Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Gnosis
Black Smoke = Oxygen starved fire



http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

Black smoke can mean that a rich source of fuel is being consumed. An oxygen starved fire makes no sense in the situation considering there was a gaping hole in the building.

This is not rocket science folks... google is your friend.


The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am, less than an hour after being hit by the hijacked airliner, and at 10:28 am the North Tower collapsed.

So fully engulfed skyscrapers in China, Russia, and Spain burned for 14-29 hours... Raging infernos and they mysteriously didn't collapse downward into the path of maximum resistance at free fall speeds..... only buildings on 9/11.

So strange.

Originally posted by Gnosis
Black Smoke = Oxygen starved fire



1. So there is a fire still burning? Iiiiinteresting, because that's what Ive been saying for a few pages
2. Bullshit. The Black Forest Fire was throwing off pitch black smoke, because like Baum said, it can mean a rich source is burning. In this case houses (buildings burn! Omg!) and dense trees

Originally posted by baumusc
http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

Black smoke can mean that a rich source of fuel is being consumed. An oxygen starved fire makes no sense in the situation considering there was a gaping hole in the building.

Fire is chemisty, an improper mixture of heat, oxygen, and fuel will not combust all the fuel, thus not release the full heat potential stored in the fuel. A poorly combusted fire fails to release the full caloric energy potential of the fuel. An oxygen starved fire will fail to convert the fuel to heat and CO2, instead making carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter from unburned fuel seen as black smoke in carbon based fires. In a properly combusted carbon based fuel fire we see very little smoke, as in the case of a car, a lighter, or a candle. Notice there is very little visible open flame at the oxygen rich perimeter, telling us another component of the fire triangle is also missing, most likely heat since there is supposedly plenty of office fuel within. The heavy smoke to very little visible flame ratio tells you all you need to know about these 'fires'. These fires could not create the theoretical assumed temps claimed by the official theory, and even if they did the mechanics of the collapses tell us they are being taken apart as they decend which the fires above would have no effect upon once the collapse began.

While we are on the topic of fire, I'd like your explaination of why there were molten steel in the sub levels of WTC 1 and WTC2 that burned for 6+ weeks.

Originally posted by Gnosis
This is not rocket science folks... google is your friend.


The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am, less than an hour after being hit by the hijacked airliner, and at 10:28 am the North Tower collapsed.

So fully engulfed skyscrapers in China, Russia, and Spain burned for 14-29 hours... Raging infernos and they mysteriously didn't collapse downward into the path of maximum resistance at free fall speeds..... only buildings on 9/11.

So strange.


The idiocy is that you are comparing skyscrapers on fire to skyscrapers that were hit by commercial airliners flying at 400+ MPH, heavily damaged and then left to burn. You can't compare the two. Sorry. I love how you CT'ers conveniently forget about the gaping hole the airplane's left through the entire building.

Originally posted by Gnosis
This is not rocket science folks... google is your friend.


The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am, less than an hour after being hit by the hijacked airliner, and at 10:28 am the North Tower collapsed.

So fully engulfed skyscrapers in China, Russia, and Spain burned for 14-29 hours... Raging infernos and they mysteriously didn't collapse downward into the path of maximum resistance at free fall speeds..... only buildings on 9/11.

So strange.


'9/11 is a conspiracy because a building in china was on fire and didnt collapse, also jews'

http://media.thedenverchannel.com/photo/2013/06/12/Black_Forest-Day2_1371077424055_428627_ver1.0_640_480.jpg

Fire burning a building (it happens, imagine that) exposed directly to the open air, throwing off black smoke.

What were you saying Gnosis?

Originally posted by baumusc
The idiocy is that you are comparing skyscrapers on fire to skyscrapers that were hit by commercial airliners flying at 400+ MPH, heavily damaged and then left to burn. You can't compare the two. Sorry. I love how you CT'ers conveniently forget about the gaping hole the airplane's left through the entire building.

I don't give a shit if they buildings were hit with planes...

That would not cause the fucking building to collapse into its footprint at free fall speeds.

Lighter fluid and gas in general produces little to no smoke. Smoke occurs when other things begin to burn. Such as everything in the office. Good job torpedoing your own argument, genius

Originally posted by baumusc
The idiocy is that you are comparing skyscrapers on fire to skyscrapers that were hit by commercial airliners flying at 400+ MPH, heavily damaged and then left to burn. You can't compare the two. Sorry. I love how you CT'ers conveniently forget about the gaping hole the airplane's left through the entire building.

Left to burn for less than an hour? haha

the thing to remember about the WTC is the speed at which the buildings collapsed--about 15 seconds for EACH of the twin towers and less than 10 seconds for building 7. this gives the lie to any "pancaking" theorizing or, in the case of building 7, some arcane scenario whereby a "key" beam deep within somehow brought the whole thing down like a house of cards. if the incidents are to be taken at face value--airplane hits to each of the towers and some unexplained internal fire to building 7--the weakening and collapse of these structures would have been gradual and haphazard. the video don't lie. they came down almost instantaneously. there is no "normal" explanation for that.

Originally posted by teebee
the thing to remember about the WTC is the speed at which the buildings collapsed--about 15 seconds for EACH of the twin towers and less than 10 seconds for building 7. this gives the lie to any "pancaking" theorizing or, in the case of building 7, some arcane scenario whereby a "key" beam deep within somehow brought the whole thing down like a house of cards. if the incidents are to be taken at face value--airplane hits to each of the towers and some unexplained internal fire to building 7--the weakening and collapse of these structures would have been gradual and haphazard. the video don't lie. they came down almost instantaneously. there is no "normal" explanation for that.

You do know things have weight right? When a few hundred tons of debris begins falling, it's not going to drop in stages. It's going to keep going because a few hundred tons at speed is kinda hard to stop.

Again, my recent post that CTers have difficulty grasping real-world applications of physics, maths, etc.

Originally posted by Gnosis
Left to burn for less than an hour? haha



Hey guys, have you ever left a hot iron in a fire? Then you know it takes upwards of an hour for it to heat up and that metal is a terrible conductor

Originally posted by Gnosis
Fire is chemisty, an improper mixture of heat, oxygen, and fuel will not combust all the fuel, thus not release the full heat potential stored in the fuel. A poorly combusted fire fails to release the full caloric energy potential of the fuel. An oxygen starved fire will fail to convert the fuel to heat and CO2, instead making carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter from unburned fuel seen as black smoke in carbon based fires. In a properly combusted carbon based fuel fire we see very little smoke, as in the case of a car, a lighter, or a candle. Notice there is very little visible open flame at the oxygen rich perimeter, telling us another component of the fire triangle is also missing, most likely heat since there is supposedly plenty of office fuel within. The heavy smoke to very little visible flame ratio tells you all you need to know about these 'fires'. These fires could not create the theoretical assumed temps claimed by the official theory, and even if they did the mechanics of the collapses tell us they are being taken apart as they decend which the fires above would have no effect upon once the collapse began.

C'mon Gnosis. Do you ever write anything on your own or do you just copy and paste. That looks a lot like the description of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bzmHSVBA-Y