Ve'hoe

I didnt "lie",, about the 75 fire, I actually read the site you provided,,, and it says that clearly.. apparently you dont read your own shiite either, but after reading some of your crap, I completely understand that..


2. I went to the AF and Naval Safety Center schools for aircraft accident investigations early in my career,,,, your facts and "physics" are wrong about bodies during impact and subsequent fires... as well as the mechanics and physics of fuel/air explosions (which happen first) and the ensuing fires.....


3. I was also a pilot of helicopters and fixed wing aircraft,,,, there is no such thing as a homing device for a 767,,,, that is just another piece of shiite you pulled out of your colon,,, where your head and brains apparently reside...

you're just wrong dude,,,, your science is crap, your speculation worse, and your explanations defy all aircraft accident data and experience....

Personally, I thought your were just dumb,,, now, you have removed all doubt.

payne1000

(1) The article also clearly states that the fire spread from the 11th to the 17th floor and even spread downward to the 9th floor. But this is the really revealing fact from the article:
"That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C."

(2) You give no sources to back up your claims here.

(3) Again you give no sources for your claims.
Did you know that Dov Zakheim, dual Israeli/U.S. citizen, who was chief financial officer at the Pentagon during 9/11 had formerly been a top executive at Systems Planning Corporation which supplied systems for remote-controlling multiple airliners from one location?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC1zue3anto

Ve'hoe

See my "credentials" which make you look like the fool you actually are.........

"Naval and Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigation Schools"


Looks like I win again,,, but besting a fool like you is no "feat"

Ve'hoe

I already gave them to you pages and pages ago,,,,, and explained why you are not smart enough to have gotten anything out of them....as well as how you mis-understand, what you did read.

Anything else,,,,,, nimrod.

payne1000

It's so easy to lie on an internet forum. You can claim you can't show proof for security reasons.

Just like our government when asked to prove their claims about 9/11.

payne1000

That's the standard Hasbarat excuse when asked for sources.
What that tells readers is--that you have no sources.

Ve'hoe

You actually have provided unequivocable proof of your lunacy and inability to comprehend information.... because I never claimed "security" as a reason..


I claimed that you are too stupid to even understand that what you provided us, rebutted your version of the stories you tried but failed to fool people with.


You're a fake and phony,,,,, and you are the one lying here,,,, several people more educated than you (which admittedly isnt a high bar) have made that point...

You just dont know what you are talking about.... I shouldnt have to explain "your side" to you....

Ve'hoe

Its even easier,,, apparently,,, for the easily influenced and ignorant,,, to be taken advantage of,,, by charlatans, conspiracy theorists, and other fools...... take your pick of which fool you are more comfortable being,, but your confusion and misinformation, do not influence the reality and science.

You have been presented the proof,,, you just arent capable of understanding it,,,, much less recognizing where you were led astray,,,,

Not my job to fix the gaps in your education and/or intelligence.... you asked I told.... if you dont believe it, it doesnt change the facts of the matter....... you are just wrong.

payne1000

Still holding back those sources?

Admit it. You don't have them.

payne1000

To prove me wrong, explain to readers the physics of what is going on here:

Keep in mind, those particles you see being propelled outwards hundreds of feet are sections of heavy steel columns. The pyroclastic flows visible are the concrete from the floors being pulverized by powerful explosions.

payne1000

If security is not the reason you don't provide evidence of your claims about your education, what is the reason?

When your rebuttals have degenerated into nothing but insults, that's a sure sign you've lost the debate.

Ve'hoe

simple,,,, the compressive forces of the building collapse,,combined with all the aerosol-ized debris,,, denies the fire the oxygen it needs,,,, similar to the way a nitro or dynamite explosion puts out an oil well fire....

Then the IMMENSE momentum F=Mass x Velocity ,,,, of the building 'above" the crumpled infrastructure, pulverizes to powder,,, the floors, concrete, and humans below and within it,,,, as it accelerates a 9.8 meters per second,,, per second,,,, growing exponentially in mass and velocity and force with each passing second.

The kinetic impact of the downward force into the structure below, sends particals outward at the same speed,,, since the energy of the momentum is elastically transferred from one moving body to a stationary body (the remainder of the standing bldg) and force must be conserved,,,, and in your ignorant terms,,,

The pieces be going sideways at the same velocity of the pieces that be coming down,,, since the rest of the building doesnt move, it is pulverized.... and shot outward,,, just like when a bldg is blown up with a JDAM in IRAQ.......



Do you need for me to do the math for you too??

Ve'hoe

Except that isnt the case in either event,,,, I did provide it,,, you just didnt get it....

That isnt what I claimed, and I dont know what evidence of my education you need,,,(but I still wont give it to you) because this is an anonymous site,,,, you stand on (or fall on) what you know and can defend,,,, so far you have done nothing but fall...

My rebuttals,,,, still stand,,,,, my conclusion that you arent smart enough to understand even the original concepts was actually proven by YOU...... and it wasnt from your "cited" evidence,,, it was that you didnt even read and understand the evidence you actually cited...

Therefor I conclude,,, and I am not alone, that you are either nuts or just purely stupid...... more a diagnosis than an insult in your case.

PeterS

Look, everyone knows cons will discredit him for one reason or another. As with all things this is about discrediting one thing or another in an attempt to protect their wallets. What we know is that the ambient temperature of the earth is increasing each year and the earths ice is melting at an accelerating rate. It's not a question of climate change but responsibility and cons will never, ever, take responsibility for the burning of fossil fuels. So while I have every respect for the pope there is nothing anyone can do to convince cons to accept responsibility for the planet that they live on...

payne1000

Don't bother doing the math. It would be the same type unscientific made up bullshit you posted above.

Let a real physics teacher explain what was happening. He uses terms which anyone can understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc