Rosie O'Donnell, fire does melt steel

blueflame1 wrote:

farmerman, Rosie's still doing 911 as are many others. The truth will be revealed.

Damn right. And the truth is that Elvis is alive and well and living in Tijuana! Just try to disprove it! Go ahead, I dare ya, all you cynics!

0 Replies

I have no response for that assertion. Elvis may be alive . Also, the other guy who shot Kennedy just had his son write a book explaining that he was the other guy.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote :

Quote:

Damn right. And the truth is that Elvis is alive and well and living in Tijuana! Just try to disprove it! Go ahead, I dare ya, all you cynics!

the REAL elvis was spotted in the "great white north" wearing muklaks and a parka !
you heard it here first !
hbg

see , he's aged perfectly in the cold weather - not a wrinkle to be seen !!

http://homepage1.nifty.com/arctic/images/eskimo/parka.jpg

0 Replies

No need to neither sink to such a low level nor exalt ourselves above God's level.

Pride and prejudice does not always sink into the gutter but it more often than not rises above all else till it becomes obscured by it's own brilliance.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

kickycan wrote :

Quote:
Damn right. And the truth is that Elvis is alive and well and living in Tijuana! Just try to disprove it! Go ahead, I dare ya, all you cynics!

the REAL elvis was spotted in the "great white north" wearing muklaks and a parka !
you heard it here first !
hbg

see , he's aged perfectly in the cold weather - not a wrinkle to be seen !!

No sideburns, it must be an impostor or a new stylist. Smile

0 Replies

kicky, no Elvis dead. Science is the future the 911 Commission cant handle. "Professor Steven Jones On The Freeway Collapse"

Physicist Steven Jones joins Alex to dismiss the ludicrous claims being made in some Neo-Con quarters that the recent freeway collapse has any parallels with the implosion of the twin towers and WTC 7.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html

0 Replies

Im beginning to think that blue flame could really use an ice cream cone. Lets all chip in and get him one.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

kicky, no Elvis dead. Science is the future the 911 Commission cant handle. "Professor Steven Jones On The Freeway Collapse"

Physicist Steven Jones joins Alex to dismiss the ludicrous claims being made in some Neo-Con quarters that the recent freeway collapse has any parallels with the implosion of the twin towers and WTC 7.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html

How dare conservatives compare two disasters involving fuel and fire.

Especially when it clearly vindicates our government...(although some of us never doubted our leaders integrity over the voices of anarchists and terrorists.) But what terrorists are NOT claiming responsibility?

Bin Laden said he did it and don't you think for one minute he would, incriminate Bush if there was one shred of truth to this bold faced lie?

No, Bin Laden did not give Bush credit for "helping"... I am sure radical fundamental Islamic terrorists gleefully gave their lives on 9/11 for George's "democratic world"...

This whole conspiracy theory has a shadow of filth perpetuating it.

0 Replies

Quote:

1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.

I find this an amazing statement. It shows someone that knows little about fire. An open air environment is not the best place to create heat in a fire, an enclosed place with air flow will create much more heat.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.

I find this an amazing statement. It shows someone that knows little about fire. An open air environment is not the best place to create heat in a fire, an enclosed place with air flow will create much more heat.

A closed place with no oxygen makes no fire. I agree a flow of air and not open, true... That is what they call "fanning the flames".. And way high up on the tower the flames would have been plenty fanned by the wind...

0 Replies

The outside wind has little to do with fire inside a building Rex. The smoke from the buildings don't indicate a strong wind.

The chimney effect can cause an intense fire if air isn't being forced in. The heat rises causing air to rush in below feeding the flames. Fire doors are supposed to be closed on stairwells to prevent fire from spreading. All the stairwells but one were blocked with fire according to some survivors. Stairwells are chimneys if doors at the top are open. Elevator shafts are also long tubes that can act as chimneys. Windows were out on several floors allowing heat to escape on upper floors and air to be drawn into the fire on lower floors. No wind was necessary for this fire to have a continuous supply of fresh air to feed it.

0 Replies

"Article Added To Journal Of 9/11 Studies On How Melting Steel Requires Chemical Explosive"

9/11 Blogger
Monday May 01, 2007

Professor Emeritus of Physics Terry Morrone has written a paper for the Journal of 9/11 Studies which addresses possible melting of steel in the WTC Towers and WTC 7. There has been unusual publicity surrounding the claimed melting of steel in leading to a failure of a freeway overpass in California and claims that this failure somehow supports the official fire-based story for the collapse of the WTC skyscrapers. Physics Professor Morrone's paper had completed peer-review and its publication in the Journal was expedited to explain the physics behind melting of steel, particularly as relates to the WTC. Prof. Morrone has made an effort to make the article readable, and we encourage all to learn from it. It is now available here.

