duendy said:
said in the notes i gave you above, "There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed so what caused the hot spots deep in the wreckage?"
NO INFERNOS? 24,000 gallons of jet fuel, combined with the usual flammable contents of an office, and there were NO INFERNOS? Are you really saying that? Are you saying that without thermite, the WTC would not have caught fire? Are you saying that buildings that catch fire normally don't smoulder for days? Weeks? If so, why do firecrews keep hosing them down long after the fires are actually extinguished? Is it because there is a hot core, just waiting for air, to re-ignite? I know I
have done a firefighting course, and you
haven't but some of this stuff is common sense duendy!
Are you trying to say a physicist would not know that temite connection could do this and not jet fuel?
Yep, 'cos the Thermite reaction is chemistry (not Jones' area of expertise) and the scenario is Structural Engineering (again not Jones' area of expertise). The guy is stretching, can't you see that? Now, as I stated, Kerosene burns nearly as hot as Thermite, so can cause similar structural damage. For Thermite to cause more damage than the 24,000 gallons of jet fuel, there would have to be approaching that amount of Thermite. That's a lot of Thermite, duendy, so how come nobody noticed it being installed in the WTC? Answer me that!
if there WERE explosions its proved you wrong
I don't disagree there were explosions, duendy. I just disagree that the explosions were bombs! Keep up! Things explode when exposed to 2000 degree heat. Fire Extinguishers themselves will pop, as will any container.
Concrete giving way will make bang sounds as it cracks. Pockets of gas that have cooked out form wooden desks will explode. Flash overs from flammable items heated radiatively may cause an explosion. One minute, you were saying that the explosions WERE bombs, and now you are upholding this Thermite theory, and Thermite is incendiary. So are you abandoning the theory that bombs were used, or saying that BOTH bombs and thermite were used? Which is it?
heard ya first time, and i said that i had see an explnation tat if it is round down enough it DOES explode.
NO IT DOES NOT! thermite is fast conflagration! NOT EXPLOSION! I have performed the Thermite reaction at school, duendy, in Chemistry class. We would not have been allowed to do it if there was the slightest chance of an explosion, so stop reiterating this falsehood!
but i aslo said that as WELL as termite that coulda beenused to cut thru metal columns etc OTHER explosive devices could have been used.
How much Thermite? tens of thousands of gallons. Strapped to the steelwork, that nobody saw anybody bringing into the building, or rigging for conflagration? What other explosive devices, and why use two types?
look phlo jo, i am not pretentious. comin here pretending to be a firefighter and know all about tis stuff like you do.
I never said I was a firefighter, just that I had done a firefighting course because of a previous job, although some of the stuff is common sense.
Lke one minute you QUESTIOn firefighters ability to KNOW when they hear explosions,
I never sid that. I questioned the ability of firefighters to tell if an explosion was caused by a bomb, or some other source, while they are running round a burning building! If you had ever put out a fire, or done any fire training, you'd know how much concentration it takes to stay safe. You'd perhaps know how loud fires are. You'd also perhaps know that things going BANG really shit you up. Firefighters aren't trained to tell what explosive makes what kind of bang either duendy, they are trained to save lives and put out fires.
next YOUR tiny experience
At least I have SOME experience in this area, duendy!
somehow qualifies your knwoing ALL the 911 truth movement dont.
They don't
know anything duendy, they just
allege
No duendy, arrogance is when you stand by conclusions made about a video on a web site that you cannot see!
I am listening to a VARIETY of reports, inlcuding video footage , and pictures all sugesting you are an isolated case
You didn't read the link I posted then? Because I am not isolated thinking the collapse was to be expected after a plane hit. I read your links, you should do me a similar courtesy.
Here's that report again
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
ONE structural engineer...? wonder who he's workin for? Bush's commison-tohide-the-truth no doubt!
And Jones is how many people?
and errr what EVIDENCE you got big shot? i aint seen anything but words. NOEof the essntial points i made effort to note have you painatakingly answered. all pointing topresenceof THERMITE
No it doesn't! I listed six things that would indicate Thermite,
What is missing;
1, Pig Iron.
2, Aluminium Oxide.
3, Sparks
4, Sulphurous smell (other than Bullshit, that is)
5, A reason for using thermite, and not a compact modern explosive.
6, An explanation of why some conspiracy theorists say they heard explosions, when the thermite reaction is incendiary, and NOT explosive! (were there C4 charges AND Thermite, duendy?)
and you have provided NO support for any of them!
but as we see in video most of the fuel explodes OUTside towers.
Does it? What does 24,000 gallons of fuel exploding look like? how can you estimate that most of the fuel explodes outside the towers? In fact, look at this video;
http://www.letsroll911.net/images/CourtesyCNNABC.wmv
Which shows that the plane entered the WTC pretty intact and there was no inititial explosion outside. ALL the fuel made it inside the building!
Watch the footage of the 2nd impact on the BBC web site;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/timeline/default.stm
It clearly shows that the first plane not only damaged the face of the WTC that it struck, be also caused damage to another face as it went through the building and smoke can be seen billowing from both holes in the structure. Now, if you'd read that link, you'd know that the outside of the building wasn't just a facade, but provided much of the support to the building. This footage clearly shows two quite large holes, across many floors, and shows that jet fuel would have been strewn around INSIDE the bulding.
The 2nd impact shows similar, an entry, and very nearly an exit hole. Similar burning, the explosion coming out of the hole, after the jet entered. The fuel did not explode outside the building at all!
Oh, but you can't see videos.
You really MUST review the footage though duendy, because your memory of that day must be really skewed.
