Wednesday, November 2, 2011

‘Footage That Kills 9/11 Conspiracy Theories’ Actually Validates Them

Daily Mail in laughable hit piece that claims weakening of ‘exterior beams’ caused WTC 7 collapse

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
November 2, 2011

In perhaps one of the weakest and downright laughable 9/11 hit pieces ever published, the UK’s Daily Mail newspaper, not noted for its commitment to accuracy, presents old footage as new to make the ludicrous claim that WTC 7 collapsed due to “exterior” damage caused by fires.



The Mail article claims the video was recently released via a FOIA request and represents new footage, yet virtually identical footage has been available for years, as well as high quality photographs which depict the same scene showing World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by a plane, shortly before its collapse in the late afternoon of 9/11.

The story, written by Meghan Keneally [pictured above], claims that the “unseen” footage “kills the conspiracy theories” surrounding the collapse of WTC 7 as it shows the building being “consumed by fire”.

According to Keneally, the clip proves that “Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center.” Presumably, she means the twin towers of the World Trade Center which had already collapsed into rubble eight hours before WTC 7 imploded.

In reality, the footage shows nothing that we didn’t already know – specifically that the building was not “consumed by fire,” as has happened in the case of numerous other modern buildings which did not collapse despite being ravaged by flames at every level.

The video clip only serves to confirm the fact that the fires in WTC 7 were relatively limited and by no means had “consumed” the building. The fires were nowhere near powerful enough to threaten the structural integrity of a 47-story building.

However, this is by no means the most ludicrous aspect of the Mail hit piece. Keneally goes on to bizarrely claim that the footage proves how “the building’s exterior frame could no longer withstand the high temperatures,” and how the “buckling” of these “exterior metal beams,” “led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.”

Yes you read that correctly – Keneally is claiming that the structural integrity of modern buildings – the part that prevents them from collapsing – rests on “exterior metal beams”.

If you knew that a building was supported by its “exterior” beams you wouldn’t even dare go inside. The building would never even be approved for construction in the first place.

According to Keneally, the footage shows “how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government’s 9/11 Commission investigation,” which is a strange argument to make considering the fact that the 9/11 Commission didn’t even investigate the collapse of WTC 7.

In accusing “conspiracy theorists” of inventing “wild claims” to substantiate their explanations, Keneally has dreamt up the wildest claim yet – that the structural integrity of modern buildings rests on their exterior beams and window frames.

One wonders how such a ham-fisted and inadequate story, which comes across like it was written by a child for a school essay, can make it past the editorial board and into the pages of a major national newspaper.

As we have documented, WTC 7 was a structurally reinforced building that was designed to have floors removed without collapsing.

In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7, NIST claimed that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building, a completely ludicrous conclusion in a report that simply ignores eyewitness testimony and hard evidence that points to the deliberate demolition of the structure.

NIST completely fails to address prior knowledge of the building’s collapse, including why news outlets like the BBC and CNN reported that the building had collapsed an hour before it actually fell, as well as firefighters on the scene who are heard on video saying, “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.

If the collapse of WTC 7 came as a result of a “new phenomenon” and an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, then why did news stations and ground zero workers know it was about to happen a hour or more in advance?

NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.

We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.

The issue of molten metal, which was discovered under both the twin towers and WTC 7, suggesting an extremely hot burning agent was used in the demolition process, is completely ignored in NIST’s report, despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel… The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified

Speaking during a press conference that was called to counter NIST, Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and a member of the American Institute of Architects, dismissed the report.

“Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

The core of NIST’s explanation, that an “extraordinary event” called “thermal expansion” was to blame for the sudden total collapse of the building is of course on the face of it a fraud when one considers the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors and remained standing, whereas WTC 7 suffered limited fire damage across less than a quarter of its total floor space.

NIST also claims that the building only fell at 40% free fall speed, as if this isn’t suspicious in itself. Remember that this 47-story behemoth took just 7 seconds to completely collapse within its own footprint falling through the path of most resistance.

45 comments:

rob said...

wel larry, at least this retard has enough guts to put out her real name unlike that last dick in mouth queenie fraud name left fucktard.

the_last_name_left said...

Did you notice the smoke pouring out of the East side of WTC7?

