and the
>>>> flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>>
>>> Have you seen this video ?
>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>>
>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
>> to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
>> an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
>> air is free to enter the fire area.
>>
>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>>
>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by criss-
>> crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and light both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
> 
> 
> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and 
> misdirection.

Nope.

> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an office can 
> burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.

Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.

Which means a collaped building can continue to burn after the collapse
but the fire does not "rage" as it did before the collapse, fuckwit.

> ...Go ask the boy scouts
> 
> 
> And perhaps explain why this woman could stand in an opening where you 
> claimed there was an inferno.

I never claimed that, fuckwit.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275919 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they
>>>>>> stay burning afterwards?
>>>>>
>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2
>>>>>> or WTC7.
>>>>>
>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and the
>>>>> flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen this video ?
>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>>>
>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
>>> to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
>>> an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
>>> air is free to enter the fire area.
>>>
>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>>>
>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by criss-
>>> crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and light both.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
>>
>>
>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
>> misdirection.
>
> Nope.
>
>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an office
>> can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
>
> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.
>
> Which means a collaped building can continue to burn after the collapse
> but the fire does not "rage" as it did before the collapse, fuckwit.
>
>> ...Go ask the boy scouts
>>
>>
>> And perhaps explain why this woman could stand in an opening where you
>> claimed there was an inferno.
>
> I never claimed that, fuckwit. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275920 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they
>>>>>> stay burning afterwards?
>>>>>
>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2
>>>>>> or WTC7.
>>>>>
>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and the
>>>>> flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>>>
>>>> Have you seen this video ?
>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>>>
>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
>>> to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
>>> an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
>>> air is free to enter the fire area.
>>>
>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>>>
>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by criss-
>>> crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and light both.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
>>
>>
>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
>> misdirection.
>
> Nope.
>
>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an office
>> can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
>
> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.



Huh?  With a plane sized hole ? and a fire couldn't get air ?????


<ROTFLMFAO>
Okay, that's it for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275922 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they
>>>>>>> stay burning afterwards?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>>>>>> collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2
>>>>>>> or WTC7.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and the
>>>>>> flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen this video ?
>>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>>>>
>>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
>>>> to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
>>>> an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
>>>> air is free to enter the fire area.
>>>>
>>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>>>>
>>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by criss-
>>>> crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and light both.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
>>>
>>>
>>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
>>> misdirection.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an office
>>> can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
>>
>> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?  With a plane sized hole ? and a fire couldn't get air ?????

The hole disappears when the building collapses into a pile of
rubble, fuckwit.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275984 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they
>>>>>>>> stay burning afterwards?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a
>>>>>>>> building collapses because of fire but that was not the case
>>>>>>>> with WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and
>>>>>>> the flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you seen this video ?
>>>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>>>>>
>>>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
>>>>> to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
>>>>> an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
>>>>> air is free to enter the fire area.
>>>>>
>>>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by
>>>>> criss- crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and
>>>>> light both.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
>>>> misdirection.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an office
>>>> can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
>>>
>>> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Huh?  With a plane sized hole ? and a fire couldn't get air ?????
>
> The hole disappears when the building collapses into a pile of
> rubble, fuckwit.





But if the fire had already burned itself out,.....how did it get started 
and then get hot enough to melt steel in the ground  ?? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275986 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In article <mt7ph1$ac1$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
> 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they
> >>>>>>>> stay burning afterwards?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a
> >>>>>>>> building collapses because of fire but that was not the case
> >>>>>>>> with WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and
> >>>>>>> the flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Have you seen this video ?
> >>>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
> >>>>> to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
> >>>>> an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
> >>>>> air is free to enter the fire area.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by
> >>>>> criss- crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and
> >>>>> light both.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
> >>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
> >>>> misdirection.
> >>>
> >>> Nope.
> >>>
> >>>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an office
> >>>> can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
> >>>
> >>> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Huh?  With a plane sized hole ? and a fire couldn't get air ?????
> >
> > The hole disappears when the building collapses into a pile of
> > rubble, fuckwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if the fire had already burned itself out,.....how did it get started 
> and then get hot enough to melt steel in the ground  ?? 

