• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

The Official BellGab.com 9/11 Thread

Started by Max, April 16, 2008, 12:15:21 PM

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 03, 2017, 11:30:53 AM
But Jackstar isn't a scientist. Boil that egg Barbie.

Maybe not but he's way more intelligent than you. You're an excellent doorman though. You nod and bow and scrape great!  ;)

Gd5150

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 03, 2017, 11:03:13 AM
Can we assume your jaw was dropped?

Quote"911 was perpetrated by the same people that told you therr were WMDs in Iraq"

So apparently the whole world for 20 years knowing Iraq had WMDs that the United States sold to them and has never been argued is now conveniently a lie. Riiiiiiiight.

So if Iraq didn't have WMDs, it was a Bush lie used to get us into a war. If Iraqs WMDs were reported as found, which they were, and it was, it was just the media military industrial complex covering for the war. Riiiiiiiiiiight

This is why we go back to several years before 911 when there was more objectivity regarding the existence Iraq's WMDs.

Quote"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Bill Clinton - 1998


QuoteUp to 5,000 died at Halabja, northern Iraq
UN experts confirmed in 1986 that Iraq had contravened the Geneva Convention by using chemical weapons against Iran.

In 1988 Iraq turned its chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds in the north of the country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

Anyone who argues Iraq didn't have WMDs is either a liar or ignorant or both. They're certainly not qualified to put forward a respectable opinion on 911.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Gd5150 on September 03, 2017, 11:39:04 AM
So apparently the whole world for 20 years knowing Iraq had WMDs that the United States sold to them and has never been argued is now conveniently a lie. Riiiiiiiight.

So if Iraq didn't have WMDs, it was a Bush lie used to get us into a war. If Iraqs WMDs were reported as found, which they were, and it was, it was just the media military industrial complex covering for the war. Riiiiiiiiiiight

This is why we go back to several years before 911 when there was more objectivity regarding the existence Iraq's WMDs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

Anyone who argues Iraq didn't have WMDs is either a liar or ignorant or both. They're certainly not qualified to put forward a respectable opinion on 911.

You're confused. This is the 9/11 thread.  ;)

Here, this may help you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Gd5150 on September 03, 2017, 11:39:04 AM
So apparently the whole world for 20 years knowing Iraq had WMDs that the United States sold to them and has never been argued is now conveniently a lie. Riiiiiiiight.

So if Iraq didn't have WMDs, it was a Bush lie used to get us into a war. If Iraqs WMDs were reported as found, which they were, and it was, it was just the media military industrial complex covering for the war. Riiiiiiiiiiight

This is why we go back to several years before 911 when there was more objectivity regarding the existence Iraq's WMDs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

Anyone who argues Iraq didn't have WMDs is either a liar or ignorant or both. They're certainly not qualified to put forward a respectable opinion on 911.

You know a great deal happened in Iraq between 1998 and 2003 don't you? You do know don't you? And Condi Rice said in 2000 on tv that Iraq had no WMD..You know that don't you?

Jackstar

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 03, 2017, 11:14:44 AM
Civil Engineering dept MIT....let that sink in.


https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/how-the-cia-secretly-used-ivy-league-scholars-against-the-middle-east-1.68526

QuoteThe National Defense Education Act of 1958 (NDEA) increased federal funding for the sciences and maths and initiated support for area studies and foreign language training programmes for “critical” areas.

Even though the NDEA was directly linked to national security, the Eisenhower administration and Congress did not require students that received funding to serve in a government agency. This changed after the Cold War was over, however. Newly created fellowship programmes required that recipients work in a national security agency for a set period.


You're an idiot. Let that sink in.

Jackstar


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Jackstar on September 03, 2017, 11:55:58 AM

I am sure you found that extremely impressive.

Why? It doesn't alter what she said.

paladin1991

Quote from: Gd5150 on September 03, 2017, 11:39:04 AM
So apparently the whole world for 20 years knowing Iraq had WMDs that the United States sold to them and has never been argued is now conveniently a lie. Riiiiiiiight.

So if Iraq didn't have WMDs, it was a Bush lie used to get us into a war. If Iraqs WMDs were reported as found, which they were, and it was, it was just the media military industrial complex covering for the war. Riiiiiiiiiiight

This is why we go back to several years before 911 when there was more objectivity regarding the existence Iraq's WMDs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

Anyone who argues Iraq didn't have WMDs is either a liar or ignorant or both. They're certainly not qualified to put forward a respectable opinion on 911.

The WMD's were moved to Syria, Iran or both.  Wake the fuck up ppl.  Jackyboy might be 'out there' for most of you.  But suck on this, he's not wrong,

Jackstar

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 03, 2017, 12:01:29 PM
Why? It doesn't alter what she said.