You know, the smoke you claimed was coming from different buildings.....? lol

Anonymous said...

larry is he talking about the smoke coming out of the more damaged bankers trust building that still stands.. lol..lol..lmfao. this guy has proved you right again.

the_last_name_left said...

to anon - here's some quotes from comments in the last few entries here:

"at least this retard has enough guts to put out her real name unlike"

"coming from a prick that wont give his real name ...so he doesnt have to take responsibility for his actions"

-------

You think anyone believes these aren't your comments, Larry?

You think these comments add anything?

Larry said...

"Did you notice the smoke pouring out of the East side of WTC7?"

That footage isn't the same side of the building in which I claimed that smoke was coming from WTC 5. It's a different angle. Besides, the smok in the clip I posted is very BLACK smoke meaning the fires aren't as hot. Whiter smoke means a more hotter fire.

What you don't want to admit is that writers of the final NIST report in 2008 contradict each other. In fact, one writer, Richard Gann, even contradicts HIMSELF in the report. The NIST report lies about Barry Jennings' testimony and the other guy that was with Jennings in WTC7 the morning of 9-11, Michael Hess, gave an interview with a local NY tv station immediately after being rescued from WTC7 and told them ON 9-11 that he heard explosions in WTC7 around 9:15am-----BEFORE any of the twin towers collapsed [hence the explosions could NOT have come from the debris of the towers] and he never gave another on camera interview until late 2008 and he CHANGED HIS STORY and said in a BBC documentary that he didn't hear explosions.

Convenient timing for Hess to change his story and say he didnt hear explosions------it happened to be AFTER Barry Jennings died in August of that same year, 2008.

Hess also happens to be a very good friend of Rudy Giuliani.

Hmmmmmmm.

Larry said...

The NIST report states that Jennings and Hess were not rescued by firefighters until 12 noon---12:15. The big problem is, that's impossible---since Hess gave his on camera interview at 11:57 shortly after being rescued. And he had to walk several blocks away from WTC7 to reach the tv crew.

Tell me something shithead-----how can one give an on camera interview at 11:57am----when you won't be rescued for another 3-18 minutes AFTER the interview begins????

I would LOVE an answer to that.

But as I have stated many times before...you have NO PROBLEM with contradictions such as these. You believe the NIST report hook, line and skinker, despite MAJOR discrepencies [as the one I listed above]....so I was right when I said it takes more faith on YOUR part to believe what you do than it does for me!

Larry said...

"You think anyone believes these aren't your comments, Larry?"

As I have ALREADY ADDRESSED THIS comment many times before [but oddly you KEEP saying it], I have NO PROBLEM making my comments known. I always go by "Larry" or logged in under RTO. Why would I feel the need [like you do on your own site as to WHO YOU EVEN ARE] to HIDE my identity to make a comment?

Plus, AS I HAVE STATED ALREADY as well, I have sitemeter, which allows you to see the SOURCE of the comment and what IP address it comes from. But we all know you do NO RESEARCH on ANY topic you talk about, why would you start with this?

Also, good job IGNORING my comments about WTC7....I figured you'd ignore them. They're irrefutable.

Larry said...

Here is "there were explosions" Michael Hess

http://www.youtube.com
/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64

and here's "there were NO explosions" Michael Hess

http://www.youtube.com
/watch?NR=1&v=hy5lpp6yADw

the_last_name_left said...

---
L: It's a different angle.
======

Yes, the viewpoint is different.

same event though.

Get the point?

--
L: BLACK smoke meaning the fires aren't as hot.
===

No. Black smoke does not mean that at all.

Read this from fire engineering.com


THE ART OF READING SMOKE

BY DAVID W. DODSON


One of the “basics” gaining headway is the ability to “read smoke” to help predict fire behavior within a structure. The ability to read smoke has been around for many decades-the fire officers handling America’s fire epidemic in the 1970s became quite proficient at the skill. Unfortunately, these sound tacticians felt that the ability to read smoke was based on experience and intuitiveness and couldn’t necessarily be taught except for repeated practice at actual fires. Further, the skills these fire officers developed in reading smoke don’t readily apply to today’s fire. Low-mass synthetics and the consumer trend toward “big box” purchasing have led to a more volatile fire environment. To make matters worse, we are responding to fewer fires: Experience is arguably diminished as teacher. To get back to the basics, we need to teach fire officers how to rapidly interpret smoke issuing from a building so that appropriate tactical choices can be made. For example, the first-due officer who can rapidly read smoke can make better decisions about aggressive fire attack or search and rescue priorities. Although far from complete, this article will capture the essence of reading smoke and offer some tried and tested interpretations to help fire officers make better rapid decisions on the fireground.
------------------

