Public service message from FEMA, NIST, 911 Commission.

I never claimed it would to you unless you have something to discuss other than whining about picture quality fine otherwise I see not reason to go further with this.

 

Immediate explosions of HE, the tail falling off, fire breaking out instantaneously. I do not see that here. I see a plane ripping apart the joints of the perimeter columns and folding them and the aluminum cladding over the wings and shoving it back into the building. I can see the engiones start to separate from the wings, but being carried on inside by their momentum. The tail does seem to bend a bit to the left as it enters the impact point.

I see a mist of fuel expressed from the wing tanks.

What am I supposed to see that I missed?

 

hahaha

never seen a plane go in have you lmao

you dont see mist of fuel in the real world, you see gobs of fire! damn you just make this (*)(*)(*)(*) up as fast as you can type.



no mist instant flames! LMAO

 

The MiG did not have a reat deal of fuel in the wing tanks. The wings did not penetrate the ground. The metal was hot and the was plenty of air to areate the fuel mist. There is some pause between impact and flame.

 

no mist remember, amount is irrelevant, yeh when metal crumbles it gets warm.

thre is no pause its behind the plane look again

 

They also used a different formulation of jet fuel in 2001 than in the 1980s. It was formulated to ignite at a higher temperature and only when well areated.

 

so they were lucky it lit at all right! LMAO

 

No. I am just saying that it takes more to ignite modern JP5 than it does whatever that MiG was burning.

BTW, the flames coming out the back end of the MiG are from the destruction of its engine. It swallowed a bird.

 

so you are making the claim that it takes more heat to light jp5 than it takes to light the mig fuel and you have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what kind of fuel the mig was burning.

its what people out here have come to expect from troughers you know.

bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

When did they introduce the new formula of fuel?

Come in here armed with facts, not incredulity.

 

You know I hate pulling the liar card but but you admitted you did not know and no amount of back pedaling can save you now.

 

Kind of hard sorting out some of the subtleties of how fuel is formulated these days since I am no longer employed as an airfield fire fighter. I do know, however, that there is a difference between military and civilian jet fuel.

There is also a diffence between the placement of fuel tanks in a MiG and a Boeing.

No two fires are likely to start in the same manner because there are just too many variables. I have seen an F-4 with its wings torn off asnd engines mashed without catching fire, and I have seen them blow their engines while sitting on the taxi way and go up in flames.

Fire just is not that predictable. That is why we had to sit there and watch the planes take off and land and why we had to have a roving patrol on the flightline anytime a mechanic was out there with his tool box.

 

I have now lit 20 matched and the fire started in the same identical way.

 

made par.

 

Pictures or it didn't happen. To verify that, we will need extreme closeups, in super-slow motion like the bullet strike videos. No two matchheads are at all likely to be the exact same shape.

 

dont you just hate being put in a corner you cant get out of? Not my fault you picked the wrong side of the argument.

 

You put yoursef in the corner. Matches are not made to such close tolerances that the flame will progress uniformly from one to the next. I have seen more than one match that lit only on one side.

 

another strawman

 

Your arguments are less substantial than straw. You are still stuck with four imprints of exactly the right size and shape of aircraft in four different sites and four buildings that collapsed in a way that did not really puzzle anyone who understands the performance of buildings in a fire.

It is only a mysterty to those who know sod all about construction.

 

thats why truthers put up data and troughers shuck and jive braggin about their qualifications while producing NOTHING concrete, no validation, zippo nada.

Its why everything put to the public is a bold faced lie.

 

If you have a theory, present it, and provide some evidence, or expect everyone to think you are talking through your trousers.

 

yeh the gubbermint failed to prove their tinfoil conspiracy theory, and plenty of people have put up plenty of data.

try looking at it and taking the time to understand it sometime

 

I have seen no data that make any sense that purport to disprove the accepted narrative.

Most of the "proofs" I have seen offered are offered by people who lack the qualifications to adress te particular topics they do.

I will not take instructions from a convicted felon, or a Nazi, or an intelligence officer who has long since lost his marbles or even an attorney on what a fire scene should look like.

I will not let two smart-ass theologians tell me that witness statements prove demolition charges when they clearly tell me that nothing occurred that should not occur in a fire of that size.

You have brought nothing, again, as usual.

 

yes I see what you mean.

at least you admit you are not qualified to make recognize and make bonafide in this discussion.

 

I am a trained arson investigator and military fire fighter with air field experience.
Griffin and that idiot Canadian Budhist theologian MacQueen can kiss my ass. I have the credentials, they do not.

Do you get where I am going with this?

None of the fire fighters that those drooling nutters cite to support their idiot theory of "bombs" have come out to agree with him.

A friend who knows Deshore has stated that she is totally pissed off at both of the drongos.