9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by porridge

But he doesn't really. The fireman quote for example. Doesnt prove him wrong, just proves the fireman didnt question why in the hell the fire got that hot. SO proving his point again WTF do the experts know.

You are picking as he never said "office" fires. That is it......real sad.

But he doesn't really what?

Go listen to the video again and listen to the points he tries to make about the experts changing their mind. Example. The sulfur garbage.

He says that they said there were sulfur emissions caused by gypsum wallboard and then he says they said there were NO sulfur emissions from gypsum wallboard. Then he poses two quotes (mined and mashed together) to prove his point.

Turns out that one quote was about the emissions and the other was about the sulfidation of the steel. Two totally different things.

Why did he dissect certain quotes, remove parts, and them mash them together as I have shown?

[porridge]

Originally Posted by gamolon

Prove him wrong where? He's making a claim with no evidence. He (so you are telling me) claims that the only way a debris pile could have created foundry-like temperatures is with accelerants. What acclerants? Show me where in his video he says exactly what?

Is he suggesting thermite/thermate?

First prove how office debri fires can produce foundry heat condtions, then show how they can last 5 months.

Discovery channel & BBC have all this sown up of course. They never exaggerate or lie about anything & always are non partial in the presentations.

Does this not disturb you atall?

Specially as this guy a real truthseeker & patriot to his country, went out in his backyard & done experiments to show how much these so called experts were lying out their ass & deceiving the public for corporate interests.

And these sad septic JREF cheerleading scumbags who will say anything to promote their agenda, also shout down ANYTHING real patriots question & are the lowest of the low.

The same septics who were pushing the pancake bullshit & then the NIST up down crusher bullshit. Its disgusting how far these vermin will go to stop any real investigation.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by gamolon

But he doesn't really what?

Go listen to the video again and listen to the points he tries to make about the experts changing their mind. Example. The sulfur garbage.

He says that they said there were sulfur emissions caused by gypsum wallboard and then he says they said there were NO sulfur emissions from gypsum wallboard. Then he poses two quotes (mined and mashed together) to prove his point.

Turns out that one quote was about the emissions and the other was about the sulfidation of the steel. Two totally different things.

Why did he dissect certain quotes, remove parts, and them mash them together as I have shown?

You missed the point obviously, that they never make their minds up & push what fits their agenda, which has been proven time & time again.

And you also have a lot of honest professionals & scientists who are trying to do their job of course & then told to shut their mouths.

This is what happens in the real world & if you value your career you will keep your mouth shut.

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by porridge

First prove how office debri fires can produce foundry heat condtions, then show how they can last 5 months.

No, YOU and the narrator made the claim that the foundry like conditions were caused by accelerants in the debris pile.

I asked you for proof and you pull try to shift the burden of proof to me?

We were asked to discuss the points in the video which is what I am doing. I asked you to prove your claim along with his.

Now what accelerants were used to keep that heat level at foundry like conditions? Please provide proof like you and everyone else keep saying that you all provide.

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by porridge

You missed the point obviously, that they never make their minds up & push what fits their agenda, which has been proven time & time again.

And you also have a lot of honest professionals & scientists who are trying to do their job of course & then told to shut their mouths.

This is what happens in the real world & if you value your career you will keep your mouth shut.

And to prove one of his point he uses two mashed up quote which turn out to be about two different things?

And you support that?

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by porridge

First prove how office debri fires can produce foundry heat condtions, then show how they can last 5 months.

Discovery channel & BBC have all this sown up of course. They never exaggerate or lie about anything & always are non partial in the presentations.

Does this not disturb you atall?

Specially as this guy a real truthseeker & patriot to his country, went out in his backyard & done experiments to show how much these so called experts were lying out their ass & deceiving the public for corporate interests.

And these sad septic JREF cheerleading scumbags who will say anything to promote their agenda, also shout down ANYTHING real patriots question & are the lowest of the low.

The same septics who were pushing the pancake bullshit & then the NIST up down crusher bullshit. Its disgusting how far these vermin will go to stop any real investigation.

What does 90% of your post above have to do with my point in the video?

Did the narrator use quotes about two different things to try and make his point? Yes or no?

I don't care about your rantings and how you feel about the JREF scumbags and whatnot.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by gamolon

No, YOU and the narrator made the claim that the foundry like conditions were caused by accelerants in the debris pile.

I asked you for proof and you pull try to shift the burden of proof to me?

We were asked to discuss the points in the video which is what I am doing. I asked you to prove your claim along with his.

Now what accelerants were used to keep that heat level at foundry like conditions? Please provide proof like you and everyone else keep saying that you all provide.

I never made the claim it is an obvious as normal fires cannot produce that kind of heat. What can?

So you think office fires can cause foundry conditions & burn for 5 months...another 1st in history right?

Please show me what kind of materials can fuel such long lasting heat?

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by porridge

First prove how office debri fires can produce foundry heat condtions, then show how they can last 5 months.

5 months?

Try three months.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p.../v1i18-508.pdf

[porridge]

Originally Posted by gamolon

What does 90% of your post above have to do with my point in the video?

Has everything to do with you point.

Did the narrator use quotes about two different things to try and make his point? Yes or no?

I don't care about your rantings and how you feel about the JREF scumbags and whatnot.

I couldnt care less if he did or didnt, the video had plenty of hard facts in you are hiding from & trying to pick at anything to try & put out the fire

As pointed out when the BBC or some other corporate whore including JREF vermin flake patriots exaggerates or tell plain lies, as they have been caught doing time & time again, pointed out in that video. You ignore it or agree coz it suits your sad agenda.