See that's one of your problems, sane people don't think the steel 
melted, that's one of your Troofer fables. You have so many really 
stupid ideas, it's just too funny..

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of 
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276007 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

BDK wrote:
> In article <mt7ph1$ac1$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
>>
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't
>>>>>>>>>> they stay burning afterwards?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a
>>>>>>>>>> building collapses because of fire but that was not the case
>>>>>>>>>> with WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and
>>>>>>>>> the flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you seen this video ?
>>>>>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of
>>>>>>> air to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens
>>>>>>> when an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent
>>>>>>> explosion, air is free to enter the fire area.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by
>>>>>>> criss- crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and
>>>>>>> light both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>>>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
>>>>>> misdirection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an
>>>>>> office can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh?  With a plane sized hole ? and a fire couldn't get air ?????
>>>
>>> The hole disappears when the building collapses into a pile of
>>> rubble, fuckwit.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But if the fire had already burned itself out,.....how did it get
>> started and then get hot enough to melt steel in the ground  ??
>
> See that's one of your problems, sane people don't think the steel
> melted, that's one of your Troofer fables. You have so many really
> stupid ideas, it's just too funny..




Yup,.... Imagination and delusion that show up on videos, and seen by 
everyone other than you and NIST
Imagine that.
Now, I wonder how long it will take you to post the same question again, and 
claim I never answered.
Which mean you should seek help for that A.D.D. .you have, and have no 
memory retention.
Although before you will read this line I'm sure you have already been 
distracted by a shiny object in the room.

WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE


9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276014 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:47:42 -0400, "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
wrote:

>BDK wrote:
>> In article <mt7ph1$ac1$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
>>>
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> they stay burning afterwards?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a
>>>>>>>>>>> building collapses because of fire but that was not the case
>>>>>>>>>>> with WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and
>>>>>>>>>> the flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Have you seen this video ?
>>>>>>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of
>>>>>>>> air to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens
>>>>>>>> when an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent
>>>>>>>> explosion, air is free to enter the fire area.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by
>>>>>>>> criss- crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and
>>>>>>>> light both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>>>>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
>>>>>>> misdirection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an
>>>>>>> office can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?  With a plane sized hole ? and a fire couldn't get air ?????
>>>>
>>>> The hole disappears when the building collapses into a pile of
>>>> rubble, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But if the fire had already burned itself out,.....how did it get
>>> started and then get hot enough to melt steel in the ground  ??
>>
>> See that's one of your problems, sane people don't think the steel
>> melted, that's one of your Troofer fables. You have so many really
>> stupid ideas, it's just too funny..
>
>
>Yup,.... Imagination and delusion that show up on videos, and seen by 
>everyone other than you and NIST
>Imagine that.

     As of the time I write this, none of what you claimed happened
has appeared on video. No eye witnesses have claimed to have seen what
you claim happened.
     NIST has never claimed to see what you claim happened.

>Now, I wonder how long it will take you to post the same question again, and 
>claim I never answered.

     As of the time I write this, you've never answered a question
asked of you.

>Which mean you should seek help for that A.D.D. .you have, and have no 
>memory retention.

     Projection isn't working for you.

>Although before you will read this line I'm sure you have already been 
>distracted by a shiny object in the room.

     Wow. You really like to use projection.

>
>WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
>

     There may be molten metal in the video. But it's not assured.
     I do see some healthy cascading sparking, which isn't molten
steel. Not to the rational mind.

>
>9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg 
>

     Since there was no molten steel, a denial of it makes sense.

