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

Groups > sci.physics > #520707 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

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? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:24 -0500
          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? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:44 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid is caught in 4 BIG LIES ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-15 01:27 +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 ) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-09-16 14:06 +0000
                  Re: Broken airplanes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-09-16 18:04 +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> - 2015-09-18 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 noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 14:22 -0700
        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? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 13:53 -0500
          Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-13 14:59 -0500
            Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:24 -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: 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 13:50 -0500
      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? "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? ( 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? ( Roger "Rocky" Wittekind is caught in ANOTHER lie.) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 18:43 -0500
              Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Roger "Rocky" Wittekind is caught in ANOTHER lie.) noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-15 10:48 -0700
    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

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

#520983

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 14:59:10 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:dehbvatu5u3v3asnekbe4v52kp4vmcvcs5@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 13:43:34 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Hägar" <hsahm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:-ZmdnYkDnPEsXGjInZ2dnUVZ5s2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "Rocky"  wrote in message
>>>> news:ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> << snip insanity laden drivel >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wockie, my wittle whacked out fwiend,
>>>>
>>>> They had an hour long special on 9/11 yesterday on TV and it clearly
>>>> showed two airliners crashing into the towers, including an interview 
>>>> with one gentleman ho saw the first one approach and then hit the first tower 
>>>> a few floors above his ...  but I suppose Bush and Cheney faked that, too
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> You are one hallucinating asshole, Wockie ... you really need 
>>>> psychiatric help ... like a straitjacket.
>>>
>>>And I'll bet they never explained why there was no jet in the wide shot 
>>>from Chopper 5.  <G>
>>>
>>>From: "Rocky"
>>>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
>>>Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 1:22 PM
>>>Subject: Ping Kid: "Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling
>>>between 300 and 500 MPH covers?
>>>
>>>A while back we were talking about a jet missing in the wide shot from
>>>Chopper 5.  See:
>>>
>>>>07 - The Key
>>>>( indexed to start at 4:04 )
>>>> https://youtu.be/Rml2TL5N8ds?t=4m4s
>>>
>>>and you replied with a complete evasion of:
>>>
>>>"Do you have any idea how much area a plane traveling between 300 and 500
>>>MPH covers?"
>>>
>>
>>     When, in reality and not your delusions, has Hägar asked such a
>> question?
>
>Funny that I quoted you and you decided to run from your outright lie again.
>

     You may hold the delusion that Hägar and I are the same person,
but we're not. Honest.
     You replied to one of Hägar's posts. Now, answer the question I
asked.

>For once I can quote T-annoy the heckler:  "Keep wriggling"

     You claim Hägar asked a question you KNEW he did not. Please
explain why. If you are unable to offer an honest answer, you will
either run away from the request, or you will keep wriggling.
     Your move.

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

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

#520931

Hägar wrote:
> "Rocky"  wrote in message
> news:ILGdnRwlMeY3MmjInZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> << snip insanity laden drivel >>
>
>
> Wockie, my wittle whacked out fwiend,
>
> They had an hour long special on 9/11 yesterday on TV and it clearly
> showed two airliners crashing into the towers, including an interview
> with one gentleman ho saw the first one approach and then hit the
> first tower a few floors above his ...  but I suppose Bush and Cheney
> faked that, too ...
>
> You are one hallucinating asshole, Wockie ... you really need
> psychiatric help ... like a straitjacket.
>
> Bast, the GLBT muff diving queen is running a close second, though ...





Oh,...you saw it on TV ????
And on the other channels I'm sure you could have watched vampires or 
zombies.
Or maybe Captain Kirk flying through space picking up space chcks
...but they aren't real either.

BTW THIS was on TV too.
9/11 BBC World News Reports World Trade Center Tower 7 Collapse Before it 
Happens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx4p9pUREZ8

It really is funny to see the profile of WTC7 still standing behind her 
head, while she reports that it had collapsed.
Stupid brits got the time zones mixed up and read the script an hour too 
early


Hagar, you have been nipping at the sewage lagoon water again , haven't you 
? 

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

#520736

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?

>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. Why do you continue to LIE about this?
     Don't bother with avoidance games. Just answer the questions I've
asked.