Black Fire
“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F! Treat black fire just as actual flames-vent and cool.
Wind, thermal balance, fire streams, ventilation openings, and sprinkler systems change the appearance of smoke. Analyze all smoke observations in proportion to the building. For example, smoke that is low-volume, slow-velocity, very thin, and light-colored may indicate a small fire, but only if the building or box is small. This same observation from several openings of a big-box store or large warehouse can indicate a large, dangerous fire.
=========================
END QUOTE

You assert there was black smoke.

But you also assert black smoke means a cool fire.

And you draw your conclusions.




But black smoke does not mean a cool fire.

Indeed, the article says black smoke can indicate fires of 1000F.

At temps of 1000F steel loses almost half of its strength.

So......you are asserting there was black smoke.......and black smoke can mean temps of 1000F.....and steel can lose almost half its strength at 1000F.

And WTC burned from 10am until 5.

7 hours.

So, 7 hours burning, with some fires at maybe 1000F......

and you think it was "impossible" that it could collapse.

Because "black smoke is evidence of a cool fire".

Sure.


Here's the article from FIREENGINEERING.COM

And if they're so wrong about the facts of the matter - TELL THEM>??>???????

See how they respond?

the_last_name_left said...

Come on - let's see you email them with your "black smoke = cool fire" bullshit?

Ask them to respond - tell them you're going to publish what they say - because you're so committed to "the truth".

I'm looking forward to you emailing them and publishing the response.

Come on - let's see you email them with your "black smoke = cool fire" bullshit?

Ask them to respond - tell them you're going to publish what they say - because you're so committed to "the truth".

the_last_name_left said...

Tell fire engineers they are talking shit - and you know better.

I look forward to seeing the entire email exchange given in full - so you can "expose" their bullshit.

You have their lies and their email address.

Let's see you write to them and expose their lies.

the_last_name_left said...

"The moderator believes in free speech, however, comments .... may be deleted. "
=======

haha

high horse indeed.

Anonymous said...

well larry hes wrote so much but has not refuted nor debunked anything. once again larry youve proven the last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left a fraud again. black smoke my ass. differt view your an ass. lol.

Larry said...

Isn't it funny how I talked about about black SMOKE, then you completely DIVERT from the issue and post something about black FIRE. FIRE is NOT smoke--and smoke is NOT fire. Get it??

In fact, in the definition to black fire, you said this:

"Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover."

Notice how the definition says "black fire is a good phrase to describe smoke that is....." It DOESNT say "black fire is a good phrase to describe BLACK SMOKE that is..."

In other words, the definition to "black fire" is not mentioning what the COLOR of the SMOKE is...it is simply the name given to the FIRE----NOT the SMOKE [kinda like when they call voice recorders on airplanes BLACK boxes but they're actually ORANGE]. But obviously you missed that, or thought I was too stupid to catch your deception. Fucktard.

This I love:

You said:

"And WTC burned from 10am until 5.

7 hours.

So, 7 hours burning, with some fires at maybe 1000F......

and you think it was "impossible" that it could collapse."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Even the NIST report disagrees with you. There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that NONE of the fires burned the entire 7 hours. Even NIST's report gives NO EVIDENCE that all the fires burned more than 3 1/2 hours. That's FACT. Even if they DID burn 7 hours-------so???? Even buildings that have burned 10, 17 and 24 hours straight in recent years DID NOT collapse. But the FACT remains, that in the NIST report, there is NO EVIDENCE at ALL that ANY of the fires burned longer than 3 1/2 hours. I would shut up about this topic if I were you, the FACTS are on my side even using the OFFICIAL NIST report, the report that you accept as the truth.

It's not that I believe the NIST report. I think it's false. BUT what I'm saying is that in trying to PROVE WTC7 burned for 7 hours [like you believe] it actually provides NO EVIDENCE any fires burned longer than half that time. In other words, it CLAIMS [like you do] that fires burned 7 hours, but what it actually PROVES is burning times that were HALF that time.

