9/11 was an inside job

You don't actually think he could hold down a job do you Terry? You know what normal people do when they see mental patients mumbling on about conspiracy theories.

Maybe he takes his tin foil hat off before he goes out.

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/11/2238.jpg

:rofl:

^ Ya still haven't got the brain to contribute logically and constructively, eh, sand groper?

You well know that he has....you just circle around with this same accusation whenever someone makes fun of you.

Boring twat.

Come up with some really earthshaking proof of HOODUNNIT, ya stupid maggot.

How's yer toe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rainfall

hazz has given it some thought. You need a lot of air to burn 60 tons of fuel indeed, under ideal conditions. Let's say 50 tons, the planes had been in the air for an hour before impact. That explosions produced lots of black smoke, soot, and afterwards the smoke turned grey rather swiftly. If you wish to calculate something, do it for the kinetic energy of 50 tons of fuel in flimsy aluminium tanks hitting at the speed of 220 m/s. Your gut feeling probably tells you that it's vaporized instantly, keeps moving, and most of it exits the building on the other side. It also tells you that phrasing like 'fuel poured down the elevator shafts' is misleading, that wasn't a liquid, but a cloud of droplets forced down at hurricane speed. Seemingly didn't start substantial fires on the lower floors. The boiling point of kerosene is 150 degrees celsius. Even if there remained some liquid fuel, as hypothesis, for how long could it stay around in temperatures that alledgedly melted steel?

I remember for how long Obama continued to deny the NSA spying on foreign leaders. Just kept a straight face and lied. And we went to such lenghts as to question if he knew about it. :rofl:

---

what a nice example of what i mean. calculating how much air you would need to burn 60 tonnes of fuel is not that hard. its the kind of chemistry you lean at secondary school in the uk and well if they didn't teach that in east germany... its not hard to find out how to do it with a little bit of goggling.

but why bother with all that hard learnin stuff, when gut instinct is all you need. 50 tonnes of oxygen sounds right and that's good enough for railfall.
it took me all of ten minutes to work out that you actually need about 150 tonnes of oxygen to completely burn 60 tonnes of fuel and atleast half that to burn to soot. and how much air do you need... 500,000 cubic meters. and you have you have to have a decent amount of mixing between the air and the feul to get that burn. which is why oil tank fires tend to burn for hours/days rather than seconds.

so put it bluntly the burn in seconds assertion fails the basic sanity check.

As for melting the iron. well that don't happen in fires, something blacksmiths discovered back in the iron age, and something missed truthers with their modern education, before iron gets to me;lting temperatures it starts to burn in the air and the balcksmith needs to be careful about this as it will quickly ruin their work. don'e belive me go and ask a blacksmith.

You see the only people why talk about iron melting are the truthers, nobody else. you see don't need steel to melt for the building to fail, just too weak to support the weight upon it. and steel starts to weaken significantly well below temperatures caused by fire. infact rapid and sudden failure of steel strut structures and an area of great concert to firebrigades.... if you bothered research beyond your gut instinct.

As for the moltern metal that was seen. well there was all that aluminium which will melt at temperatures well below those in the wtc fire, and it will glow orange when its contaminated with aluminium oxide and carbon. hell on some plane fires the aluminum shell has melted just from the fire of the furniture inside the aircraft without the aid of any of the aviation fuel.
This is ignored by the truthers as this does not help their case. they want it to be iron because then they can say fire not hot enough.... must be thermalite.... must be a conspiracy.

As for what happends with wings with thing aluminium walls and tonnes of fuel hit steel gurders and 3-500km/hr. well at these speeds the fuel is not going to just move out of the way of the gurder, its going to push into the gurder.... just like water hushing against an boat paddle. so the aluminum of the tank will be pushed in by the gurders and pushed out by the fuel.... essentially strengthening it. sometimes with fuel will win and the gurder will fail and at other times the wing will.

One thing that is certain is that my and our instinct as to what will have happened will be no more accurate than your guess at how much oxygen would be needed to fuel the fire. Fortuity there were people who respected the truth enough, to go beyond gut instinct and to find out by using a very powerful modeling technique called finite elements to model what happened on a very large super computer. you will find the results in the 911 report, along with a complete absence of the truthers strawman claims of molen steel, plain impacts causing the collapse or even the avivation fuel or even their freefall bollocks

rainfall remember faith and dogma belongs to religion; science and engineering are about physical evidence and observations. If you think the 911 report is wrong, show us the phsical evidence don't continue to give us faith and dogma; expecting to be treated seriously.