I am sure you'll remember when I recently asked you for a list of sources you considered to be authoritative. If Condoleezza Rice is on that list, please take that list, transcribe it onto an 8 & a half by 11 sheet of clean white paper, and then fold it up so that it is all sharp corners, and then shove it completely up your ass, you fucking moron.

Your breathless, spastic defense of anybody who happens to be deemed 'an authority' doesn't really hold up (and looks particularly low-rent) when talking about the woman who claimed that there was no possible way we could have seen this coming, when--we saw it coming.


Quote from: paladin1991 on September 03, 2017, 01:11:59 PM
Jackyboy might be 'out there' for most of you.  But suck on this, he's not wrong,

In spite of my intellectual magnificence, there's something that I'm still not clear on--how did they get all that weaponized anthrax out of the caves??

That must have taken an awful lot of Hajis, n'est-ce pas?

pate

I watched a documentary on this stuff the other day.  It raised some interesting points.

Kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel (av-gas is essentially kerosene).  Neither does coal, but in a blast-furnace you can do it.  Is it possible to use kerosene in a blast furnace to achieve temperatures high enough to get molten steel?

There's other points raised in the thing that I found interesting as well but I don't feel like speculating about it really.

I find the idea that it might have been an "inside-job" by the government to be disheartening.  I'd have to see some sort of concrete evidence of something like that.

I accept the possibility that there might very well be something to the whole scenario of a cover-up, what the exact nature of what might be hidden I don't know.

Speculation on that could range from the mundane to world-shattering.  There are certainly enough details to warrant keeping the door open on this.

If it's raving lunatics barking at the moon, what harm?  If there actually is something to discover, again what harm?

Since I am lazy, I will sit back and watch to see what "THEY" come up with, it could be interesting.

I just hope it is something cool like Sasquatch or Aliens, not mundane like covering up a failed investment scheme involving icebergs being towed to desert areas with the intent to set up banana or strawberry farms involving multiple world governments (that's lame).

Shine on you crazy diamonds!

=Schlyder=

Quote from: pate on September 03, 2017, 02:09:02 PM
I watched a documentary on this stuff the other day.  It raised some interesting points.

Kerosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel (av-gas is essentially kerosene).  Neither does coal, but in a blast-furnace you can do it.  Is it possible to use kerosene in a blast furnace to achieve temperatures high enough to get molten steel?

There's other points raised in the thing that I found interesting as well but I don't feel like speculating about it really.

I find the idea that it might have been an "inside-job" by the government to be disheartening.  I'd have to see some sort of concrete evidence of something like that.

I accept the possibility that there might very well be something to the whole scenario of a cover-up, what the exact nature of what might be hidden I don't know.

Speculation on that could range from the mundane to world-shattering.  There are certainly enough details to warrant keeping the door open on this.

If it's raving lunatics barking at the moon, what harm?  If there actually is something to discover, again what harm?

Since I am lazy, I will sit back and watch to see what "THEY" come up with, it could be interesting.

I just hope it is something cool like Sasquatch or Aliens, not mundane like covering up a failed investment scheme involving icebergs being towed to desert areas with the intent to set up banana or strawberry farms involving multiple world governments (that's lame).

Shine on you crazy diamonds!

No. an open air kerosene/aviation fuel  fire cannot get hot enough to melt steel.  Yet NIST claimed molten metal (colored orange) photographed that was dripping down the towers was aluminum.  .... and again the problem with that explanation from NIST is that molten aluminum is silver colored, not orange.

pate

Quote from: =Schlyder= on September 03, 2017, 02:27:32 PM
No. an open air kerosene/aviation fuel  fire cannot get hot enough to melt steel.

What about a blast-furnace setup with kerosene?  That is why I wrote:

Quote from: pate on September 03, 2017, 02:09:02 PM
..Neither does coal, but in a blast-furnace you can do it.  Is it possible to use kerosene in a blast furnace to achieve temperatures high enough to get molten steel?...

On the assumption that maybe, somehow some sort of chimney effect created a blast-furnace (elevator shafts, hallways etc).  That would then lead to the question of how much kerosene/av-gas do you need to feed this "blast-furnace" for long enough to melt enough steel to get the events to jibe with the official narrative?  That is working on the assumption that a kerosene/av-gas fired blast-furnace can indeed get hot enough to melt steel.

The simplest outcome for this line of questioning is that you cannot create a kerosene blast furnace capable of achieving temperatures that will liquefy steel.  Once you establish that (sort of like proving a negative) you need to demonstrate that it was say the vast quantities of magnesium alloyed steel office furniture or power tools that managed to ignite that melted the steel.  Something had to get to the temperature that steel goes molten, what material and how?  I will accept a kerosene blast-furnace as the answer, but do not know that to be possible.

