We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
On the contrary, SG: I have no intention of revealing my age, although I am prepared to reveal the age of my freezer.
As for the temperatures, I merely copied and pasted them.
As for Sonia's questioning the honesty of someone writing a book to debunk a theory:
it is possible for an honest person to write honestly and still collect royalties, just as it's possible for an honest geologist to start a company to debunk all the theories about fractured basement and expect the company to be worth a lot of money one day.
Watched a programme the other night where a pile if boffins were attempting to prove the cause of documented secondary explosions; heard by witnesses within the buildings. It seems that the 200 tons ish of aluminium from each planes fuselage would have been encased with masonary etc from the remenents of the floors they hit. Couple that with the fure and you get s crude furnace. Aluminium raised above approx 700 degrees (approx 1400 degrees witness in molten aluminium coloured dripping from building). Add water from the sprinkler systems from the floors above, and you get an explosion. The cause of many aluminium smelter explosions accross the decades it would seem :)
So someone has written a book to 'debunk' something...and they are SELLING it for MONEY. Wonder why?
p.s. good post @ 17:50.
Gla
LW, you're revealing your age! Celsius, please! (If we're gonna have properness, Kelvin would be better for any discussion on combustion.)
I imagine the temperature in several KSA palaces is approaching the softening-point of steel, this evening.
Gla
John - I was going to mention the moon landings because it's in the same category as the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The observations which supposedly prove that the film of the moon's surface couldn't have been taken on the moon have been explained away.
Back to 9/11:
One of the most-cited and well-publicized pieces of evidence offered ... is the claim that jet fuel does not burn at high enough temperatures to melt the steel beams. By this logic, explosives or some other form of fuel must have been used to bring the buildings down.
While jet fuel, which burns at around 800 to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, may not reach the 2,750-degree melting point of steel, it is only about half as strong at 1,100 degrees, according to a comprehensive report compiled by Popular Mechanics in 2005. For the towers to collapse, the steel would not have needed to turn into a puddle of molten metal, it would only have had to bend enough to compromise the structural integrity of the building.
And, if you don’t believe us, perhaps this irate metalworker can convince you:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2016/08/16/5-times-scientists-tackled-conspiracy-theories/#.XX5a-MF7k2w
Once again, in this updated edition of the critically acclaimed Debunking 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics counters the conspiracy theorists with a dose of hard, cold facts. The magazine consulted more than 300 experts in fields like air traffic control, aviation, civil engineering, fire fighting, and metallurgy, and then rigorously, meticulously, and scientifically analyzed the 25 most persistent 9/11 conspiracy theories. Each one was conclusively refuted with facts ...
https://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories-ebook/dp/B0751HHGMS
I wasn't. I was 5 and would have had to had special permission to be off school in Sutton Coldfield
What about the Moon landings....any thoughts?
I was about to get back in my five-star freezer when I saw Frits' question.
I can tell you it wasn't Oswald - he was framed.
He was on the second floor at the time he is alleged to have fired from the sixth floor.
There is no (unfabricated) evidence that his rifle (which was unfit for purpose) was in the building at the time of the assassination.
There is eyewitness evidence that he was already in the Texas Movie Theater at the time Police Officer Tippit was shot and no evidence that the man (alleged to be Oswald) who ran into that building then went to Oswald's seat.
Hoover himself noted that someone was impersonating Oswald and there is proof that the man who called himself Oswald and visited the Soviet and Cuban Embassies/consulates in Mexico City was someone else.
The Secret Service, which should have been protecting JFK, played a key role in the assassination, with three SS agents facilitating the assassination, by slowing down the limousine and making sure no agents were on the back of the vehicle and thus in a position to cover JFK.
Otherwise, JFK would not have been fatally-wounded.
The hit men were probably supplied by the underworld.
There was CIA involvement in the planning of the operation and its cover-up, which involved the murders of many witnesses or investigators.
It took me many years of investigation to realise that the driving force behind it was LBJ, who according to Hoover (as reported by Nixon) hated both Kennedy brothers.
The question is not so much 'who was involved in the conspiracy?' as 'who wasn't ...?'
By the way, does anyone know who shot Kennedy? Just asking...
; )
HUR up tomorrow with hopefully a nice gradual climb to the 20th of Sep with another bump once positive news is out.
But being HUR and in the AIM market, the actual reality, is that it will most likely close down at 2.6%
Enjoy the remainder of the weekend
Frits