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

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

#520783

"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]

#520859 — 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]

#520984

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:21:17 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>
>"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>
>

     Nothing about fires alone causing the collapse of the buildings. 
     Way to PROVE you've been lying the whole time.

>>>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?" 

     We've been over this. The stairwell survived because the tower
fell a few degrees off center.

>Maybe to anybody else but I'm sure it wasn't "insignificant" to the 
>Survivors or their families.  <G>

     It was, of course.

>
>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>

     Where do I present a lie? That the truth is in direct opposition
to your lies, and you PROVE above that you are lying, doesn't make the
truth a lie. Not to the mentally sound.
     Now divert attention from the truth I've posted, or run away. You
have no choice beyond those two option.

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

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

#521034 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Kid Wills is FULL OF SHIT )

"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:9j4dvap5jne920qsijkhjlnapgpk22o8h3@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:21:17 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"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>
>>
>
>     Nothing about fires alone causing the collapse of the buildings.
>     Way to PROVE you've been lying the whole time.

It was in the very first part of the above video.  How in the hell could you 
miss that?


>>>>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?"
>
>     We've been over this. The stairwell survived because the tower
> fell a few degrees off center.

What law of physics states a collapsing building should not fall straight 
down and then why is the amount of debris left on the ground less than if it 
was from a 10 story building?  And do not give me the basement bullshit 
either because that was not filled with your crap or crap from the above 110 
stories..


>>Maybe to anybody else but I'm sure it wasn't "insignificant" to the
>>Survivors or their families.  <G>
>
>     It was, of course.

Those people lived because you claim WTC1 could not fall straight down 
because of your version of Physics.  And at the same time you can't prove it 
fell a few degrees off because there are no massive debris piles either so 
you used a BIG LIE there too.

Dude you will have to keep telling lie after lie after lie after lie because 
the Great 9/11 Hijacker Hoax was a lie to start with and you have no choice 
in the matter but to use lies yourself to maintain a lie.  DUH.

That is exactly what made it so easy to win my jury trial 12 to 0.  Beverly 
Rusk didn't realize her lies were based on a lie started by a love triangle. 
<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>
>
>     Where do I present a lie?

OVER AND OVER AND OVER.  like above where you have yet to state what rule in 
your physics states buildings should not fall straight down?

> That the truth is in direct opposition
> to your lies

But you have never proven you have the truth.  Popular Mechanics should have 
refused to do what they did because they had a Conflict of Interest and the 
other site you mentioned clearly lacked the debris field from the alleged 
Flight 93.

You are nothing but bullshit and you would easily see that if you reallized 
that all you can do to maintain the lies of 9/11 is to keep piling on the 
lies higher and deeper yourself.

Oh and if you want to see a short list of movie blunders from "The Great 
9/11 Hijacker Hoax" see:
 news:oM2dnQJvLsOYSmvInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com...

Rocky 

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

#521185 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Roger "Rocky" Wittekind is caught in ANOTHER lie.)

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:35:18 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>"K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:9j4dvap5jne920qsijkhjlnapgpk22o8h3@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 15:21:17 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"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>
>>
>>     Nothing about fires alone causing the collapse of the buildings.
>>     Way to PROVE you've been lying the whole time.
>
>It was in the very first part of the above video.  

     Liar.
     It says, "New York City, 2001. No tall building had ever
collapsed primarily due to fire."
     Note the word PRIMARILY. To the mentally sound, this means there
were other factors. But to someone as mentally unstable as you, words
mean whatever your delusions demand they mean.
     Speak to a professional mental health care worker about your
delusions. I'm being very serious when I suggest that.

>How in the hell could you miss that?
>

     I didn't miss anything. And I've again exposed you for the liar
you were, are, and probably will continue to be.
     How did you think your lie would escape unexposed?

[Cue Roger running away from his LIE being exposed, as he has done so
often before]

>>>>>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?"
>>
>>     We've been over this. The stairwell survived because the tower
>> fell a few degrees off center.
>
>What law of physics states a collapsing building should not fall straight 
>down 

     FNVW explained this in great detail. I recall his using a tree
that's been chopped down as an example. I recall you never were able
to refute the accuracy of his explanation.
     I've added AUK in case FNVW should wish to post the explanation
again. I would hate for you not to have every possible opportunity to
offer any and all evidence you have to counter him.