I LOVE how you COMPLETELY IGNORED the Barry Jennings, Michael Hess issue. And why is that? We all know why, you fucking fraud.

Real Truth Online said...

I knew he'd ignore me. What a twit.

the_last_name_left said...

ah - deleting comments eh?

Mr anti-censorship doesn't like being proven WRONG WRONG WRONG.

lol SHOCK!!!

the_last_name_left said...

Your millions of readers might like a look at this:

http://the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com/2011/11/worlds-leading-expert-on-911-larry.html

Anonymous said...

last cock in mouth.. quit copy and pasting it makes you look ignorant..you accuse larry of censorship please.. thats the pot calling the kettle black,, and his viewers of larrys blog...please, he has more hits here in a day than you have in 6 months..lol..lol..lmmfao. your pathetic. go to socrates blog and empress him.

the_last_name_left said...

L: BLACK smoke meaning the fires aren't as hot.
----
FireEngineering.com: "the more black the smoke, the hotter the smoke."
=====

So, who to believe, I wonder?

Larry the world's leading fire expert, or Fire-Engineering.com ........hmmm.....tough choice.

Larry said...

Notice your quote says "The blacker the smoke, the hotter the SMOKE".

Our argument is about the FIRE temp, not SMOKE temp.

DILHOLE.

the_last_name_left said...

Fires generate the smoke.

Duh!

Look, you were wrong.....just admit it?

One of your arguments about the whole thing is WRONG. Admit it?

Why can't you just admit you were wrong? It's no big deal to be wrong about something. However, it is a big deal - and a serious fault - to be wrong but fail to admit it.

But even more than admitting it - it's seriously wrong to fail to recognise the import of one's errors: if one was wrong about a foundational argument to one's beliefs.....then one needs reassess one's beliefs which were based on what one was wrong about.

Otherwise, it's self-delusion to believe one bases one's view on the facts.

Anonymous said...

see larry this guys a jackass. fires dont produce smoke, smoldering fires produce smoke. that means fires that are about to go out. the blacker the smoke the weaker the fire. period. end of discussion. last fraud left defeated and refuted yet again. by the way, quit copying and pasteing . it makes you look like a fraud. admit it your an idiot.

the_last_name_left said...

anon: "fires dont produce smoke"
==========

Sure. And water's not wet.

Why don't you go tell the FireServide and FireEngineering.com - they might be interested to hear they've being doing it wrong all this time.

Thanks for posting though Larry....errrr....I mean "Anon".

Funniest thing I've seen in ages.

Anonymous said...

oh i forgot your a firefighter. not.. lmmmfao. ... soon your gonna tell us your smart...lol..lol..do you have a lighter asshole? just ignite it. nope no smoke just flame.. your a joke...you see smoke isnt hot and it doesnt burn.. fire does. still proving larry right again. youve debunked nothing nor refuted anything as usual. get over yourself. and of course you being the leading fire expert in welsh . wow. meaning nothing..lol..lol. pretty soon your going to tell us that your grand dad didnt fight boredom in ww2..lol.larry has won again.

the_last_name_left said...

anon - you're an idiot.

Read this (if you can read)

FireEngineering.com: "the more black the smoke, the hotter the smoke."

“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F! Treat black fire just as actual flames

Anonymous said...

as usual you divert again. smoke is not hot. fire is. again flick a bic lighter. no smoke just flame. black smoke means the fire is smoldering and going out. ask your local firemen. duh. stop copying and pasting, it makes you look incompetent. oh sorry you make yourself look like that. lol.. lmmfao. now please just refute just one thing here.

Larry said...

Anon---don't you love how this moron keeps interchanging the terms "black smoke" and "black fire"? WHICH IS IT??

And I have to agree with anon----smoke is not hot. If smoke was hot, NO fireman would be able to go in ANY building to put out ANY fire. That's why they wear masks, so they breathe in the smoke. If the smoke was 1000 degrees, they wouldn't even be able to go IN the damned building!!! They would all have to wear heat resistant suits that covered their entire body! How would they be able to do the job with all this heat resistant gear on??

Why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess DIE in the smoke they was in, if smoke temps can reach 1000 degrees??? How did they survive???