And I am too intellectually lazy to try to find some youtube video of a kerosene blast-furnace used to melt steel, do my homework for me please.

=Schlyder=

Quote from: pate on September 03, 2017, 02:53:44 PM
What about a blast-furnace setup with kerosene?  That is why I wrote:

On the assumption that maybe, somehow some sort of chimney effect created a blast-furnace (elevator shafts, hallways etc).  That would then lead to the question of how much kerosene/av-gas do you need to feed this "blast-furnace" for long enough to melt enough steel to get the events to jibe with the official narrative?  That is working on the assumption that a kerosene/av-gas fired blast-furnace can indeed get hot enough to melt steel.

The simplest outcome for this line of questioning is that you cannot create a kerosene blast furnace capable of achieving temperatures that will liquefy steel.  Once you establish that (sort of like proving a negative) you need to demonstrate that it was say the vast quantities of magnesium alloyed steel office furniture or power tools that managed to ignite that melted the steel.  Something had to get to the temperature that steel goes molten, what material and how?  I will accept a kerosene blast-furnace as the answer, but do not know that to be possible.

And I am too intellectually lazy to try to find some youtube video of a kerosene blast-furnace used to melt steel, do my homework for me please.

No conditions were not like a blast furnace.  The fire was pushing out lots of smoke, so it was not hot enough.  If it were hot enough to melt steel, there wouldn't have been all the smoke.   I also believe most of the av gas was burned in the fireballs created at impact when the fuel vapourized.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Jackstar on September 03, 2017, 01:57:45 PM

That must have taken an awful lot of Hajis, n'est-ce pas?

You're welcome Michelle.




=Schlyder=

also... the structural steel was covered with fireproofing. That would also reduce the ability of fire to cause any kind of melting.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: =Schlyder= on September 03, 2017, 03:07:49 PM
also... the structural steel was covered with fireproofing. That would also reduce the ability of fire to cause any kind of melting.


It didn't melt...It weakened the steel. The concrete floors couldn't be supported above the impact, which crashed down on each other until they took out the floors below, one by one.. Each floor could withsatnd about 1300t above its own weight...But 45000t is estimated to have crashed into the first suspended floor, which added to the weight of the floors that crashed into that one.  She canna take it C'pn.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 03, 2017, 03:28:12 PM

It didn't melt...It weakened the steel. The concrete floors couldn't be supported above the impact, which crashed down on each other until they took out the floors below, one by one.. Each floor could withsatnd about 1300t above its own weight...But 45000t is estimated to have crashed into the first suspended floor, which added to the weight of the floors that crashed into that one.  She canna take it C'pn.

Yes, pud, of course. <whispers to his nurse to up his meds. ;)>

SredniVashtar

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 03, 2017, 03:28:12 PM

It didn't melt...It weakened the steel. The concrete floors couldn't be supported above the impact, which crashed down on each other until they took out the floors below, one by one.. Each floor could withsatnd about 1300t above its own weight...But 45000t is estimated to have crashed into the first suspended floor, which added to the weight of the floors that crashed into that one.  She canna take it C'pn.

That's all very well, but I have a fake doctor, a flower boy, and the Third Law of Olivia Newton John that all say you're full of shit.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: SredniVashtar on September 03, 2017, 03:56:23 PM
That's all very well, but I have a fake doctor, a flower boy, and the Third Law of Olivia Newton John that all say you're full of shit.

It doesn't take a fake airplane mechanic to see that.  :D

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on September 03, 2017, 03:58:21 PM
It doesn't take a fake airplane mechanic to see that.  :D


That's 'aeroplane' you illiterate mong.

aldousburbank

Quote from: =Schlyder= on September 03, 2017, 03:00:18 PM
No conditions were not like a blast furnace.  The fire was pushing out lots of smoke, so it was not hot enough.  If it were hot enough to melt steel, there wouldn't have been all the smoke.   I also believe most of the av gas was burned in the fireballs created at impact when the fuel vapourized.

Hater!

Lunger

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on September 03, 2017, 09:40:29 AM
I don't. It's just that the third law is what would've caused the collapse to stop and you, conveniently, won't account for that. Bad science. Anyway, I haven't got anymore time today to point out how incredibly lacking your education is. So, just post whatever other stupid nonsense you want and I'll get to it later.  ;)

What a world you live in.  Building dont' fall.  Planes don't crash. 