>and then why is the amount of debris left on the ground less than if it 
>was from a 10 story building?  

     Once again, and I'll type real slow so you can keep up:

     Most of the debris from the towers ended up in the sub-levels and
bathtub.

>And do not give me the basement bullshit 
>either because that was not filled with your crap or crap from the above 110 
>stories..

     Technically true, since much of the debris was in the bathtub as
well. Yes, your comment is offered as another means of LYING, but
technically, it is true.

>
>>>Maybe to anybody else but I'm sure it wasn't "insignificant" to the
>>>Survivors or their families.  <G>
>>
>>     It was, of course.
>
>Those people lived because you claim WTC1 could not fall straight down 
>because of your version of Physics.  

     You mean the physics we experience within the confines of
reality? Well, yes. You believe the laws of physics were somehow
suspended for a short time on 9/11/01/
     You should see someone about your delusions.

>And at the same time you can't prove it 
>fell a few degrees off because there are no massive debris piles either so 
>you used a BIG LIE there too.

     You can lie all your mental defects demand. The truth will not
change. Honest.

>
>Dude you will have to keep telling lie after lie after lie after lie because 
>the Great 9/11 Hijacker Hoax was a lie to start with and you have no choice 
>in the matter but to use lies yourself to maintain a lie.  DUH.
>

     Why should I wish to adopt this standard of yours? What do you
believe I would gain from doing such?

>That is exactly what made it so easy to win my jury trial 12 to 0.  Beverly 
>Rusk didn't realize her lies were based on a lie started by a love triangle. 
><G>

     There was no love triangle, as you helped me to prove.
     You did not have a romantic connection with the daughter. None.
You wanted one, but there wasn't one. This means that even if the
middle man and daughter had a romantic connection, which you've
offered no evidence of existing, there was no love triangle.

>
>>>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>
>>
>>     Where do I present a lie?
>
>OVER AND OVER AND OVER.  like above where you have yet to state what rule in 
>your physics states buildings should not fall straight down?
>

     It's not my physics. I appreciate that you're so mentally screwed
up you believe *I* control the laws of physics, but I don't. 
     Now that you've permitted me to prove, again, that you're
mentally unstable, please answer the question I asked. Where do I
present a lie?

>> That the truth is in direct opposition
>> to your lies
>
>But you have never proven you have the truth.  

     That the truth proves you a liar doesn't mean I haven't proven my
claims.

>Popular Mechanics should have 
>refused to do what they did because they had a Conflict of Interest and the 
>other site you mentioned clearly lacked the debris field from the alleged 
>Flight 93.

     What conflict of interest did they have? In reality, please.

>
>You are nothing but bullshit and you would easily see that if you reallized 
>that all you can do to maintain the lies of 9/11 is to keep piling on the 
>lies higher and deeper yourself.

     And yet, you've not been able to expose any lies from me. In
order to try, you've been reduced to lying. Each and every time.
     How do you explain away this TRUTH?

>
>Oh and if you want to see a short list of movie blunders from "The Great 
>9/11 Hijacker Hoax" see:
> news:oM2dnQJvLsOYSmvInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>

     Your link doesn't work. Learn how to post MIDs. Oh wait, your
very real learning disability means you are not able. A truth you've
PROVED not only with MIDs, but web links as well.

"Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he claims nukes were used on
9/11/01 in
Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

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

#521311 — Re: If fires really brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 why didn't they stay burning? ( Roger "Rocky" Wittekind is caught in ANOTHER lie.)

catastrophic loss of tensional integrity,
due to half a sillion of factors;
concrete is just a load on the rebar (or, what ever