And most importantly----why did the WTC "jumpers" have the option to jump from the building if the smoke alone was able to kill them? We have all heard that the reason they jumped was because they were trying to escape the smoke pouring out [after all, they were not many large fires in both WTC towers].

So, if smoke can reach 1000 degress, why didnt these jumpers already die from the intense heat of the smoke? If they had died from the intense heat of the smoke, they wouldn't have had the option to jump. They would have already been dead!

CORRECT?

I can't wait to see how the last shitbrain left diverts from this one!

[side note: I love how TLNL keeps deleting my messages on his blog and he claims the reason he does so is because of my language and vitriol---lol. Yet, he CONTINUES coming to my site, where, on my OWN blog, I can say what I please. I can cuss him out all day long here and yet HE KEEPS COMING BACK, indicating that my language and "vitriol" are not issues with him at all, because he has the OPTION of not even coming to my blog---whereas he DOES have the option to delete me on his own blog---and he gives my language as the reason---yet he keeps coming back HERE to my blog, making it clear and established FACT that my language is NOT the issue.]

the_last_name_left said...

Wow - those are the most idiotic posts you've ever made.

You've just proven how utterly pointless it is speaking to you. Crazy. Absolutely bat-shit crazy.

Bye.

Larry said...

Crazy???? Uhhhhh, wasn't it YOU that said black smoke can reach as high as 1,000 degrees?????

YES, I believe you DID!

Here are your EXACT WORDS:

"“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F! Treat black fire just as actual flames"

You said black fire can reach as high as 1,000 degrees and you defined black fire as SMOKE.

So, I will re-ask the questions:

"If smoke was hot, NO fireman would be able to go in ANY building to put out ANY fire. That's why they wear masks, so they breathe in the smoke. If the smoke was 1000 degrees, they wouldn't even be able to go IN the damned building!!! They would all have to wear heat resistant suits that covered their entire body! How would they be able to do the job with all this heat resistant gear on??

Why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess DIE in the smoke they was in, if smoke temps can reach 1000 degrees??? How did they survive???

And most importantly----why did the WTC "jumpers" have the option to jump from the building if the smoke alone was able to kill them? We have all heard that the reason they jumped was because they were trying to escape the smoke pouring out [after all, they were not many large fires in both WTC towers].

So, if smoke can reach 1000 degress, why didnt these jumpers already die from the intense heat of the smoke? If they had died from the intense heat of the smoke, they wouldn't have had the option to jump. They would have already been dead!"

So, can I get ANSWERS this time???

Larry said...

Why is it CRAZY to ask that if SMOKE can reach 1,000 degrees [as YOU have stated] then why don't people DIE when exposed to smoke even with MASKS on? Why don't they die INSTANTLY? Why do firefighters go inside buildings when they know the 1,000 degree smoke will kill them instantly???

All LOGICAL questions that you, the stupid shithead, calls "crazy".

the_last_name_left said...

FireEngineering.com said it.

Go ask them? Tell them they have it all wrong? Tell them to try a Bic lighter as proof?

See if they reply?

Larry said...

Hey assface----this is why you always claim I'm "spamming"...you NEVER FUCKING ADDRESS QUESTIONS!

THIRD TIME NOW---answer these questions:

"If smoke was hot, NO fireman would be able to go in ANY building to put out ANY fire. That's why they wear masks, so they breathe in the smoke. If the smoke was 1000 degrees, they wouldn't even be able to go IN the damned building!!! They would all have to wear heat resistant suits that covered their entire body! How would they be able to do the job with all this heat resistant gear on??

Why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess DIE in the smoke they was in, if smoke temps can reach 1000 degrees??? How did they survive???

And most importantly----why did the WTC "jumpers" have the option to jump from the building if the smoke alone was able to kill them? We have all heard that the reason they jumped was because they were trying to escape the smoke pouring out [after all, they were not many large fires in both WTC towers].

So, if smoke can reach 1000 degress, why didnt these jumpers already die from the intense heat of the smoke? If they had died from the intense heat of the smoke, they wouldn't have had the option to jump. They would have already been dead!"

So, can I get ANSWERS this time???"

"Why is it CRAZY to ask that if SMOKE can reach 1,000 degrees [as YOU have stated] then why don't people DIE when exposed to smoke even with MASKS on? Why don't they die INSTANTLY? Why do firefighters go inside buildings when they know the 1,000 degree smoke will kill them instantly???"