Thats about it. You are a fraud & your nit picky quotes & spam prove this.

Thats the only reason I commented on this. Is sad no1 else does & you can peddle your rubbish. Shame on the rest of the forum.

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by porridge

I never made the claim it is an obvious as normal fires cannot produce that kind of heat. What can?

So you think office fires can cause foundry conditions & burn for 5 months...another 1st in history right?

Please show me what kind of materials can fuel such long lasting heat?

Let's make this real easy porridge. You made the following statement:

Originally Posted by porridge

According to him it means office fires cannot produce that kind of heat obviously & only accelerants from the collapse could.

So prove him wrong & quit with the crappy mis quotes & cross spam.

I want you to please site in the video were he said this and then site his proof as to what accelerants were there.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by gamolon

5 months?

Try three months.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p.../v1i18-508.pdf

I was going by Wiki who claim 5 months.

World Trade Center Debris: After the attack, fire and subsequent collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, the colossal pile of debris left on the site smouldered for more than five months.[9] It resisted attempts by fire fighters to extinguish it until most of the rubble was removed. The effects of the gaseous and aerosolized products of smouldering on the health of the emergency workers were significant but the details are still a matter of debate.[10]

But then I wouldnt be so picky & stick to the real points

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by porridge

I couldnt care less if he did or didnt, the video had plenty of hard facts in you are hiding from & trying to pick at anything to try & put out the fire

As pointed out when the BBC or some other corporate whore including JREF vermin flake patriots exaggerates or tell plain lies, as they have been caught doing time & time again, pointed out in that video. You ignore it or agree coz it suits your sad agenda.

Thats about it. You are a fraud & your nit picky quotes & spam prove this.

Thats the only reason I commented on this. Is sad no1 else does & you can peddle your rubbish. Shame on the rest of the forum.

I see. You don't care about the parts that are wrong. Just the parts that supposedly support your view.

We were asked to discuss the videos and that's what I am doing. if you don't like the issues I have pointed out then move along. You already admitted you don;t care if he got things right or wrong.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by gamolon

Let's make this real easy porridge. You made the following statement:


I want you to please site in the video were he said this and then site his proof as to what accelerants were there.

You havent shown me how office fires can produce foundry conditions & fuel a fire for 5 months long, so we have nothing to discuss.

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by porridge

You havent shown me how office fires can produce foundry conditions & fuel a fire for 5 months long, so we have nothing to discuss.

Go read about landfill fires and how blacksmith forges work.

You don't think there was enough debris to keep things down in the pile hot for months? With small amounts of air flowing through the debris pile?

[gamolon]

Originally Posted by gamolon

Go read about landfill fires and how blacksmith forges work.

You don't think there was enough debris to keep things down in the pile hot for months? With small amounts of air flowing through the debris pile?

Show me how accelerants such as thermite and thermate CAN keep the fire burning for months and why that's the only option.

Show me the narrator's proof on this.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by gamolon

Go read about landfill fires and how blacksmith forges work.

You don't think there was enough debris to keep things down in the pile hot for months? With small amounts of air flowing through the debris pile?

Originally Posted by gamolon

Show me how accelerants such as thermite and thermate CAN keep the fire burning for months and why that's the only option.

Show me the narrator's proof on this.

Was it the Jet fuel then you blame for the foundry conditions? And why the rubble had to be constantly sprayed with a special foam & water constantly before they could even begin to do the clean up weeks after 911.

[porridge]

Originally Posted by gamolon

Go read about landfill fires and how blacksmith forges work.

You don't think there was enough debris to keep things down in the pile hot for months? With small amounts of air flowing through the debris pile?

Land fill fires are caused by gas.

Most of the WTC fires would have been distinguished by the clouds of dust during and after the collapse.

There was nothing to cause this kind of fire.

Two Months Later

Two Months Later

[skanny]

"blacksmiths forge" aren't they usually dependant on a fuel source and have the ability to have air forced into the bed where you are attempting to heat?.

the air is a major factor with it being forced into the area which allows you to obtain the required constant heat on a specific area. (controlled, clean burn)

what was the energy source for your forge theory gamolon?



just curious.

[fast eddie]

Originally Posted by skanny

"blacksmiths forge" aren't they usually dependant on a fuel source and have the ability to have air forced into the bed where you are attempting to heat?.

A blacksmith's forge relies on a large pressure differential that in effect provides enough air (oxygen) for a stoichiometric burn, much like a car engine. This provides a much hotter combustion temperature than an open air burn, where the fire has to draw air to the point of combustion. Almost everything that burns in open air will provide a "dirty" burn or oxygen deficient combustion.

That includes stuff like furniture, gasoline, jet fuel , and most combustibles.

the air is a major factor with it being forced into the area which allows you to obtain the required constant heat on a specific area. (controlled, clean burn)

It's providing enough oxygen for stoichiometric combustion, which is indeed cleaner; and hotter, too.

what was the energy source for your forge theory gamolon?

He will claim that the structure acted like a forge.

[wispy]

[quote]

Originally Posted by porridge

Is okay Wispy, I understand how frustrating

Not frustrated at all.

the video must be for you, as you cant really cite one example of how Jonathan Cole is wrong & you know he is spot on in everything he says in that video.

Don't need to. I think most who will look at it and are aware of the issues will see it's a re-hash of truther theories.

Gamolon's doing a good job so far in showing up the internal incosistencies of the vid.

I don't need to add anything at the mo.