On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 15:52:27 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
On 2018-09-18 07:56, juan wrote:
It doesnt' matter because you know, there was no "major conflagration"
jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Nuts.
On 2018-09-18 13:37, juan wrote:
yes, your pentagon fairy tale is.
The plane that flew into the pentagon was as visible as the spectacular conflagrations that destroyed the two towers.
Well, the 'spectacular conflagrations' were visibile because the fuel burnt OUTSIDE the buildings. At last you got something right. The rest of the fires were low temperature fires. Ask Peter.
It was seen going in, and small bits of it and its passengers were all over the Pentagon.
You vomited that lie in a previous message. I asked for proof. Still waiting so I ask again. Where's your evidence.
Small bits of its passengers are still embedded in the Pentagon here and there.
And you know that, how? Where's your evidence? You went there and took a look?
There was no major conflagration. There was a fire in a few floors and the black smoke indicated that they were low temperature fires.
The fire heated materials to yellow hot in daylight.
You mean that video that looks like thermite burning...?
The fire was hot enough for the glow to be clearly visible in daylight, which is the most intense fire you can get with jet fuel and ordinary combustion.
Have you ever tried to melt aluminium? (700C) Copper? (1070C)
A fire this hot is achievable, but hard to achieve, in an ordinary barbecue. Hard to achieve with wood, but if you throw kerosene, which is the same stuff as jet fuel, on the wood in the barbecue easy to achieve with wood.
Barbecues here use carbonized wood. The exact same carbonized wood that is used to melt steel in a furnace with forced air. Moral of the story? The fuel is mostly irrelevant, what matters is the oxygen supply and the way heat is lost - or kept inside a furnace. Second moral of the story? Furnaces need to be designed and operated - they are not magically created by a plane crash.