Going to ignore them a THIRD time???

Larry said...

FACT: TLNL said "black fire" is smoke

FACT: TLNL said smoke can reach up to 1,000 degrees

FACT: TLNL IGNORES me every single time when I ask:

1. Why doesn't smoke kill people on contact then?

2. Why doesn't it kill firefighters?

3. Why do firefighters walk through smoke with masks on if the intense 1,000 degree heat of the SMOKE would kill them instantly???

4. Why didn't people inside both WTC towers die when the smoke touched them on contact??

5. How could the WTC jumpers have opted to jump if the 1,000 degree temp of smoke would have ALREADY killed them??

the_last_name_left said...

Write to FireEngineering.com and ask them, not me?

Why not? Just copy/paste your post and send it to them?

You probably don't need telling that they're likely not going to respond to being called "assface" and such like. (And so why do you think I should?)

Larry said...

NO,fuckstick....YOU quoted them, you fucking little cowardly asshole.

That's who you are! You're this little cowardly faggoty asshole who not only hides behind the computer and is too chicken shit to give his ACTUAL name, but when you think you have a good source for information, you copy and paste it to "DISPROVE" others, and when they fire back and nail your cowardly ass to the wall, you cry "boo hoo" and then hide behind the source of your info and say "ask them".

YOU endorsed the sources you gave asshole, so YOU defend them and stop being a fucking coward by saying "ask them". You cowardly fucking faggot.

Now, I will ask for the FOURTH TIME NOW my questions that you REFUSE to answer. YOU copied and pasted the source you gave, YOU endorsed it, now YOU defend it and give me fucking answers asshole!

"If smoke was hot, NO fireman would be able to go in ANY building to put out ANY fire. That's why they wear masks, so they breathe in the smoke. If the smoke was 1000 degrees, they wouldn't even be able to go IN the damned building!!! They would all have to wear heat resistant suits that covered their entire body! How would they be able to do the job with all this heat resistant gear on??

Why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess DIE in the smoke they was in, if smoke temps can reach 1000 degrees??? How did they survive???

And most importantly----why did the WTC "jumpers" have the option to jump from the building if the smoke alone was able to kill them? We have all heard that the reason they jumped was because they were trying to escape the smoke pouring out [after all, they were not many large fires in both WTC towers].

So, if smoke can reach 1000 degress, why didnt these jumpers already die from the intense heat of the smoke? If they had died from the intense heat of the smoke, they wouldn't have had the option to jump. They would have already been dead!"

So, can I get ANSWERS this time???"

"Why is it CRAZY to ask that if SMOKE can reach 1,000 degrees [as YOU have stated] then why don't people DIE when exposed to smoke even with MASKS on? Why don't they die INSTANTLY? Why do firefighters go inside buildings when they know the 1,000 degree smoke will kill them instantly???"

FACT: TLNL said "black fire" is smoke

FACT: TLNL said smoke can reach up to 1,000 degrees

FACT: TLNL IGNORES me every single time when I ask:

1. Why doesn't smoke kill people on contact then?

2. Why doesn't it kill firefighters?

3. Why do firefighters walk through smoke with masks on if the intense 1,000 degree heat of the SMOKE would kill them instantly???

4. Why didn't people inside both WTC towers die when the smoke touched them on contact??

5. How could the WTC jumpers have opted to jump if the 1,000 degree temp of smoke would have ALREADY killed them??

-----------------

DESTROYED AGAIN by a "nutty" truther!!!

the_last_name_left said...

Ask FireEngineering.com

See what they say?

Anonymous said...

see larry hes just copying and pasting his bullshit. but while hes arguing his point he proves you right. he does not know the difference between smoke and fire. his post keep making himself look like a jackass. .. here goes fire is hot and burns not smoke. if smoke burnt no one would smoke a cigarette. period. again you jackass open your lighter and spark it up.....see no smoke just fire... smoke is not hot.. fire is.... the clearer the flame equals the smoke. black smoke means the FIRE is going out. period. if smoke was hot no one would bbq you asswipe.. no one ever said put the meat on the smoke pit .lmmfao.. lcimqfnl. youve been embarrassed and destroyed again admit it. by the way quit diverting and try to give some kind of fight.

the_last_name_left said...

