Remember... exotic weapons don't exist...this is natural.... exotic weapons don't exist... this is natural... exotic weapons don't exist... this is natural...
We haven’t seen this before. If it was exotic weapons they would tell us. They work for us. Humble public servants would never do anything bad to us on purpose. Anything bad is just an accidental byproduct of the system. No system is perfect. Nobody could be this evil.
Ok, serious question... what if the non-existant tech is not delivering an enormous amount of energy that cooks things but rather some kind of cellular level or atomic or quantum level rearranging device that almost instantly ignites and consumes matter leaving this white powder and ignores its surroundings? I obviously didn't work on the Death Star or with Scotty on the Enterprise but if the amount of energy and directing it is unrealistic, maybe a different non-existant weapon that could produce these results should be dug on? Some uncommon and out of the known abilities is happening here.
I was being sarcastic, I have been previously banned for posting about this technology - I believe that this tech does exist and is being used against populations.
I got a week off for it too. I see the results and have seen enough fire damage to know the difference. I was joking in my original comment because this is supposed to be an elite research board but only about Q and not about weaponry used against Q and anons.... it definitely strikes a nerve with some around here.
can be, but also depends on the wind. It was pretty windy so it makes it sus, but stranger things have happened. I still think that they knew a hot and windy day would come and they were waiting for the proper conditions to light it up, lasers or other.
I definitely think it was deliberate. These demons that run our country, wanna burn everything down that’s made in God’s image. All of God’s creation, the beautiful things he makes, people, the sky, trees, water, these demons have commandeered everything for their evil.
I've seen the satellite images that show that LARGE areas are COMPLETELY burned; no evidence of any green. I suspect this house was away from one of those area, and that the house caught fire from a windblown ember and completely burned without the adjacent vegetation burning.
Like in past fires, and akin to the 911 melting steel, nobody has ever explained "how"using current science because it no longer works... it all says their explanations are not possible (under current science.) These phenomenon defy current scientific knowledge. So aren't we suppose to go back and change all our educational references to include how this is possible. Presently there is NO explanation to explain it.
...unless of course, it is caused by a weapon with great accuracy. Wait! What? That actually would explain both 911 and these fires. Which leads to... who pulled the trigger?
Don't try to gas light this community. Two towers completely reinforced on all four sides with high grade steel (not iron). Here are the scientific facts without any speculation.
The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, about 1000 °C — hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.
And keep in mind that this was also isolated to only a few areas...yet both buildings collapsed to the ground.
Seriously, I am embarrassed for you in positing something so unsupportable and ignorant. With all due respect... you are completely misinformed.
Odd that you keep referring to the maximum temperature a perfectly mixed and fueled flame could reach if it was perfectly thermally isolated from it's environment and fuels. You are telling us the /theoretical/ maximum temperatures things can reach in perfect lab conditions and then not applying the real world....at all.
So, what temperatures will jet fuel reach when it has to burn in a positive--pressure environment with debris sizes from aerosolized to large segments of fire-treated panelling (e.g. floor, wall, ceiling)?
Of your melted aluminum, how much would turn to vapor and burn, knowing that only about 20% of the weight of a 777 is aluminum (~120,000 pounds of a 777's ~600,000 pounds-depending on model)? 5-8%? How long would that vapor combustion last and how much heat stress would it add to the environment after 15 seconds? How did the the aluminum reach the vapor combustion temperature (in oxygen) of ~2,500 C?
Amidst all this, how much heat is transferred to steel beams with heat resistant coatings? Would a heat resistance coating failure of 1m3 of secondary structure be enough to cause immediate cascading failure? 2m3? 9m3? What were those heat resistances rated for in minutes and how did the fire sustain that exaggerated temperature for that amount of time?
How much of the primary structure needed to be compromised before failsafe building failure ensued according to the engineering specs of the building? Why didn't it perform to 50% of design?
Your Gish Gallop of factoids don't make you knowledgeable, it makes it seem like your experience in engines and materials was limited to CAD, where the maximum possible number is the only thing taken into account for design purposes.
You are confusing "structural weight percentage" with "total weight percentage". 80 percent of the main structure of 777s (and roughly the same amount of a 767) is aluminum. That equates to roughly 20% of the overall weight.
And skyscrapers are designed to fail as safely as possible, just like aircraft. All of your engines failed, but you can still glide, etc. if your secondary structure is compromised, the primary structure can continue to hold.
Positive pressure and negative pressure environments are well established in buildings. Ever opened a door and felt a rush of air in either direction? That's a pressurized environment. Airflow into the building is negative pressure, airflow out of the building is a positive pressure. This is part of the structural design (and keeping people breathing).
As for your wood burning fireplace, toss a fire blanket on it and see how well it burns. There is a difference between "fuel source" and largely flame-resistant structural materials as tour "debris".
I said exactly that about the flame resistance on the steel. The problem is that the materials in question should have slowed heating for much longer. Remember, these buildings were designed to withstand passenger airliner impacts.
You seem to be of the impression that temperature equalizes immediately and that a fire will only burn at it's hottest, despite things that slow transfer and cool being in play.
Take a 1" steel bar and put a torch to it. How long until it deformed? Now, wrap it in fire resistant material, how long did it take that time?
Now, why the steel bar video I showed you take less time than the raw steel bar?
Evergreens retain a lot of moisture. You can also see the phenomena in forest fires. I have literally been in the aftermath of both a residential neighborhood burning to the ground, skipping over houses and the aftermath of forest fires. This is nothing special. If you were to show me blue houses and blue cars like maui had, I would agree with suspicion.
i wonder which decade crime got bad enough that everyone in California had gated walls around their property? nothing of value was lost, if anything these people were given a pass to leave before things get worse.
I was thinking the same thing. I've seen videos of buildings in ashes yet the canvas umbrellas outside on the sidewalk are in perfect condition. Also, where streets of homes that are now dust and all the electrical lines are still up and in great shape. Agreed about all the vegetation, I've seen where it is untouched. Very, very strange.
Remember... exotic weapons don't exist...this is natural.... exotic weapons don't exist... this is natural... exotic weapons don't exist... this is natural...
We haven’t seen this before. If it was exotic weapons they would tell us. They work for us. Humble public servants would never do anything bad to us on purpose. Anything bad is just an accidental byproduct of the system. No system is perfect. Nobody could be this evil.
Excellent, you are MOD material.
Ok, serious question... what if the non-existant tech is not delivering an enormous amount of energy that cooks things but rather some kind of cellular level or atomic or quantum level rearranging device that almost instantly ignites and consumes matter leaving this white powder and ignores its surroundings? I obviously didn't work on the Death Star or with Scotty on the Enterprise but if the amount of energy and directing it is unrealistic, maybe a different non-existant weapon that could produce these results should be dug on? Some uncommon and out of the known abilities is happening here.
I was being sarcastic, I have been previously banned for posting about this technology - I believe that this tech does exist and is being used against populations.
I got a week off for it too. I see the results and have seen enough fire damage to know the difference. I was joking in my original comment because this is supposed to be an elite research board but only about Q and not about weaponry used against Q and anons.... it definitely strikes a nerve with some around here.
Bob Greener and Judy Wood have entered the room, along with John Hutchinson, Tom Bearden and Ken Shoulders.
Dustification
Where are the sinks? Toilets? House fires turn those to white ash as well?
Gaslighting 101
can be, but also depends on the wind. It was pretty windy so it makes it sus, but stranger things have happened. I still think that they knew a hot and windy day would come and they were waiting for the proper conditions to light it up, lasers or other.
I definitely think it was deliberate. These demons that run our country, wanna burn everything down that’s made in God’s image. All of God’s creation, the beautiful things he makes, people, the sky, trees, water, these demons have commandeered everything for their evil.
Do you know how to design a death ray?
Especially if the fire crew responds to help keep adjacent property safe. Don't know if that happened here.
They didn't have any water to put the fires out.
Except it’s pretty evident both neighboring structures are burnt up as well.
Haven't you ever heard of da vine protection? Kek
Well done fren
Water that ivy on the front fence. It's going to make it.
Thi is Maui 2.0
I've seen the satellite images that show that LARGE areas are COMPLETELY burned; no evidence of any green. I suspect this house was away from one of those area, and that the house caught fire from a windblown ember and completely burned without the adjacent vegetation burning.
Guess no frogs there if so you would’ve seen NATO Blue roofs
I wonder if there are any blue roofed houses or blue cars that survived the inferno while being in the midst of it.
Like in past fires, and akin to the 911 melting steel, nobody has ever explained "how"using current science because it no longer works... it all says their explanations are not possible (under current science.) These phenomenon defy current scientific knowledge. So aren't we suppose to go back and change all our educational references to include how this is possible. Presently there is NO explanation to explain it.
...unless of course, it is caused by a weapon with great accuracy. Wait! What? That actually would explain both 911 and these fires. Which leads to... who pulled the trigger?
Don't try to gas light this community. Two towers completely reinforced on all four sides with high grade steel (not iron). Here are the scientific facts without any speculation.
The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, about 1000 °C — hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C.
And keep in mind that this was also isolated to only a few areas...yet both buildings collapsed to the ground.
Seriously, I am embarrassed for you in positing something so unsupportable and ignorant. With all due respect... you are completely misinformed.
He must read Popular Mechanics. Nobody who buys the official story of 9/11 should be on this site. I smell a pdw troll.
Odd that you keep referring to the maximum temperature a perfectly mixed and fueled flame could reach if it was perfectly thermally isolated from it's environment and fuels. You are telling us the /theoretical/ maximum temperatures things can reach in perfect lab conditions and then not applying the real world....at all.
So, what temperatures will jet fuel reach when it has to burn in a positive--pressure environment with debris sizes from aerosolized to large segments of fire-treated panelling (e.g. floor, wall, ceiling)?
Of your melted aluminum, how much would turn to vapor and burn, knowing that only about 20% of the weight of a 777 is aluminum (~120,000 pounds of a 777's ~600,000 pounds-depending on model)? 5-8%? How long would that vapor combustion last and how much heat stress would it add to the environment after 15 seconds? How did the the aluminum reach the vapor combustion temperature (in oxygen) of ~2,500 C?
Amidst all this, how much heat is transferred to steel beams with heat resistant coatings? Would a heat resistance coating failure of 1m3 of secondary structure be enough to cause immediate cascading failure? 2m3? 9m3? What were those heat resistances rated for in minutes and how did the fire sustain that exaggerated temperature for that amount of time?
How much of the primary structure needed to be compromised before failsafe building failure ensued according to the engineering specs of the building? Why didn't it perform to 50% of design?
Your Gish Gallop of factoids don't make you knowledgeable, it makes it seem like your experience in engines and materials was limited to CAD, where the maximum possible number is the only thing taken into account for design purposes.
You are confusing "structural weight percentage" with "total weight percentage". 80 percent of the main structure of 777s (and roughly the same amount of a 767) is aluminum. That equates to roughly 20% of the overall weight.
And skyscrapers are designed to fail as safely as possible, just like aircraft. All of your engines failed, but you can still glide, etc. if your secondary structure is compromised, the primary structure can continue to hold.
Positive pressure and negative pressure environments are well established in buildings. Ever opened a door and felt a rush of air in either direction? That's a pressurized environment. Airflow into the building is negative pressure, airflow out of the building is a positive pressure. This is part of the structural design (and keeping people breathing).
As for your wood burning fireplace, toss a fire blanket on it and see how well it burns. There is a difference between "fuel source" and largely flame-resistant structural materials as tour "debris".
I said exactly that about the flame resistance on the steel. The problem is that the materials in question should have slowed heating for much longer. Remember, these buildings were designed to withstand passenger airliner impacts.
You seem to be of the impression that temperature equalizes immediately and that a fire will only burn at it's hottest, despite things that slow transfer and cool being in play.
Take a 1" steel bar and put a torch to it. How long until it deformed? Now, wrap it in fire resistant material, how long did it take that time?
Now, why the steel bar video I showed you take less time than the raw steel bar?
Thank you for trying to interject helpful, accurate info throughout this discussion.
Really, he is obviously a bot! No-one could be that stupid.
Evergreens retain a lot of moisture. You can also see the phenomena in forest fires. I have literally been in the aftermath of both a residential neighborhood burning to the ground, skipping over houses and the aftermath of forest fires. This is nothing special. If you were to show me blue houses and blue cars like maui had, I would agree with suspicion.
You’re looking too close. Or that’s what my parents always said when we saw something that wasn’t right in a movie.
ROFLMAO
That looks exactly like the Lahaina fire. House destroyed, but trees and shrubs completely intact.
i wonder which decade crime got bad enough that everyone in California had gated walls around their property? nothing of value was lost, if anything these people were given a pass to leave before things get worse.
Whoever aims the space laser is careful to spare the trees?
And the oven
It's called ... space lasers.
I was thinking the same thing. I've seen videos of buildings in ashes yet the canvas umbrellas outside on the sidewalk are in perfect condition. Also, where streets of homes that are now dust and all the electrical lines are still up and in great shape. Agreed about all the vegetation, I've seen where it is untouched. Very, very strange.
I was looking at shots of suburban streets with burnt down homes, yet the trees were fine. Weird. Not that I have anything against trees.
They should investigate what the trees are made out of and then use this material to build fire resistant houses.
Yes.
Just like over 100 years ago PLUS... The Spanish Flu...
History might not repeat, but it often rhymes...
Everyone wanted to see how disclosure would work. Its being worked on us.
Are you referring to the car on the bottom right?