Thread: Tin foil hat time

So, all those New Yorkers were drinking Kool-Aid on 9/11 and they all had the same hallucinations that two planes flew into the World Trade Centre towers as they watched what was really a papier mache Clydesdale horse blowing rainbow farts to advertise Bud Beer as it was dragged behind a Cessna?

Originally Posted by English Noodles

And you must have little understanding of the physics involved if you believe that two planes could have caused the 3 buildings to collapse in such a way

Sadly for you, I actually appear to have a better understanding than you, of not just physics, but the concept of structural integrity, as well architecturally as to how buildings (like the WTC towers) were built.

A building like the WTC can not be taken down by a plane colliding with them (they are actually built to withstand such impacts, to a point), but rather prolongued exposure to the searing heat from a kerosene fire would do the trick after about 45 minutes.

Sadly, had some career hungry politician not pushed through stopping the application of fire retardant asbestos/concrete mixture to the steel understructure, the heat might not have been able to do the damage it did, and the towers might still be standing -- of course, alluding to this, and trying to explain the physics involved to you, would go way above your paygrade and would be a waste of my time.

Toodles.

Daddy is probably an Israeli agent, so of course he is going to deny anything outside the "official" story happened in 911, his government is up to the neck in it

Originally Posted by English Noodles

^So if you don't believe the official explanations put forward by government then you must be in 'the tin foil hat brigade', oh well, I gave you way too much credit Dr Bob.

That's it. Reality only manifest from officialdom circles. The Industrial Establishment Textbook and Convention Complex. Anything that can't be explained or designed by officialdom, of every sort, is conspiratorial, pseudo-thought, or surely schizophrenia. Alternatives and curiosity isn't credible. What's the frequency Kenneth.....??

RS and EN - quite clearly part of the same circle jerk.

Thankfully, it's always the guys with the least established credibility shouting their inanities to the seven winds...

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

So, all those New Yorkers were drinking Kool-Aid on 9/11 and they all had the same hallucinations that two planes flew into the World Trade Centre towers as they watched what was really a papier mache Clydesdale horse blowing rainbow farts to advertise Bud Beer as it was dragged behind a Cessna?

Lovely metaphor! Have a green!

You have earned a green, but I ain't loaded. later dicky.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

but rather prolongued exposure to the searing heat from a kerosene fire would do the trick after about 45 minutes.

47 HUGE box-section core columns, the main structural supports of the WTC towers, melted from exposure to 45 mins of searing heat from a kerosene fire? Are you realy this stupid?

Do you recall the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? What caused that?

It was the JP-8 [jet fuel] contained in the aircraft’s tanks.

Did you see that huge fireball? What was that?

It was the kerosene (JP-8 is nothing more than refined kerosene, the same stuff you use in your camping stove).

It burned OUTSIDE the towers!

How could this fuel then have reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building?

And then?

It ran down 90 floors to melt the “un-insulated I-beams”? What? “Shook” the insulation off by jet impact? Are you kidding me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below it! What bullshit!

The dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank are about 11’x11’x11’ Thats about the size of one of the many small offices on the floor that got hit. That’s all. The size of one small office the size of a 11-foot-cube.

Let’s look at this another way: The volume of each of the towers was roughly 50 MILLION CUBIC FEET.

The volume of the fuel was a relatively insignificant 1,300 cubic feet, about 0.003 percent!

Are you following this Daffy, as you admited physics is not your strong point?

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and less than 14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see “small fires”) and caused the beams to melt because the impact “knocked off the insulation”.

Oh yes Daffy, you are still to tell me what happened over at building 7.

How about this for an argument: From now on, Controlled Demolition, Inc. never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences…oh no. We can simply pour 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition. Right?

Bwahh haa haaa

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Don't you have some sex tours to SEA to book up or your girlfriends crack baby to ignore?

Your point of view must be rather weak to defend if you have to use such low personal attacks.

Originally Posted by English Noodles

47 HUGE box-section core columns, the main structural supports of the WTC towers, melted from exposure to 45 mins of searing heat from a kerosene fire? Are you realy this stupid?

of course he is, he is a fucking believer, he knows fuck all about reality

the controlled demolition is definitely possible, like the Pentagon missile, it just show how the official story is full of holes and how stupid clones like Daffy will follow the official line so he can sleep tight at nights.

Originally Posted by Fabian

Your point of view must be rather weak to defend if you have to use such low personal attacks.

It seems you have taken it upon yourself to start following me around the forum, if this is the case then at least start saying something interesting, though I have been told that you are as much a bore in person as you are on the forum.

^My boiler here manages to burn kerosene far more effectively that that what was experienced at the WTC and yet, despite being made of steel, manages to avoid being melted or distorted at all.

Strange that.

Originally Posted by madasafish

^My boiler here manages to burn kerosene far more effectively that that what was experienced at the WTC and yet, despite being made of steel, manages to avoid being melted or distorted at all. Strange that.

Yes, very strange that the pilot in a boiler can burn 24 hours a day, year in year out and yet not melt.

