T1B

dead center

dead center... isn't a district

So..you don't play guitar? Can you right now write a sonnet on a given topic? Why are you asking questions? Start with some answers.

Dead center ???


VN and Geary ???

... or Franklin and Geary/ California/ Pine ???


Where are you... nicky ?

Why, are you in town? What's you take on larry Silverstein flat out admitting his (highly insured) WTC7 was 'pulled"?

C'mon..

So... nicky isn't from San Francisco ???


Too funny.

No, I'm in town..where are you?

I laughed.

So..you're a total fake. Why post?

I'm not the one that doesn't know the neighborhoods in San Francisco...


Too funny.



You're a troll.




The Streets of San Francisco...

I laughed.


Porky is so FAT... he lives precariously through...



the truth



Too funny.



This isn't Bacon, GA.,...


We hate FAT people... sorry, Porky

Urban Surfing in San Francisco...








It's good being m2

Moving Sale wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Dins, thanks...I guess.

I know you clarified your point, but you didn't understand the reference I made. It was that sprinklers were/would be ineffective, so LTS talking about water was pointless.s

But they would not be ineffective for the reason you stated. As dims has pointed out, the fire triangle on the front cover of your fire101 book should have told you that. Do you have a scientifically valid reason why water (vapor) from sprinklers would not put out the fire?

Yes, as I have already pointed out. Can you read?

If your snakelike body is physically capable of reposting it I would love to read it, because there is no such science in this thread stickboy.
Btw- Do you have like a little brace or something that holds your big fat empty head from wobbling around?

Buttsy isn't fat.

Moving Sale wrote:If your snakelike body is physically capable of reposting it I would love to read it, because there is no such science in this thread stickboy.
Btw- Do you have like a little brace or something that holds your big fat empty head from wobbling around?

Just because you're too fucking lazy to search, here was the portion that twisted Dinsdale's knickers.

"The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature – up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked."

The point being, that water vaporizes when it reaches over 212 F. (100 C) As the temperatures in the Towers far exceeded this, the sprinkler systems were, again, useless.

Now hopefully your water logged, hydrocephalic pin-head can absorb this information and you can run along and suck your thumb, stubby.

Papa Willie wrote:

molly wrote:Buttsy isn't fat.

I love Molly.

I love you forever!

molly wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:

molly wrote:Buttsy isn't fat.

I love Molly.

I love you forever!

C'mon, Molly. You know better.

Don't feed the animals! Especially BS. He'll be sniffing your bike seat if you keep it up...

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
The point being, that water vaporizes when it reaches over 212 F. (100 C) As the temperatures in the Towers far exceeded this, the sprinkler systems were, again, useless.

Please stop. You're making a complete fool of yourself.

MS and I are both being reminded that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think.

I'll try typing s-l-o-w-l-y... Liquid water doesn't put out structural fires. Water VAPOR puts out structural fires...

And..who the fuck is this twat clogging up the joint?

matteric wrote:I'm not the one that doesn't know the neighborhoods in San Francisco...


Too funny.



You're a troll.




The Streets of San Francisco...

No, I'm me, right here in the City.

Dinsdale wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
The point being, that water vaporizes when it reaches over 212 F. (100 C) As the temperatures in the Towers far exceeded this, the sprinkler systems were, again, useless.

Please stop. You're making a complete fool of yourself.

MS and I are both being reminded that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think.

I'll try typing s-l-o-w-l-y... Liquid water doesn't put out structural fires. Water VAPOR puts out structural fires...

What structural fire? What exactly are you suggesting was on fire? the steel beams? The dry-wall? The carpets and desks?

And since the smoke was black, this means an oxygen-starved low-heat fire. So...where do you come up with this steel-melting blaze?

As anyone can see from the massive fireball upon impact, most of the remaining jet fuel was consumed immediately. So...as in WTC7, what are you claiming that created such a tremendous and unrelenting 2000-degree "fire"?

And moreover, as we wonder how an airliner could be slicing through a steel-framed concrete-reinforced building like a knife through butter, let's consider this ..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Dl5jIdtdk

And notice how the plane--which should have pulverized--instead comes immediately right out the other side--as though it just passed through. Well, this is obvious bullshit. What really happened?

