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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #275984

Re: How fire works for the ignorant

From "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid>
Newsgroups alt.astronomy, alt.conspiracy, sci.physics
Subject Re: How fire works for the ignorant
Date 2015-09-14 20:43 -0400
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <mt7ph1$ac1$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <rsdhcc-afo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mt6gul$pm6$1@dont-email.me> <pm7jcc-9f1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <mt6tp8$hed$1@dont-email.me> <3cbjcc-0v1.ln1@mail.specsol.com>

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw


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  ??

Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web