Backdoor to finally exposing 9/11

Other highrises throughout history burned longer than the twin towers did and they did not collapse; even this one structure that burned for 24 hours straight and flames eventually reached the roof.

the speed at which those buildings came down at does not add up.

reply to post by Kojack


This is what you should have found out.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C

The Steel didn't melt it lost its strength the first tower to collapse had over 40,000 Tons OF STRUCTURE above impact point.

So have a good think about that.

reply to post by hmmmbeer


Never said you believe in ufo's re read the first line.

Lets look at the Moon pictures

Shadows :topography of the ground look at the non parallel shadows one of the objects is in a raised posittion or the shadow runs on an un even surface it happens here on Earth as well
Backlighting I assume you mean why can we see an area that should be in shadow light scatter from Moon surface again you can see that done here.
No Stars: Exposure time what lights the Moon the Sun so exposures are like a VERY suuny day on Earth. Star light is very faint so doesn't show. You can try it for yourself set a camera on manual for daylight take a picture of the moon it will show stars wont .

The difference betweeen me and you is I have 30 yrs as a keen photographer and working in the construction trade.

Based on my research I believe we DID make it to the moon. However once we got there our boys saw/found some things they shouldn't have seen. Thus, I believe, the PTB began a massive disinformation campaign to discredit the moon landings as a diversion from the truth (whatever it may be...).

Freedom Will Prevail

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Oh really? How were so many people able to jump out of the Towers when being anywhere near those high temperatures they would have been burnt to a crisp?

Since jet fuel burns at about 1500 F in controlled open air conditions, how were these fires able to reach 1800 F in a relatively enclosed oxygen starved environment?

So you're claiming that in about one hour's time, these oxygen starved fires (check out the black smoke in the videos) were able to soften these massive steel columns and cause a collapse?

You know, next time I fry some dinner using my cast iron pan I better make sure it's not on the flame too long since it will start to soften and melt. Same goes with my barbecue.

Ok Sherlock - ever consider reason they jumped was that it was too hot
in the vicinity and to avoid being burned alive jumped ....

The old "oxygen starved fires" drivel - you parrot that very well

Tell me how do you know the fires were "Oxygen starved" ?

You consider the fact that there were massive holes in the facade of the
building blasted there by the aircraft impacts

Add in that wind speed increases with height above ground means fires would be well supplied with fresh air

Only if building was tightly sealed would be oxygen starved leading to
condition called a backdraft

Is your frying pan red hot? How many floors does it supprt? How much
force is being exerted on it ?

Here is link to study by NIST and FDNY cconcerning wind conditions on fire spread


fire.nist.gov...

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Temps at the most intense of the fires were estimated at 1800 F"

Oh really? How were so many people able to jump out of the Towers when being anywhere near those high temperatures they would have been burnt to a crisp?

Since jet fuel burns at about 1500 F in controlled open air conditions, how were these fires able to reach 1800 F in a relatively enclosed oxygen starved environment?

So you're claiming that in about one hour's time, these oxygen starved fires (check out the black smoke in the videos) were able to soften these massive steel columns and cause a collapse?

You know, next time I fry some dinner using my cast iron pan I better make sure it's not on the flame too long since it will start to soften and melt. Same goes with my barbecue.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

The people that jumped were in areas above the impact point and fires they jumped BECUASE they didn't want to burn/gave up hope.
Black smoke would most likely be due to the types of material burning you know general office stuff ceiling tiles,plastics,etc

Re cast iron melting point.
Cast Iron, gray 1175 - 1290 c 2150 - 2360 f

Domestic ovens 260 c 500 f BBQ not any hotter.

First tower to collapse look at number of floors above impact point
1500 tons per floor over 40,000Tons ABOVE THE IMPACT.
The weakend steel could not support the load.

Look at the FLOORS above the impact what do you see

www.oilempire.us...

Be HONEST about what you see in this picture

I grow weary of silly arguments. A bit like the argument skit from monty python.

If you all think man really went to the moon, great. If you fall for crazy arguments like there are no stars because the sky is too bright - a sky with no atmosphere - thats fine. If you believe that landing on the moon is like parking a car (from badastronomy) that will leave no sign whatsoever of displaced dust under the lander - fine.

Its compelling for me, but I can see that the whole moon thing was quite emotional.

But to deny the little hole in the pentagon and complete lack of wreckage and damage caused by the engines, or the towers in freefall, or tower 7 falling at all, then you are really in trouble.

C'mon folks. Look at the evidence - forget the hearsay. Do not quote the OS. Look at the photos and explain. Come up with a theory that fits the observations, because the OS certainly does not.

Good night.

reply to post by hmmmbeer


Ok to many beers have a look here to photograph the moon

home.hiwaay.net...

Have a look at this look at the big dipper picture

www.luminous-landscape.com...