LT2,

You don't need to be a citizen to serve the U.S. government. Or in the armed services, etc.

Stick to things you know, and remember, the smartest thing anyone can say in a discussion such as this is, "I don't know".

Dinsdale wrote:Please stop. You're making a complete fool of yourself.

MS and I are both being reminded that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think.

I'll try typing s-l-o-w-l-y... Liquid water doesn't put out structural fires. Water VAPOR puts out structural fires...

When did I say that liquid water puts out structural fires? I was reiterating the conditions reported about the systems (or lack thereof) in place in the Towers. Some of the information reference, especially the part about the sprinklers, was reported here: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ by Steven Ashley, published in Scientific American. You want to bitch about this, talk to him.

Fucking Christ Dins, get your facts straight before you start flipping out.

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:LT2,

You don't need to be a citizen to serve the U.S. government. Or in the armed services, etc.

Stick to things you know, and remember, the smartest thing anyone can say in a discussion such as this is, "I don't know".

Well of course, you dial tone, it's call responsible agnosticism. And in this case we cannot in fact attribute blame or motive--but only that the official story of 9/11 does not stand up to basic scrutiny on any level. And that goes for you too. You can't offer anything to support any part of it...but you're still feeling the need to say something--even if it's just a meaningless bratty snipe. What the fuck's wrong with you?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Fucking Christ Dins, get your facts straight before you start flipping out.

Oh, they are, and they're irrefutable.

The little bit I read of your link (which LTS would be well-served to read in its entirety), the "useless" comment about the fire suppression system was hyperbole... and a panel of structural engineers knows full well it was.

Again, not refuting your overall point (which is reasonably accurate and sound), just the ignorance of stating the sprinkler system is "useless" because it's vapor.

Again -- Basic. Fucking. Science. Not even an arguable point, not up for debate.

Was the sprinkler system adequate to suppress a 40,000+ gallon kerosene fire? Obviously not (proof is in the pudding). There isn't a sprinkler system in a building out there that can take a leg off the triangle with 40,000 gallons of kerosene burning... but any reasonable system will sure the fuck slow it down, assuming the system piping is still intact (big assumption). Without suppression, the buildings would have likely failed earlier.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:

What the fuck's wrong with you?

That's a whole 'nother thread, which will eclipse this one in size and scope.

Dinsdale wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Fucking Christ Dins, get your facts straight before you start flipping out.

Oh, they are, and they're irrefutable.

The little bit I read of your link (which LTS would be well-served to read in its entirety), the "useless" comment about the fire suppression system was hyperbole... and a panel of structural engineers knows full well it was.

Again, not refuting your overall point (which is reasonably accurate and sound), just the ignorance of stating the sprinkler system is "useless" because it's vapor.

Again -- Basic. Fucking. Science. Not even an arguable point, not up for debate.

Was the sprinkler system adequate to suppress a 40,000+ gallon kerosene fire? Obviously not (proof is in the pudding). There isn't a sprinkler system in a building out there that can take a leg off the triangle with 40,000 gallons of kerosene burning... but any reasonable system will sure the fuck slow it down, assuming the system piping is still intact (big assumption). Without suppression, the buildings would have likely failed earlier.

Dins, you just keep insisting--indeed clinging to the notion--that there was 40,000 gallons of fuel left burning inside the the tower. Welll how many tens of thousands of those gallons burned up right here?..

And how did the plane appear to protrude right out the other side?

There wasn't much fuel left over, and so what if there was a fire? What makes you think it would possibly burn so hot? And even if it did, the FEMA (Popular Mechanics) scenario completely ignores the fact of the tower's steel core. How do you even pretend to offer your nonsensical gibberish?

Here's an actual structural engineer on the subject:

The initial FEMA report basically acknowledged that the kerosene would have burned off very quickly. What wasn't destroyed in the initial fireball would have been consumed fairly rapidly and would have only really served as ignition for the rest of the material. And the second point being that the fuel here really was strictly office contents. If you think of a modern office, with copying machines, computers, and as has been previously mentioned, the smoke, particularly from building 2 just before it collapsed was very black looking. This is generally an indication of an inefficient fire in which there is not enough oxygen for the amount of fuel. These types of fires typically burn very cool. They are not hot flames, like blow torches.

