9/11, a total lie, but why?

  • Thread starter Heeeed the Ball
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Temperatures in the fires that burned for weeks under the pile were measured at 2800 degrees by NYFDP. Steel often melts at 2500 degrees. It's really that simple.

It is if you ignore that building fires dont normally reach temps like that, obviously the temp was hot enough to melt steel if steel was melted, but why, if in the history of sky scraper fires its never happened before, did it happen then?
What caused those fires to reach such temps?
 


No argument and no response about the senator's words -I'll take that as a victory, but well done you for complying with the Bush administration's wishes "Don't let the conspiracy theorists take the blame away from the terrorists" You're an imbecile!
I've asked this question to about five different people on this topic and no-one has ever answered - Seemingly you know exactly what happened,so why don't you and the other CT's take this to court with all your irrefutable evidence? I know if I seen an injustice I'd do my best to try and get a conviction against the guilty party
 
You couldn't actually get any more vague than that, almost totally meaningless in its simplicity.

What is it about galaxies that you don't understand, or did my answer completely satisfy your curiosity?

All air crashes are bizarre and mystifying, until the investigation, often lasting months or even years, uncovers the mistake, or more often series of mistakes, that led to them.

Your answer was satisfactory.

But only satisfactory

I've given up with him. I asked him to be less vague yet he posted the exact same question.

Your mate Twas answered it for you
 
1) If FD members aren't allowed to comment while in service, why was he quoted in the New York Times in December, 2001?

2) No, he claimed it didn't happen: https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro

The second page of your link - the Q&A with the ATC gaffer is an excellent and revealing (if a tad inconvenient for the board's resident CT nutters) read.

As @The Exile and others have alluded to in the past, the response from the various authorities on the day, rather than something nefarious, was nowt more sinister than a totally uncoordinated goatfuck.
 
Your answer was satisfactory.

But only satisfactory
See, you're at it again. Something can be either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, there is no other alternative. So if it's 'only' satisfactory, how can it be any better?

Please tell us what it is about galaxies you don't understand. Then I could maybe help.
 
See, you're at it again. Something can be either satisfactory or unsatisfactory, there is no other alternative. So if it's 'only' satisfactory, how can it be any better?

Please tell us what it is about galaxies you don't understand. Then I could maybe help.

Perhaps your answer was merely adequate.

I was asking you about galaxies, I understand everything I've been taught but, and we're getting back to the crux of the matter here, until we've actually developed a means to travel interstellar we can only rely on the images reproduced by computer powered telescopes, or whatever is developed next.

Are you and your sarky mate okay with this now?
 
Perhaps your answer was merely adequate.

I was asking you about galaxies, I understand everything I've been taught but, and we're getting back to the crux of the matter here, until we've actually developed a means to travel interstellar we can only rely on the images reproduced by computer powered telescopes, or whatever is developed next.

Are you and your sarky mate okay with this now?

Your original post was 'it takes us years to get to planets in our solar system, so how can we know about other galaxies?' The simple answer is we observe them. We use special (computer powered) telescopes because visible light is only small part of the total electromagnetic spectrum, and without them we'd see nowt.
 
Your original post was 'it takes us years to get to planets in our solar system, so how can we know about other galaxies?' The simple answer is we observe them. We use special (computer powered) telescopes because visible light is only small part of the total electromagnetic spectrum, and without them we'd see nowt.

And yet we have nothing to compare the readings with.

I'd love to know what points of reference they use but I suspect it's more readings from telescopes.

Any ideas over there in 'Go Science Towers'
 
Perhaps your answer was merely adequate.

I was asking you about galaxies, I understand everything I've been taught but, and we're getting back to the crux of the matter here, until we've actually developed a means to travel interstellar we can only rely on the images reproduced by computer powered telescopes, or whatever is developed next.

Are you and your sarky mate okay with this now?
An adequate answer cannot be better either, or it would be inadequate.

Even if you go to these galaxies you will still be relying on images produced by telescopes and analysed by computers. You can't touch a star or a nebula.

Anyway, you started out by implying you couldn't have "knowledge" of other galaxies. What exactly did you mean by that?
 