500,000 cubic metres? A wind of only 20 m/s pushes 500,000 cubic metres against the facade of one WTC tower, it's actually far more at the height the planes hit. 1 second. Ok, thanks for debunking your rubbish yourself. Too good I didn't have to go to British schools. :rofl:

Ya see hazz, ya waffle out so much cottonwool to wrap something up in, you're one of the most proficient spin doctors out.

But you're still a monumental liar and duck shuffler.

From your post above for example;

"As for what happends with wings with thing aluminium walls and tonnes of fuel hit steel gurders and 3-500km/hr. well at these speeds the fuel is not going to just move out of the way of the gurder, its going to push into the gurder.... just like water hushing against an boat paddle. so the aluminum of the tank will be pushed in by the gurders and pushed out by the fuel.... essentially strengthening it. sometimes with fuel will win and the gurder will fail and at other times the wing will."

You claim here that aluminium gets strengthened by what?!!

"the aluminum of the tank will be pushed in by the gurders and pushed out by the fuel.... essentially strengthening it. sometimes with fuel will win and the gurder will fail and at other times the wing will."

What sort of voodoo magic is that dopey? Steel is harder than aluminium, and aluminium will fail on impact with steel. Idiot.

Then you say;

"so put it bluntly the burn in seconds assertion fails the basic sanity check."

Now c'mon hazz, the kerosene almost completely vapourized on impact at the supposed speed of 500mph claimed by you official theory dipshits.

No way did it flow around and pool then run down the central column shaft,...it fekin BLEW UP ya idiot!! Didn't ya watch the videos?

Guess why? Because it got blasted all over the show on impact, down the outside walls, across floors, into the air, scattered and sprayed around EVERYWHERE,......IF the aircraft was in fact an airliner with fuel tanks in its wings as normal.

IF it was the case, then there would have been one big bang which would have consumed most of the fuel in seconds, then the rest would have burned off in minutes after, not hours, ya dope!

The firefighters on the spot reported the fires largely out within less than an hour after impact, ya dreamer. Only what were described as small office fires remained, fueled not by kerosene, but by paper, wood etc.

Then ya go on as if ALL THE STEEL IN THE TOWERS got softened by a fire that was way up in the top floors!!!

Are you another one of those TERRY57 IDIOTS who thinks that the fires up in the 80th and 90th floors of the towers somehow magically transferred heat DOWNWARDS by CONDUCTION to soften the base of the towers causing their collapse?

Well if so, ya stupid twat, go sit on a hot poker or something then tell me that heat goes downwards faster than it'd burn your arse!

Those pics of the Oriental hotel burning in China were of a steel and aluminium clad building, completely engulfed in flames, and guess what, idiot?


The damned thing didn't collapse!

Did it have a plane fly into it ?:rolleyes:



And as for WTC7, the fires burned for hours. Did you watch the vid where you can see the beams buckling ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

^ Ya still haven't got the brain to contribute logically and constructively, eh, sand groper?

---

Logic? Are you trying to claim that your loony bin theories contain logic?

Fucking hell, you get funnier by the post.

Here's another one for you. It was the Fire Gods wot dunnit!

https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2013/11/2283.jpg

:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazz

we have to believe that steel/iron does not loose its strength until it melts

---

Losing its strength gradually through fire would have created an asymmetrical collapse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazz

What these truthers show is that you do not need to have a religion or god to create a cult. All you need is a dogma that explains the world, that then provides a framework though which you view the world, like a prism separating what reinforces your dogma from what does not. anything that does not fit in with the framework is simply ignored. These truthers are no more interested in the truth regarding WTC than a fundamentalist christian is interested in the facts geology and biology when it comes to his belief creation story from the bible.... his belife in the dogma of the bible is all the evidence he needs. Likewise with the truthers their belief in their dogma is all the proof they need be it the dogma the one world government, the jews, the western conspiracy against islam, the government is plain evil and constantly plotting against the people. And if more evidnce of the cult like nature of the 911 truthers were needed one only has to look at how theyt reach when one of their chosen becaomes aposate charlie veitch, The 9/11 conspiracy theorist who changed his mind - Telegraph comes to mind. These dogma's are attafcive to some people as they find the complexity and arbetary nature of life and risk too much to cope with. some turn to religion as say its gods will. some turn to conspiricy theories to say its all part of a great plan. The risk that these people pose to society, particularly a democratic society, is that this prism though which they view the world, that filters out even the most obvious evidence that their dogma is wrong allows them create nice simple narratives which can be very seductive when presented as a gish gallop, a propaganda technique that has managed to help nearly half americans believe on creationism despite it having even less evidence in its favor than that 911 truthers. Its a good job that we as a society decided to irradiate smallpox in the 1950's before the internet, because if we look at the post internet scheme to eradicate polio we can see how an rather eclectic alliance of the vaccine truthers and the 'western conspiracy against islam' truthers have successfully worked together to keep that rather nasty virus alive, in the wild, maiming and killing. Then we have the aid's truthers and the south african president who together probably killed more black south africans than the apartate government did in its entire existence. Then we see how the 'government is out to get you' truthers at work with sandy hook portaying it all as a hoax to bring in gun control ad nausium The problem is that in a democracy, the people have perodic control over how their country is run. They base these decisions on what the believe to be the truth and on that basis whats the best way forward. when that truth is nonsense then its not very likely that their decisions will lead to successful solutions in the future. Its not that conspiracy theories are a risk to democracy or society. Its the way of thinking that creates them that is the risk. the belief that dogma and wishful thinking are a better basis for decision making than observation and measurement. And the problem that we face now is that without the filter of the media, the internet has given everyone the same voice and humans seem ill prepared to differentiate between those who tell us a truth based on observation and those tho tell us a truth based on dogma and blain faith alone.

---

What a load of old twaddle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Did you watch the vid where you can see the beams buckling ?

---

Was that before of after it fell symmetrically into its own footprint at freefall speed :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Did it have a plane fly into it ?:rolleyes:



And as for WTC7, the fires burned for hours. Did you watch the vid where you can see the beams buckling ?

---

Tell me all about it.

Better still, post the vid.

^^^^ That harrybarracuda halliburton man has to be stark raving cuckoo! WTF??? :confused:

It's as plausible as any of your other fairy stories, bENT

:kma:

WOOOWOOOO!!!
HARRY"S GONE CWWWWKWWWW!!!


:rofl:

Anyway harry, tell us about yer halliburton connection.

How much sand do ya have to shift (or beans ya have to count) to get a free upgrade whenever ya have to periodically escape that oil laden sandpit ya exist in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Anyway harry, tell us about yer halliburton connection.

---

He's Prince Bandars cheif Eunoch and TD's head debunker :)

The guy's a twat, to boot!

Why doesn't Terry, Harry and LD just go watch the vids? Then all their questions will be answered. I doubt there'll be a question the vids won't answer. As I say I was a 'debunker' before I watched. May be that's what they're scared of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

May be that's what they're scared of?

---

Scared? - they're shitting it :)

I think so.

Plus the fact that they've got vested interest in Halliburton et al via jobs, pensions and so on, and eating Halliburton's coolaid, fluoride.

Notice how hazz only jumped into the thread after Halliburton got high profiled as the #1 fluoride merchant providing all of USA's Australia's and NZ's fluoride doses to the populace?

Well, hazz was the main pro-fluoride champion a few months ago on this website.

The sh*te is useless for hardening enamel in the teeth after a child is about 4yrs old, when all the enamel has formed on the pre-eruptive secondary teeth.

After that time, any one drinking fluoride cool-aid water only dumbs down, the centremost part of their brain (the outer layer of the pineal gland) turns into the hardest possible form of bone.

The result is premature death after a long drawn out pre-terminal phase characterised by senile dementia, the unique fingerprint of this past century's leading indicator of final demise.

Great stuff, eh?

Go read about it. Google is your friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ENT

Halliburton got high profiled as the #1 fluoride merchant providing all of USA's Australia's and NZ's fluoride doses to the populace?

---

Why the fuck would a war company supply drinking water?

To keep the troops under control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Why doesn't Terry, just go watch the vids?

---

Well, I've asked for a copy on DVD but the silence is deafening.

Jesus, someone out there must have a copy. ????????

All ready told ya shit head.

Trouble is ya can't read the instructions.