-- 
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276047 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In article <mt97en$n1d$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
> 
> BDK wrote:
> > In article <mt7ph1$ac1$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
> >>
> >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't
> >>>>>>>>>> they stay burning afterwards?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a
> >>>>>>>>>> building collapses because of fire but that was not the case
> >>>>>>>>>> with WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and
> >>>>>>>>> the flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Have you seen this video ?
> >>>>>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of
> >>>>>>> air to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens
> >>>>>>> when an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent
> >>>>>>> explosion, air is free to enter the fire area.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by
> >>>>>>> criss- crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and
> >>>>>>> light both.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
> >>>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
> >>>>>> misdirection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an
> >>>>>> office can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Huh?  With a plane sized hole ? and a fire couldn't get air ?????
> >>>
> >>> The hole disappears when the building collapses into a pile of
> >>> rubble, fuckwit.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> But if the fire had already burned itself out,.....how did it get
> >> started and then get hot enough to melt steel in the ground  ??
> >
> > See that's one of your problems, sane people don't think the steel
> > melted, that's one of your Troofer fables. You have so many really
> > stupid ideas, it's just too funny..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup,.... Imagination and delusion that show up on videos, and seen by 
> everyone other than you and NIST
> Imagine that.


And again, no sane person is claiming any steel melted on 911.

> Now, I wonder how long it will take you to post the same question again, and 
> claim I never answered.

And I have no idea what question it might be, except for the one you 
will never answer;

What energy source melted the steel?

> Which mean you should seek help for that A.D.D. .you have, and have no 
> memory retention.
> Although before you will read this line I'm sure you have already been 
> distracted by a shiny object in the room.
> 
> WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

Molten what? Aluminum? Lead? Not steel.

> 
> 
> 9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel (extended)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg 

Of course he does. It's the only sane thing to say.

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of 
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276050 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In article <MPG.306264a566a9b7d898c2a8@news.giganews.com>,
 BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:

> What energy source melted the steel?

Magic nooks!

> > WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
> 
> Molten what? Aluminum? Lead? Not steel.

Copper from deceased wires? There was also molten gold from computers, but just 
traces.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276064 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In article <chine.bleu-968038.15324115092015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>, 
chine.bleu@yahoo.com says...
> 
> In article <MPG.306264a566a9b7d898c2a8@news.giganews.com>,
>  BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> 
> > What energy source melted the steel?
> 
> Magic nooks!

Everything that happened on 911 is magical to the Troofer mind.

> 
> > > WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
> > 
> > Molten what? Aluminum? Lead? Not steel.
> 
> Copper from deceased wires? There was also molten gold from computers, but just 
> traces.

It was raining GOLD! Yeah, that sounds Trofferish! It was the hidden 
stockpile of GOLD hidden in the beams of the towers.

GOLD!! 

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of 
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276051 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In sci.physics BDK <Control@worldcontrol.com> wrote:

> And again, no sane person is claiming any steel melted on 911.

This is just a red herring from 9/11 lunatics that do not understand
that steel softens and fails structurally at much lower temperatures
than the melting temperature.

It makes no difference in the total scheme of things whether or not
any steel actually melted.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276058 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics BDK <Control@worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>
>> And again, no sane person is claiming any steel melted on 911.
>
> This is just a red herring from 9/11 lunatics that do not understand
> that steel softens and fails structurally at much lower temperatures
> than the melting temperature.
>
> It makes no difference in the total scheme of things whether or not
> any steel actually melted.






Now this is exactly why no one is taking you seriously.
But, please,....go on.

....You are giving the 9/11 truth movement more credibility with every post 
you make.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276060 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics BDK <Control@worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And again, no sane person is claiming any steel melted on 911.
>>
>> This is just a red herring from 9/11 lunatics that do not understand
>> that steel softens and fails structurally at much lower temperatures
>> than the melting temperature.
>>
>> It makes no difference in the total scheme of things whether or not
>> any steel actually melted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is exactly why no one is taking you seriously.
> But, please,....go on.

Sure.

It makes no difference in the total scheme of things whether or not
any steel actually melted to anyone other than the 9/11 lunatics.

The facts are some airliners were hijacked.

Two of them crashed into the World Trade Center towers, starting fires
which weakened the central support columns and the buildings collapesed
almost 2 hours later.