And yet we have nothing to compare the readings with.

I'd love to know what points of reference they use but I suspect it's more readings from telescopes.

Any ideas over there in 'Go Science Towers'

The beauty of science and the scientific methods is the data, once published, is there for peer review. If any physicists, cosmologists etc. want to question the data they can.
 
And yet we have nothing to compare the readings with.

I'd love to know what points of reference they use but I suspect it's more readings from telescopes.

Any ideas over there in 'Go Science Towers'
This is getting more and more bizarre. The only thing we can ever compare anything with is our previous experience. When you see an apple you can only know its OK to eat because you or somebody else has seen and eaten another apple.

You'll be questioning next whether what a telescope is showing us is real, or whether the computer is changing the image.
 
An adequate answer cannot be better either, or it would be inadequate.

Even if you go to these galaxies you will still be relying on images produced by telescopes and analysed by computers. You can't touch a star or a nebula.

Anyway, you started out by implying you couldn't have "knowledge" of other galaxies. What exactly did you mean by that?

Our knowledge of other galaxies is that we glean from telescopes peering into the heavens.

To have better knowledge you'd need better means of collection.

Eg. A site visit

This is getting more and more bizarre. The only thing we can ever compare anything with is our previous experience. When you see an apple you can only know its OK to eat because you or somebody else has seen and eaten another apple.

Now you're getting it!
 
Our knowledge of other galaxies is that we glean from telescopes peering into the heavens.

To have better knowledge you'd need better means of collection.

Eg. A site visit
You are sitting in one. It is so difficult to work out what it looks like from where we are that nobody had any idea that the spiral nebulas previously seen by tekescopes were the same things until less than 100 years ago.

So a site visit wouldn't really help, although the idea of sitting in another galaxy is appealing.
 
This is getting more and more bizarre. The only thing we can ever compare anything with is our previous experience. When you see an apple you can only know its OK to eat because you or somebody else has seen and eaten another apple.

You'll be questioning next whether what a telescope is showing us is real, or whether the computer is changing the image.
Try telling that to Snow White and her Dwarfs.
 
I've asked this question to about five different people on this topic and no-one has ever answered - Seemingly you know exactly what happened,so why don't you and the other CT's take this to court with all your irrefutable evidence? I know if I seen an injustice I'd do my best to try and get a conviction against the guilty party
Seemingly, you're not aware of Edward Snowden, Julien Assange,Susan Lindhauer and the patriot act?
 
Seemingly, you're not aware of Edward Snowden, Julien Assange,Susan Lindhauer and the patriot act?

Yeah, some people who had access to terabytes worth of secret data and documents and the desire to discredit the U.S. government, and still they found essentially nothing about 9/11.
 
It is if you ignore that building fires dont normally reach temps like that, obviously the temp was hot enough to melt steel if steel was melted, but why, if in the history of sky scraper fires its never happened before, did it happen then?
What caused those fires to reach such temps?

You could also argue that there has never been a steel skyscraper survive an impact of this magnitude and the resulting conflagration. There have only been two examples and they both fell that day. The Empire State Building was a totally different design and impacted by a smaller slower moving aircraft with substantially less fuel on board.
The steel frames did not melt, they weakened; structural damage and gravity did the rest. This is why the South Tower collapsed first. Compression from the weight of the extra floors above the impact zone meant the steel would reach structural failure point earlier than in the North Tower. Anyone watching the close up footage of the fires burning up there must agree it would soften.

You have to weigh this dull but feasible explanation against one straight out of Mission Impossible.
 
My limited education has shown me enough examples of science getting it completely wrong n
Can you give a few examples of science getting it completely wrong ever ?

Absolutely loads of technology and analytical equipment is based on quantum physics. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not useful.
I am just back from a computer added tomography scan
Science be praised

It is if you ignore that building fires dont normally reach temps like that, obviously the temp was hot enough to melt steel if steel was melted, but why, if in the history of sky scraper fires its never happened before, did it happen then?
What caused those fires to reach such temps?
Was it the hundreds of tones of aviation fuel and air mixed together?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top