Wheres Daffy Duck when you need him?

I don't think we'll ever know the truth, but there's certainly more to this than the official explainations.

^For sure, on both points.

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

but rather prolongued exposure to the searing heat from a kerosene fire would do the trick after about 45 minutes.

47 HUGE box-section core columns, the main structural supports of the WTC towers, melted from exposure to 45 mins of searing heat from a kerosene fire? Are you realy this stupid?

Do you recall the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? What caused that?

It was the JP-8 [jet fuel] contained in the aircraft’s tanks.

Did you see that huge fireball? What was that?

It was the kerosene (JP-8 is nothing more than refined kerosene, the same stuff you use in your camping stove).

It burned OUTSIDE the towers!

How could this fuel then have reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building?

And then?

It ran down 90 floors to melt the “un-insulated I-beams”? What? “Shook” the insulation off by jet impact? Are you kidding me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below it! What bullshit!

The dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank are about 11’x11’x11’ Thats about the size of one of the many small offices on the floor that got hit. That’s all. The size of one small office the size of a 11-foot-cube.

Let’s look at this another way: The volume of each of the towers was roughly 50 MILLION CUBIC FEET.

The volume of the fuel was a relatively insignificant 1,300 cubic feet, about 0.003 percent!

Are you following this Daffy, as you admited physics is not your strong point?

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and less than 14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see “small fires”) and caused the beams to melt because the impact “knocked off the insulation”.

Oh yes Daffy, you are still to tell me what happened over at building 7.

How about this for an argument: From now on, Controlled Demolition, Inc. never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences…oh no. We can simply pour 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition. Right?

Bwahh haa haaa

If anyone would take out the time to do some very carefully constructed and deepened research, instead of absorbing the official line, they might find out a thing or two. This certainly applies to most every field of endeavour. It's never what it appears to be.

Originally Posted by The Gentleman Scamp

The moon landings being faked are a yawn conspiracy that excites mostly teenage merkin YouTuber's with tissues under their bed... It's barrel scraping for no-life's.

That said, it make an okay documentary but it was a while ago I saw it.

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact

Said doco is very good, just seen some of it again - but one should be sure to read all of the text under the username of the YouTube poster; it says:

This is not an 'ordinary' documentary... It's intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up, make him aware of the fact that television can get it wrong (intentionally or not) .We want to achieve this aim by using a universally known event (the landing on the Moon) that is surrounded by question marks (which is a fact) and spin some tale around it, that sounds plausible but isn't a fact (although there are elements in it that are real!). Confused? It will all be revealed before the end of the film... once the viewer is hooked, strung along and starts really wondering. The Message is simple.. Do not believ what you see on Television or in the News..

Originally Posted by English Noodles

How about this for an argument: From now on, Controlled Demolition, Inc. never needs to use sophisticated computer analysis on where to place the explosives, amounts, sequences…oh no. We can simply pour 10,000 gallons of diesel fuel in the basement, stand back, and watch a PERFECTLY SIMULATED controlled demolition. Right?

Bwahh haa haaa

^^Why are people confusing moon landing with the WTC?

Adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene = 1727C
Melting temperature of steel = 1570C


At the flame front kerosene fires CAN melt steel, nevertheless most of the reports I've read say that it's most likely that the fires caused the steel to buckle, not fully melt. Buckled supports can collapse just as much as fully melted supports can cause collapse.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by English Noodles

^So if you don't believe the official explanations put forward by government then you must be in 'the tin foil hat brigade', oh well, I gave you way too much credit Dr Bob.

That's it. Reality only manifest from officialdom circles. The Industrial Establishment Textbook and Convention Complex. Anything that can't be explained or designed by officialdom, of every sort, is conspiratorial, pseudo-thought, or surely schizophrenia. Alternatives and curiosity isn't credible. What's the frequency Kenneth.....??

Credibility comes from knowledge and understanding. You're confusing credibility and credulousness. People who know what they're talking about are credible whereas you're just credulous. I doubt you actually understand most of the things you claim are "wrong", certainly all you seem to do is postulate some imaginary, unnamed alternative and offer no reason or explanation for these alternatives.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

At the flame front kerosene fires CAN melt steel, nevertheless most of the reports I've read say that it's most likely that the fires caused the steel to buckle, not fully melt. Buckled supports can collapse just as much as fully melted supports can cause collapse.

The core columns? Where exactly did they go then?

And what about building 7?

Originally Posted by English Noodles

Originally Posted by DrB0b

At the flame front kerosene fires CAN melt steel, nevertheless most of the reports I've read say that it's most likely that the fires caused the steel to buckle, not fully melt. Buckled supports can collapse just as much as fully melted supports can cause collapse.

The core columns? Where exactly did they go then?

Does that mean you accept that a kerosene fire CAN melt steel?
About the core columns, can you be more specific? I'm not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by English Noodles

And what about building 7?

Buckling on an interior column on floor 13 leading to a progressive collapse. What's so odd about that?