Re: 911 was an inside job
And for the record 5 seconds was generous. To blacken a knife it only takes 2 to 1 seconds depending on what part of the flame you apply to the knife or wood or anything! The black left behind, thats carbon sticking to the object the fire was applied too.
And yet you STILL cannot bear to address, or even ACKNOWLEDGE the FACT that there is evidence of parts flying OUTSIDE the fireball. Why don't you just give up on this one? I have shown you the evidence of this...you just wish to ignore it. And you know what you always say, don't you?
"
Even if you ignore the facts it doesn't change the truth. "
But still, now that you have basically admitted that the flameball could not have lasted more than 2 to 1 seconds, I think it is now patently ridiculous that you would make the following suggestion as an "experiment" to show why the grass should be scorched:
Instead of useing a lighter direct appllied to the grass a better experiment would be to take a can of hairspray and a lighter and burn a patch of grass.. The grass should turn brown it may not catch but apply the hairspary flame "close" for 6 seconds and see if the grass turns brown with in a few hours.
Lovely. Folks: See how he squirms and changes his mind...but can't quite come to admit that there does not HAVE to be scorching on that grass? So right here he is trying to say it is a "valid comparision" to squirt a flamed aerosol at the grass for SIX WHOLE SECONDS, even though above he admits the flameball could not last but "2 to 1" seconds! Allow me to also point out another fallacy for why his "experiment" is disingenuous to the actual fireball: If you are setting fire to an aerosol stream (for SIX seconds, no less!) that is a continuous source of constant pressure that is feeding that fire. Now a flame front in a "BLEVE" explosion (look up the acronym on Wikipedia) does NOT behave like an essentially constant pressure source aerosol flame front. Can anyone guess why? That's right. The BLEVE flame front only has an initial pressure wave that moves outward and that central pressure source DISSIPATES over time... whereas the controlled release of the aerosol can maintains a CONSTANT pressure of the flow. Two completely different forms of pressure phenomenon. So let's recount:
1) SIX seconds for an experiment does NOT match the "2 to 1 second" fireball that actually occurred at the Pentagon.
2) A pressurized can of aerosol constantly feeding a flame (for SIX seconds!) does NOT match the fireball pressure conditions at the Pentagon.
But now look how after all this screaming and shouting and making fun of the fact that "This fireball did not burn the grass. AMAZING! I wanna use thier fertilizer."... now we see the great titorite squirming yet again, and hedging on what he claims, and NOW he seems to be almost admitting that the grass did NOT have to be scorched... only "browned"...and he also seems to be admitting that it did NOT have to happen immediately, but perhaps over a "couple hours". Look again, right here are his own words!!
grass should turn brown it may not catch but apply the hairspary flame "close" for 6 seconds and see if the grass turns brown with in a few hours.
Pay close attention to these words that titorite himself admits! Because as should be obvious, I have now begun my assault on titorite's "last big hope" for showing some sort of "inconsistency" in the Pentagon photos. This ride is just about over, folks. I know some of you have enjoyed (especially some lurkers who have PM'ed me) watching me tear apart his weak arguments and bad assumptions. But we are finally reaching the endgame with titorite's poor approach to investigation.
And you watch.... as I finish my debunking of this last fallacy, you will see him ignore the salient points I make (Just like he is ignoring the FACT that airplane parts were thrown completely clear of the fireball, hence logically they do not need to be sooted). I wonder how he will ignore the facts he has now admitted: The fireball only lasted "2 to 1 seconds", and I wonder how he is going to deny that the grass did NOT have to be scorched black, but that it could actually "turns brown within a few hours."
I think I know how he will deal with it. He will resort to his good old, disinfo tactic "#11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions." He can't make anything else stick, so this is his only fall-back position... "but what about WTC7". He will have no more ammunition to "prove a conspiracy" at the Pentagon...so he will have to retreat to his "safe harbor" of WTC7.
So now let me complete this reply, before I continue on with my debunking of titorite's last great hope for "inconsistencies" in Pentagon photos with a point:
Because titorite has now admitted, via his "experiment", that the grass at the Pentagon did NOT have to be charred black, only turn brown after a couple hours... all I now have to do is show some photos of the Pentagon lawn after the attack where the grass was browned!
Of course, he will try to backpedal, and act in a dishonorable manner, and claim that no, it is still inconsistent if there are no black, charred grass. But I will even go further than showing you browned grass. I will provide you CLEAR evidence from not just an experiment, but a real situation, that will show why the grass does NOT have to be charred.
I hope you are all ready to see how this final push plays out. It should be enjoyable to some. Let's just call this my last, "colorful" proof that titorite's "inconsistencies" are just a whole bunch of bull dookie!
RMT