It just gets better. lol.

This page is so funny - and such a discredit to you, L. Crazy.

Larry said...

"This page is so funny - and such a discredit to you, L. Crazy."

Refusing to respond to/answer something you deem "crazy" is the craziest of all crazy.

Calling a question "crazy" is NOT a refutation of the point you are trying to refute---of course, you know this, don't you? It's the only recourse you have here, because you do not control MY blog. If this was your blog, you'd delete my comments, and when I re-posted them, you'd call it spamming. The old Andy Ostroy tactic.

It's so fun watching assholes like you say something ridiculous, and then when I ask questions based on YOUR OWN WORDS OR WORDS YOU SUPPORT from others, then you go into meltdown and rattle off the ad hominem attacks and using words like "crazy". Quite funny.

If you REFUSE to answer questions you deem "crazy", what does that make you??? SANE?? It should be QUITE EASY to ANSWER A QUESTION you thought was "crazy". Asking you to BELIEVE something crazy is one thing....but you REFUSE to answer questions! And why is that?

We all know why, don't we??

the_last_name_left said...

haha - I'm going into meltdown? lol. sure. Read the thread again?

go and ask your questions to FireEngineering.com

why won't you do it?

Larry said...

"go and ask your questions to FireEngineering.com

why won't you do it?"

No, I'm asking YOU dipshit, because YOU are the one who supports their bullshit that smoke can reach 1000 degrees! If YOU support it ad YOU post from their site, the question is YOURS to answer----NOT theirs. After all, THEY did not come and post at my blog----YOU did assmunch, so I ask YOU the question.

We both know that the hot potato game you're playing is the direct result of you being DESTROYED by my tough questions that you refuse to answer. Oh, I'm wrong?? You disagree??? ANSWER my questions then!

FIFTH TIME now:

"If smoke was hot, NO fireman would be able to go in ANY building to put out ANY fire. That's why they wear masks, so they breathe in the smoke. If the smoke was 1000 degrees, they wouldn't even be able to go IN the damned building!!! They would all have to wear heat resistant suits that covered their entire body! How would they be able to do the job with all this heat resistant gear on??

Why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess DIE in the smoke they was in, if smoke temps can reach 1000 degrees??? How did they survive???

And most importantly----why did the WTC "jumpers" have the option to jump from the building if the smoke alone was able to kill them? We have all heard that the reason they jumped was because they were trying to escape the smoke pouring out [after all, they were not many large fires in both WTC towers].

So, if smoke can reach 1000 degress, why didnt these jumpers already die from the intense heat of the smoke? If they had died from the intense heat of the smoke, they wouldn't have had the option to jump. They would have already been dead!"

So, can I get ANSWERS this time???"

"Why is it CRAZY to ask that if SMOKE can reach 1,000 degrees [as YOU have stated] then why don't people DIE when exposed to smoke even with MASKS on? Why don't they die INSTANTLY? Why do firefighters go inside buildings when they know the 1,000 degree smoke will kill them instantly???"

FACT: TLNL said "black fire" is smoke

FACT: TLNL said smoke can reach up to 1,000 degrees

FACT: TLNL IGNORES me every single time when I ask:

1. Why doesn't smoke kill people on contact then?

2. Why doesn't it kill firefighters?

3. Why do firefighters walk through smoke with masks on if the intense 1,000 degree heat of the SMOKE would kill them instantly???

4. Why didn't people inside both WTC towers die when the smoke touched them on contact??

5. How could the WTC jumpers have opted to jump if the 1,000 degree temp of smoke would have ALREADY killed them??

Anonymous said...

larry, hes embarrassed himself again. he keeps copying and pasting and referring to some fire site that ive read that backs you up instead of himself. hes a fn idiot. why do you keep asking him questions larry hell only ignore them or divert to something else just to get away from the truth. hes hilarious. even socrates is embarrassed of him. a total failure.

Anonymous said...

see larry hes bullshit. hell never answer your questions. hes mad as a hornet now because he doesnt run the site so he can ignore and delete the truth. he knows you own him and his blog. just what i thought a fn joke. you schooled him again....lmmfao...lol..lol..

rob said...

another fraud exposed. larry you won again.

Anonymous said...

larry, he hasnt answered yet. i bet hell never come back here again. hes a fraud.