At 400 asa the Full Moon would be at f16 1/250th of a second

The Big dipper pic

At 400 asa f2.8 FOR 30 SECONDS between f2.8 and f16 you have f4,5.6,8,11

So for the star pic lots more light was getting in but still needed 30 seconds
so NOW do you understand!!!

IF you are SO wrong with that how wrong are you with other things
you assume.

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
If you fall for crazy arguments like there are no stars because the sky is too bright

So you can see stars outside during the day, can you? According to your claim you must be able to! - Now do you realise how silly that argument actually is?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
If you fall for crazy arguments like there are no stars because the sky is too bright

So you can see stars outside during the day, can you? According to your claim you must be able to! - Now do you realise how silly that argument actually is?

Why did you feel the need to edit the quote in order to argue with it?

If you fall for crazy arguments like there are no stars because the sky is too bright - a sky with no atmosphere - thats fine.

Here on Earth, we have an atmosphere. That makes a big difference during the day as well as in what he was saying. Unless you think he goes outside during the day on the Moon somehow?

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale
Here on Earth, we have an atmosphere. That makes a big difference during the day as well as in what he was saying.

So tell us how the atmosphere would make a difference in the different dynamic range then! Or do you think if the earth did not have a atmosphere you could photograph the stars when taking a picture like they took on the moon?

[edit on 10/2/10 by dereks]

reply to post by dereks


Thanks to Lillydale - she beat me to it.
If you stoop so low as to misquote me, and still get the argument wrong - eg you lose - you are wrong - i think you might as well stop posting.

Mods: isnt there some punishment for a deliberate edit - misquote?

Thanks

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
If you stoop so low as to misquote me, and still get the argument wrong

I never misquoted you - care to explain how the atmosphere would make a difference? No, of course you can not!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale
Here on Earth, we have an atmosphere. That makes a big difference during the day as well as in what he was saying.

So tell us how the atmosphere would make a difference in the different dynamic range then! Or do you think if the earth did not have a atmosphere you could photograph the stars when taking a picture like they took on the moon?

[edit on 10/2/10 by dereks]

That is shifting the argument and I care not to get sucked into your little circle. You have told a blatant lie on another thread so I am not going to humor you here.

You asked if he SEES stars during the day in response to your edited version of what he said. I replied to your comment about what you can and cannot SEE. If you wanted to talk about photography, you should have tried including that the first time. Seeya!

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hmmmbeer
If you stoop so low as to misquote me, and still get the argument wrong

I never misquoted you - care to explain how the atmosphere would make a difference? No, of course you can not!

Ahem

So you can see stars outside during the day, can you? According to your claim you must be able to!

The atmosphere is why you cannot see stars during the day. On the moon, with no atmosphere, you can see stars during the day. I hope that clears things up for you.

Originally posted by Lillydale
Here on Earth, we have an atmosphere. That makes a big difference during the day as well as in what he was saying.

Care to explain how it makes a big difference? The stars are still there, at night when the light level drops and your eyes adjust you can see them, so just how does the atmosphere effect you seeing them?

If there was no atmosphere on earth do you think you could see stars during the day?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Lillydale
Here on Earth, we have an atmosphere. That makes a big difference during the day as well as in what he was saying.

Care to explain how it makes a big difference? The stars are still there, at night when the light level drops and your eyes adjust you can see them, so just how does the atmosphere effect you seeing them?

Wow, are you serious? You think you cannot see the stars because your eyes need to adjust? Why would they need to adjust? Could it be because it is bright out during the day? Do you think it is bright outside just because the sun is shining? Do you really not know what the atmosphere has to do with this? Please tell me you are kidding. I thought you were in this discussion because you at least had some basic knowledge of...well anything. How wrong I was. I will give you some time to do some research and get back to me. Either argue I am wrong with some facts or tell me I am right. Or just wait - as you are doing in avoiding answering to your lie on another thread - and eventually I will just explain it to you.

If there was no atmosphere on earth do you think you could see stars during the day?

Um


yes.

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale
Care to explain how it makes a big difference?

refusal to explain noted....

as you are doing in avoiding answering to your lie on another thread

And yet another lie from you - where did I lie? i am not a "truther" making up silly conspiracy theories here...

Originally posted by dereks

refusal to explain noted....

I am offering you the chance to avoid looking stupid in having me educate you on 7th grade science about how the light from the sun interacts with our atmosphere.

Hint:

You never asked a teacher why the sky was blue did you? The sun is not blue and space is not blue.

Hint:

Really want me to lay all of this basic science out for you? Really?

And yet another lie from you - where did I lie? i am not a "truther" making up silly conspiracy theories here...

You know exactly what I am talking about as you have replied to me twice in that thread avoiding it. You offered a link and claimed it contained pictures of PASSENGER bodies as well as seats. It contains neither. That is what we call a lie. Now please go google why the sky is blue and get back to us when you have learned a little something.
nevermind, link did not work.

[edit on 2/10/10 by Lillydale]