Some of the kooks make the claim that these are the only two such buildings
in the history of the world than have collapsed due to a fire, which
even if true is irrelevant as they are the only two buildings in the
world to be hit by a fully loaded and fueled airliner.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#276065 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In article <mtab56$c2f$1@dont-email.me>, fakename@nomail.invalid says...
> 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > In sci.physics BDK <Control@worldcontrol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And again, no sane person is claiming any steel melted on 911.
> >
> > This is just a red herring from 9/11 lunatics that do not understand
> > that steel softens and fails structurally at much lower temperatures
> > than the melting temperature.
> >
> > It makes no difference in the total scheme of things whether or not
> > any steel actually melted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is exactly why no one is taking you seriously.
> But, please,....go on.
> 
> ....You are giving the 9/11 truth movement more credibility with every post 
> you make.

Nothing can do that. Like most of the claims made by you Troofers, it's 
impossible.

-- 
BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of 
Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies.
Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former 
Black Helicopter color consultant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275987 — Re: How fire works for the ignorant

In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> 
> 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics Bast <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they
>>>>>>>>> stay burning afterwards?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They did, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a
>>>>>>>>> building collapses because of fire but that was not the case
>>>>>>>>> with WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No fire continues to burn "strong" after a building collapse and
>>>>>>>> the flow of air is reduced, delusional fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip remaining delusional raving>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you seen this video ?
>>>>>>> After you watch it, would you care to try again ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what does this video have to do with the physics of fire?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While a building is standing, the rooms withing contain lots of air
>>>>>> to support a fire and if windows are broken, such as happens when
>>>>>> an airplane goes through them and there is a subsequent explosion,
>>>>>> air is free to enter the fire area.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After a building collapses, most of the air source goes away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take some firewood and make a jumbled stack and a neat stack by
>>>>>> criss- crossing the wood so there are lots of air passages and
>>>>>> light both.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Response: Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked
>>>>>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os8mXNTTRrA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The video above already deals with your falacies, obfuscation, and
>>>>> misdirection.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>>> If you want to talk about campfires and how the contents of an office
>>>>> can burn for days when there is a limited amount of fuel.
>>>>
>>>> Limited amount of AIR, fuckwit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh?  With a plane sized hole ? and a fire couldn't get air ?????
>>
>> The hole disappears when the building collapses into a pile of
>> rubble, fuckwit.
> 
> 
> But if the fire had already burned itself out,.....how did it get started 
> and then get hot enough to melt steel in the ground  ?? 
 
Who said it had already burned itself out; certainly not me kook.

No melted steel in the ground, kook. 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275762

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:3chbva5ng9ai6dtr9ivqanr2oihji7msb2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 12:16:43 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay
>>burning afterwards?
>>
>
>     I'll ask this again, and again you'll not answer, who makes the
> claim that fires alone caused the buildings to collapse?

NIST THEMSELVES.  See:

NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

BTW NIST calls every building that left very little debris on the ground a 
"Progressive Collapse" and yet nobody can willfully build a bulding that 
collapses the way WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7 did.  <G>


>>Hell, normal office fires keep burning strong even after a building
>>collapses because of fire but that was not the case with WTC1, WTC2 or 
>>WTC7.
>>
>>The fact that WTC1 did not stay burning after it was supposed to have
>>collapsed because of fire is in the following video:
>>
>>the Miracle of stairwell B (full documentary)
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpTRNEVKMY4
>>
>>Note not only did the alleged collapse of WTC1 fail to crush the Survivors
>>in WTC1 but the Survivors didn't even have to worry about fire after WTC1
>>floated away.  <G>
>
>     As has been PROVED, what did float away was statistically
> insignificant.

ROTFLMAO because so much of the Twin Towers floated away that it did not 
crush the Survivors in Stairwell B and you think that is "insignificant?" 
Maybe to anybody else but I'm sure it wasn't "insignificant" to the 
Survivors or their families.  <G>

Wow, Lie 6 or is that Lie 7 now if I count the one you used with Bast. 
Either way your lies just keep going up and up and up and the 9/11 hoaxsters 
might not be happy with a liability like you.  <G>

Rocky 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275828 — Re: Rocky's delusions

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> ROTFLMAO because so much of the Twin Towers floated away that it did not 
> crush the Survivors in Stairwell B and you think that is "insignificant?" 

Nothing floated away, that is one of your delusions.
 
> Wow, Lie 6 or is that Lie 7 now if I count the one you used with Bast. 

No lies, that is one of your delusions.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.astronomy

csiph-web