FLW Buckeye wrote:C'mon, Molly. You know better.

Don't feed the animals! Especially BS. He'll be sniffing your bike seat if you keep it up...

Weve known each other a long time. He even made me a song in like 200-something.

Bring on updated pics!

Are you the one with the nice rack?

What, you mean the paid shills to deny Climate Change/ Oh, i already provided that info--and no one can get beyond their Koch brothers talking points. So...the matter of the greatest crime in modern history is more interesting--and every bit as crushing to the "acceptards" that cling --for whatever reason--to the palsied official story. Like you, pops, pretending that a vid of a air force jet being intentionally crashed actually props up some flap of your fake pup-tent.

C'mon, step out from your fetal position and dare to examine the basic facts. :wink:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Are you the one with the nice rack?

Define nice?!

You do know... that nicky is a troll/bot ? Right ?


Just checking...

Papa Willie wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What, you mean the paid shills to deny Climate Change/ Oh, i already provided that info--and no one can get beyond their Koch brothers talking points. So...the matter of the greatest crime in modern history is more interesting--and every bit as crushing to the "acceptards" that cling --for whatever reason--to the palsied official story. Like you, pops, pretending that a vid of a air force jet being intentionally crashed actually props up some flap of your fake pup-tent.

C'mon, step out from your fetal position and dare to examine the basic facts. :wink:

If we are to look at facts and actual data, you have gotten your ass creamed in here. Besides - if you are so certain that your government has fudged shit on 9/11, why would you believe their climate data? :doh:

But "the government" and its rightful office of attending to such environmental concerns is now under the chairmanship of one James Inhofe, an avowed Creationist. So...it's you who are clinging to "the government" and its official story. Just like 8/11. you're with the government--yeah, Barry.

As for your being able to support any part of the official 9/11 line, or to refute any of the Climate Change science, well no, you can't, haven't and won't. Because like the fake tits chick, you're a pathetic fraud. Or what?

And..that's the fake tits chick? Okay..and his take on Silversein's (billion dollar insurance blow job) admission of WTC7 being "pulled"?

Someone pointed it out earlier and it is worth repeating.

LTS takes the government sponsored, government paid for climate change "scientists" as solid gold fact. At the same time he tells us the official government story of 9/11 is completely made up and we should wake up to this "fact.". What he doesn't seem to understand is everything he uses to undercut the government on 9/11 also hurts his global warming claims.

That or he actually believes that only the right would manipulate government and the left is completely altruistic.

His arguements would carry more weight if he were true to the government is corrupt and manipulates outcomes to its desire. But that would require a backpedal and reversal on global warming or 9/11 which we know is unlikely.

Left Seater wrote:Someone pointed it out earlier and it is worth repeating.

LTS takes the government sponsored, government paid for climate change "scientists" as solid gold fact. At the same time he tells us the official government story of 9/11 is completely made up and we should wake up to this "fact.". What he doesn't seem to understand is everything he uses to undercut the government on 9/11 also hurts his global warming claims.

... and you're not very bright.


You were fair warned... and still responded to a bot (LTS).


What was that saying... Stupid is as stupid does" ?



Too funny.

molly wrote:Buttsy isn't fat.

That's true. The proper term is morbidly obese.

Still pimping Texas? Might as well since they beat your basketball team. Ohhh, wait, you jumped on the train and it immediately crashed.

Left Seater wrote:Still pimping Texas? Might as well since they beat your basketball team. Ohhh, wait, you jumped on the train and it immediately crashed.

Like I said, you're not bright.

You can try and derail the point at hand... but, it only shows what an idiot you truly are.


Pssst... you responded to a bot/LTS.

That can NEVER be understated.


Too funny

Left Seater wrote: LTS takes the government sponsored, government paid for climate change "scientists" as solid gold fact.

employment of climate scientists is split about equal between the government, educational entities and the private sector......if they're in it for the money, they're not doing very well because most are Phd's and making less than $100k/yr.

Felix wrote:
employment of climate scientists is split about equal between the government, educational entities and the private sector.....

Link?