Click Here (PDF)

Thank you Prof. Morrone for your fine paper.

Sincerely,

Dr. Steven Jones
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/010507Article.htm

0 Replies

One simple question that I beg you to answer blueflame.

If an explosive is the only way to melt steel why were they pulling molten steel out of the pile weeks later?

The explosions were not continuing. A heat source would be required for the steel to stay molten. What was the source of the heat that made the steel molten weeks after any explosions would have occurred?

0 Replies

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Excerpt from popular mechanic.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

0 Replies

"If an explosive is the only way to melt steel why were they pulling molten steel out of the pile weeks later?" That's the question Steve Jones asks. And the answer is what leads to demolition. It sure wasn't jet fuel that produced molten metal and certainly not what kept the fires burning for weeks. A chemical reaction. Thermate. What makes demolitions happen.

0 Replies

Quote:

Journal Of 9/11 Studies

.
It can be bought at the check-out-line of your nearest supermarket

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

"If an explosive is the only way to melt steel why were they pulling molten steel out of the pile weeks later?" That's the question Steve Jones asks. And the answer is what leads to demolition. It sure wasn't jet fuel that produced molten metal and certainly not what kept the fires burning for weeks. A chemical reaction. Thermate. What makes demolitions happen.

If explosives were used,then who planted them?

You have been asked that before,yet you never seem to answer it.

Who planted the explosives,when did they plant them,and how did they rig them to blow at the exact same instant that an airplane hit the building??

Now,since you are the one that seems to be accusing the govt of this,then please exlain how they have kept it secret.

You yourself have said that the govt is inept,yet you are now claiming that they have kept this secret.
It would have taken hundreds of people in govt to pull this off,if you are right.
So,one of them would have leaked the story by now if the govt was involved.

Your paranoid delusions have you thinking the govt was involved,so you look for ways to explain it.but every explanation you give can be shot down and exposes your paranoia to the world.

Get some help,before you hurt yourself.

0 Replies

When the conspiracy types first posed these possibilities, they were mere speculations, eg,"what if thermite was used" or "what if the building was wired with cutter charges to bring it down" Do you notice how these same areas of speculation are now FACT? I think that this gradual morphing into facts is one of the most spectacular advances in forensic sciences ever seen. Also , since weve zipped right past the "lets prove it stage" , weve heard nothing but more outrageous claims by the "Truthers". Even the 9/11 Journal is no longer an ousider mag for crackpots, Its apparently gone mainstream. Thus weve seen evidence of how, if you say something often enough and loud enough, you dont have to worry about "proof" or "evidence" you merely keep quoting your own sources over and over again.
This must be true, theyve got a Journal of the event.
My opinion is that people like bluflame and zippo and a few others have got themselve so invested into this as a valid conspiracy that theyre unable to even think objectively. It is kind of sad that simple questions asked of the conspiracy theorists have always gone unanswered and all we get are pre digested packets of "Mind
F*ck" (to borrow a critics feeling about Bob Dylans music)

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

"If an explosive is the only way to melt steel why were they pulling molten steel out of the pile weeks later?" That's the question Steve Jones asks. And the answer is what leads to demolition. It sure wasn't jet fuel that produced molten metal and certainly not what kept the fires burning for weeks. A chemical reaction. Thermate. What makes demolitions happen.

You didn't answer my question at all Blue nor did Jones provide any possible answer.

Steel does NOT stay molten forever. It will quickly solidify unless heat is constantly applied. If explosives were the cause of the molten steel then why was the steel still molten weeks later? There were certainly no longer any explosions. What kept the steel molten? There had to be a heat source. What was that heat source? The fact that there was molten steel weeks later proves that something existed OTHER than explosives that could create molten steel. It contradicts the argument that only explosives could have melted the steel.

Or are you arguing that thermate has a controlled burn that can last weeks? I am curious as to when you have ever seen this controlled burn in thermate. Once the reaction occurs there is no longer any heat produced.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

My opinion is that people like bluflame and zippo and a few others simply are losers who have got themselve so invested into this as a valid conspiracy that theyre unable to even think objectively. They find it hard to even ask themselves, "should I move out of my mom's basement, I'm already 40? Should I sell my comic book collection?"

I agree, Farmerman.

0 Replies

Rosie O'Donnell, fire does melt steel

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know