You didn't go back and listen to the first sentence of that video, did you?.  You know the one that points out your stupidity.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Lunger on September 03, 2017, 06:08:22 PM
What a world you live in.  Building dont' fall.  Planes don't crash. 

You didn't go back and listen to the first sentence of that video, did you?.  You know the one that points out your stupidity.

You'd probably have to be able to construct a proper sentence in order to understand it. Don't trouble yourself. You can't even follow through on watching a 10 minute video. Back to sleep with ya!  ;D

=Schlyder=

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 03, 2017, 03:28:12 PM

It didn't melt...It weakened the steel. The concrete floors couldn't be supported above the impact, which crashed down on each other until they took out the floors below, one by one.. Each floor could withsatnd about 1300t above its own weight...But 45000t is estimated to have crashed into the first suspended floor, which added to the weight of the floors that crashed into that one.  She canna take it C'pn.

But there was melting steel pouring out of the towers.  Where did it come from?   The heat wasn't even hot enough from the open air burning of kerosene/av fuel to weaken the steel enough for it to fail as the NIST claims.  And especially not protected structural steel members.   

PS -  I'm a journeyman welder so I have extensive experience with temperatures required to deform/weaken steel... or to melt steel, or aluminum.   I have also worked for a fireproofing company ( Park-Derochie out of Edmonton,Alta)  applying fireproof coatings to structural steel in 1983.  So I am also familiar with the products that were being used in the fireproofing industry of that era.  To claim that the fires did the damage to the structural steel with the available temperatures, and in the short time for it to happen...  and on fireproofed steel beams to boot,  is complete and utter rubbish. 

the steel structures we fireproofed were for oil refineries.  The fireproofing was able to withstand and protect steel members from oil/fuel fires that lasted a hell of a lot longer than 2 hours, without deforming or weakening the structures.  I even saw structural steel which had been in a refinery fire, and the company was replacing all the fireproofing on it. and the steel wasn't damaged or weakened.  The fireproofing did it's job well.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: =Schlyder= on September 03, 2017, 07:18:14 PM
But there was melting steel pouring out of the towers.  Where did it come from?   The heat wasn't even hot enough from the open air burning of kerosene/av fuel to weaken the steel enough for it to fail as the NIST claims.  And especially not protected structural steel members.   

PS -  I'm a journeyman welder so I have extensive experience with temperatures required to deform/weaken steel... or to melt steel, or aluminum.   I have also worked for a fireproofing company ( Park-Derochie out of Edmonton,Alta)  applying fireproof coatings to structural steel in 1983.  So I am also familiar with the products that were being used in the fireproofing industry of that era.  To claim that the fires did the damage to the structural steel with the available temperatures, and in the short time for it to happen...  and on fireproofed steel beams to boot,  is complete and utter rubbish. 

the steel structures we fireproofed were for oil refineries.  The fireproofing was able to withstand and protect steel members from oil/fuel fires that lasted a hell of a lot longer than 2 hours, without deforming or weakening the structures.  I even saw structural steel which had been in a refinery fire, and the company was replacing all the fireproofing on it. and the steel wasn't damaged or weakened.  The fireproofing did it's job well.

The WTC were finished in 1969. I doubt the specs for the entire building were the same as if it had been built in 1980, or 1990. or 2015...Things improve, change.

But even if not, the assumption of the experiment is that there are no accelerants whatsoever. No furniture, no carpeting, no wood flooring, paper, lithium batteries in electronic gear (They really burn). And all of that plus jet fuel burns pretty well.

=Schlyder=

no... office contents in the fire will not make the fire hot enough to do the damage to the steel that the NIST claims it did.

When was the last time you bent anything made of 1/2" thick steel?  Or cut/melted any thick steel?  It takes more than any kind of open fire to achieve the heat required.

albrecht

Quote from: Yorkshire pud on September 03, 2017, 08:57:37 PM
The WTC were finished in 1969. I doubt the specs for the entire building were the same as if it had been built in 1980, or 1990. or 2015...Things improve, change.

But even if not, the assumption of the experiment is that there are no accelerants whatsoever. No furniture, no carpeting, no wood flooring, paper, lithium batteries in electronic gear (They really burn). And all of that plus jet fuel burns pretty well.
I'm not making an opinion but I might trust for fire-retardants a building built back then than now in some cases now because they would throw asbestos etc around everywhere back then. Versus, like that recent London city council building fire where they remodeled with some actual inflammable material, aluminum 'sandwich' panels, on it for "green" reasons (though final findings haven't come out.)


=Schlyder=

yeah the older style product we used was a hand troweled concrete type "mud" called Pyro-crete   and the newer tech product was a spray on epoxy based system called Char-tek.
I imagine it would have been a pyrocrete type product on a building from late 60s

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod