What makes me think jet fuel wont melt steel? Um, chemisty.
It is physically and chemically impossible for jet fuel to melt steel. It does not, will not and cannot get hot enough. More laws of nature you see fit to ignore.
It's irrelevant either way, of course, because there's no evidence that steel did melt.
Dayseed
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2380
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:31 pm
Blue_Nose,
Did you know that a duck's quack doesn't echo and nobody knows why? Did you also know that there were no ducks in the vacinity either immediately before or after the towers fell? Two scientists have reported that it is conceivable that a large enough sonic signature of a duck quack could reverberate through the steel girders in either of the towers and shake them down. Since duck quacks don't echo, nobody could report hearing them. Now, I ask you, where is this mentioned in the government's hogwash 9/11 report? Nowhere, because they're trying to supress the truth and distracting you with superimposed photos of jetliners flying into the towers.
When will the sheeple finally wake up and realize that the Sonic Viper Duck Squad (first mentioned in Operation Northwoods) has finally turned on its creators?
Or will you just not accept the veritable science which makes this claim possible? Don't you bother refuting me with your government-sanctioned "engineering" brainwashing degree either...
Nam eloquentiam quae admirationem non habet nullam iudico
Blue_Nose
CKA Uber
Posts: 13767
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:47 pm
Dayseed wrote:
Two scientists have reported that it is conceivable that a large enough sonic signature of a duck quack could reverberate through the steel girders in either of the towers and shake them down.
Of course! The lack of echo means the vibrational energy is completely absorbed into the structure! Nikola Tesla (a real scientist not paid by the US government) proved that small vibrations can destroy entire structures over a period of time, so it's complete basic science and facts to say that duck quacks brought the towers down! You can't prove it wrong!!
Toro
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2693
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:57 pm
ziggy wrote:
Where's the blast detritus? The explosive signature? the siesmic signature? A cast blast in montana will show up on siesmic instruments in Russia so why no signature from instruments a few miles away?
What makes you think jet fuel wont melt steel? We use it up north to incinerate everything,jetA,jetB,diesel,all the same.
Where's the blast detritus? The explosive signature? the siesmic signature? A cast blast in montana will show up on siesmic instruments in Russia so why no signature from instruments a few miles away?
What makes you think jet fuel wont melt steel? We use it up north to incinerate everything,jetA,jetB,diesel,all the same.
Maybe I was seeing things?
It's...it's...it's impossible!
It was a bomb!
Zigmiester....coming to a town near you soon.
PluggyRug
CKA Elite
Posts: 4647
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:31 pm
FireEmUp wrote:
Simple, it cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Duh.
You people have no basic grasp on science and that's why it's so easy for any government to pull off this shit. They know that most of the public are just too dense to figure it out.
Well my good man a few years ago I made a stove similar to the one in the link, the only difference being the use of an old hair dryer fan to force air into the furnace.
One day the stove would not burn cleanly upon which I discovered one of the burner spacers (3/4 spt nipple) had melted, the other 3 were also badly deformed. This with used engine oil. So your theory is moot.
Simple, it cannot burn hot enough to melt steel. Duh.
You people have no basic grasp on science and that's why it's so easy for any government to pull off this shit. They know that most of the public are just too dense to figure it out.
Well my good man a few years ago I made a stove similar to the one in the link, the only difference being the use of an old hair dryer fan to force air into the furnace.
One day the stove would not burn cleanly upon which I discovered one of the burner spacers (3/4 spt nipple) had melted, the other 3 were also badly deformed. This with used engine oil. So your theory is moot.
Thats cool,now if you could incorporate a cyclonic air flow into it similiar to this smart ash incinerator,you could get some real mega btu's happening.http://elastec.com/smartash2.html
If you ever get a chance to see one close up,check out the lid,its a good idea that maybe could be incorporated into your style burner.That incinerator also is a drip type diesel but the fuel could be turned down to a trickle once the fan was fired up.We had to burn every single thing in camp and after 2 weeks we didnt even have a 45 gallon drum full of ash.Thats how efficient it is and after i had it tweaked it was down to burning 5 gallons a day running 12 hours.
We cant burn the used motor oil but can ship it into town where the natives do burn it in their stoves.
Tell me, FireEmUp, are you basing that statement on your own expertise, or are you just following along with the views others have presented?
ziggy
CKA Uber
Posts: 19370
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:57 am
FireEmUp wrote:
And not very smart either... or blind on purpose anyway.
Physics do not lie. Those buildings were a controlled demolition.
He just pops in,drops a biscuit and leaves.
Attachments:
fox leaving a biscuit.jpg [ 70.4 KiB | Viewed 90 times ]
Zigmiester....coming to a town near you soon.
Toro
Forum Super Elite
Posts: 2693
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 7:14 am
Blue_Nose wrote:
Tell me, FireEmUp, are you basing that statement on your own expertise, or are you just following along with the views others have presented?
Neither.
He just keeps repeating "science" and "physics" and "it could only be a controlled demolition" even when the science demolishes his, what would you call it, "argument?"
He just keeps repeating "science" and "physics" and "it could only be a controlled demolition" even when the science demolishes his, what would you call it, "argument?"
I just find it funny that the 'truthers' will often claim that anyone that agrees with the 'official' assessment is being a sheep, but most of them just parrot things they saw on loose change or found on some other website.
Not one 'truther' that's been on this site - not one - has demonstrated the understanding they'd require to assess the validity of the analysis, much less cite the actual parts they disagree with. Not one truther has turned out to have a solid background in engineering, physics, or anything related to this topic. They're awfully good at pasting links to websites and repeating catch phrases, though.
Sheep from a different flock, it seems.
Brenda
CKA Uber
Posts: 25579
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:39 am
Blue_Nose wrote:
Dayseed wrote:
Two scientists have reported that it is conceivable that a large enough sonic signature of a duck quack could reverberate through the steel girders in either of the towers and shake them down.
Of course! The lack of echo means the vibrational energy is completely absorbed into the structure! Nikola Tesla (a real scientist not paid by the US government) proved that small vibrations can destroy entire structures over a period of time, so it's complete basic science and facts to say that duck quacks brought the towers down! You can't prove it wrong!!
I'm selfish, impatient and a little insecure, at times hard to handle, but if you can't handle me at my worst, you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best... (MM)
CKA Uber 
Forum Super Elite 
CKA Uber 