> >OVER AND OVER AND OVER.  like above where you have yet to state what rule in 
> >your physics states buildings should not fall straight down?
> >
> 
>      It's not my physics. I appreciate that you're so mentally screwed
> up you believe *I* control the laws of physics, but I don't. 
>      Now that you've permitted me to prove, again, that you're
> mentally unstable, please answer the question I asked. Where do I
> present a lie?
> 
> >> That the truth is in direct opposition
> >> to your lies
> >
> >But you have never proven you have the truth.  
> 
>      That the truth proves you a liar doesn't mean I haven't proven my
> claims.
> 
> >Popular Mechanics should have 
> >refused to do what they did because they had a Conflict of Interest and the 
> >other site you mentioned clearly lacked the debris field from the alleged 
> >Flight 93.
> 
>      What conflict of interest did they have? In reality, please.
> 
> >
> >You are nothing but bullshit and you would easily see that if you reallized 
> >that all you can do to maintain the lies of 9/11 is to keep piling on the 
> >lies higher and deeper yourself.
> 
>      And yet, you've not been able to expose any lies from me. In
> order to try, you've been reduced to lying. Each and every time.
>      How do you explain away this TRUTH?
> 
> >
> >Oh and if you want to see a short list of movie blunders from "The Great 
> >9/11 Hijacker Hoax" see:
> > news:oM2dnQJvLsOYSmvInZ2dnUU7-R-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> 
>      Your link doesn't work. Learn how to post MIDs. Oh wait, your
> very real learning disability means you are not able. A truth you've
> PROVED not only with MIDs, but web links as well.
> 
> "Reason and evidence can't change ones opinion on a topic if their
> belief wasn't based on reason and evidence to start with."
> Roger "Rocky" Wittekind explaining why he claims nukes were used on
> 9/11/01 in
> Message-ID: <IoGdnbEGb_w08mvInZ2dnUU7-fmdnZ2d@giganews.com>

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

#520754 — Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire

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>


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#520790 — 9/11 debunkers, debunked - Re: Rocky doesn't understand fire

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 

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

#520796

"Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message 
news:mt4min$a00$1@dont-email.me...
>
>
> 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.

TOTAL BULLSHIT because there wasn't enough of any of them to keep burning 
with the exception of the place where the nukes were detonated.

And you can't post any bullshit about radiation without pointing out nobody 
testified to thermal radiation from a deep underground nuke ( it was refered 
to as molten metal over and over and over though ) but there was plenty of 
radiation in the air as proven by all the people that died later.


>>> 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.

And just how could both the Twin Towers collapse into a pile of debris much 
smaller than the one made by WTC7 and don't give me any bullshit about it 
going underground because it would have had to kill the Survivors to do 
that. <G>
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg


>
>
> 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

jimp is beyond help and if you didn't reply to him I might never see his 
post.

Rocky 

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

#520824

On 13/09/2015 22:00, Rocky wrote:
> "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mt4min$a00$1@dont-email.me...
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> TOTAL BULLSHIT because there wasn't enough of any of them to keep burning
> with the exception of the place where the nukes were detonated.
>
> And you can't post any bullshit about radiation without pointing out nobody
> testified to thermal radiation

What do you understand by 'thermal radiation', explain that to us and we 
will be able to comment.

> from a deep underground nuke ( it was refered
> to as molten metal

So not 'molten metal' then.

> over and over and over though ) but there was plenty of
> radiation in the air as proven by all the people that died later.
>
Oh dear, here we go again.
Explain about this radiation, you know the questions, you've been asked 
the questions many times.


>
>>>> 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.
>
> And just how could both the Twin Towers collapse into a pile of debris much
> smaller than the one made by WTC7 and don't give me any bullshit about it
> going underground because it would have had to kill the Survivors to do
> that. <G>
>   http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
> jimp is beyond help and if you didn't reply to him I might never see his
> post.
>
> Rocky
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

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

#520863 — Re: Rocky denies reality

In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
 
> TOTAL BULLSHIT because there wasn't enough of any of them to keep burning 
> with the exception of the place where the nukes were detonated.

None of the rubble floated away and there were no nukes, lunatic.
 
> And you can't post any bullshit about radiation without pointing out nobody 
> testified to thermal radiation

That is because there was no thermal radiation from a nuke, lunatic.

> to as molten metal over and over and over though ) but there was plenty of 
> radiation in the air as proven by all the people that died later.

There was no radiation, lunatic.

These are all delusions, lunatic, just like your delusions over that
girl that got your ass hauled into court.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#520862 — 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]

#521009 — 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]

#521065 — 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]

#521070 — 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]

#521071 — 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]

#521075 — 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]

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web