Premier Rock Forum

Rick Reuben wrote:
How can two exploding planes behave so differently?

So many factors that you choose to ignore. So many that most people wouldn't even bother taking the subject up with you.

Here's a youtube link to video of the scene in Shanksville. This video was on FOX and NBC on 9/11 but never shown again- because it shows no passenger jet. It shows a small crater. The reporter describes the debris as 'nothing bigger than a phone book'.

Clarity of footage: neglible.

Keep dreaming that the official myth still adds up.

We don't. But it is still smarter than "the jews did it with thermite".



Because the resolution, colour fidelity and clarity of that completely unmanipulated image speak volumes. It definitely doesn't bear the hallmarks of re-sizing for the internet. Judging by that image, I now believe in the existence of purple trees. There is more evidence for purple trees in that picture than evidence for any of your numbskullery.

Skronk wrote:
A ball of loose, flying jet fuel doesn't have the pressure that a firehose does.

It wasn't "loose, flying jet fuel". It was jet fuel that became loose in a violent impact and combusted. It might not have the pressure of a firehose but that is hardly the point, or the sole factor here.

Considering the weight a steel column like the ones in the towers would have to bear over the years, and be flexible enough so the building would sway in the wind, a firehose wouldn't cause anything beyond a dent. Have anymore ridiculous comparisons?

When did I say that a firehose could break the steel girders in the World Trade Centre? I said that it would break a glass coffee table.



Welcome to the uncanny world of SCIENCE!

Rick Reuben wrote:

big_dave wrote:When did I say that a firehose could break the steel girders in the World Trade Centre? I said that it would break a glass coffee table.

Where did you find the question, "Could water break a coffee table?" in this thread, you moron? We're talking about liquid vs. steel columns, troll.

No, but you found the idea of liquid "smashing" things to be laughable. I was just pointing out how little you know about the physical world.

Trying not to sound patronising, I genuinely feel that you are having difficulty coming to terms with extreme situations and "big numbers" in physics. You are like a creationist trying to come to terms with the "million years" required by evolution. A while ago you thought it was hilarious that concrete might collapse into dust. Ever dropped a concrete paving slab? Ever seen a car hit a traffic bollard at a moderate speed? Ever seen a masonry drill go to town on breeze blocks?

big_dave wrote:
When did I say that a firehose could break the steel girders in the World Trade Centre? I said that it would break a glass coffee table.

Your comparison, that's where. Mixing together what a firehose can do to a damn table, with what it can or can't do to a steel core.

big_dave wrote:The firehose/glass coffee is pretty close. A riot hose can punch through pretty thick shit and can fuck up concrete, metal, wood, whatever. This is without gravity, heat and combustion.

Skronk wrote:

big_dave wrote:
When did I say that a firehose could break the steel girders in the World Trade Centre? I said that it would break a glass coffee table.

Your comparison, that's where. Mixing together what a firehose can do to a damn table, with what it can or can't do to a steel core.

big_dave wrote:The firehose/glass coffee is pretty close. A riot hose can punch through pretty thick shit and can fuck up concrete, metal, wood, whatever. This is without gravity, heat and combustion.

I wasn't really talking about 9/11, or firehoses, I was talking about the damage riot water guns can do.

BadComrade wrote:I'd be willing to bet the the kinetic energy in 86,000 pounds of liquid moving at 500 miles an hour is more than the energy in water moving out of a firehose.

You seem to have forgotten the fuel was inside the plane, not traveling and gaining that sort of speed on it's own.

Skronk wrote:Considering the weight a steel column like the ones in the towers would have to bear over the years, and be flexible enough so the building would sway in the wind, a firehose wouldn't cause anything beyond a dent. Have anymore ridiculous comparisons?

BadComrade wrote:I can stand on top of an empty coke can, and it will support me forever. I can quickly "hop" and bend my knee to build up a little energy, and that can will crush flat, because of the kinetic energy I built up in the "hop". Same thing goes for the steel colums that were standing for years: 80 mile an hour wind pushing up against an entire building and a heavy fucking jet moving at 500 mph have nothing at all in common.

You might be the king of bad analogies. What you've described has nothing to do with the integrity of the steel in the towers. Most of the jet fuel was burned by the time it had a chance of hitting anything inside the building in it's liquid state. "But, look what happens to a coke can...."

BadComrade wrote:No wonder why you believe Clocker Bob...

I'd rather take the time to explore all the possible theories, and make up my own mind, than to brush away the inconsistencies like you. This has nothing to do with Clocker. I'm responding to this circus you and Big Dave are making by pointing to ridiculous shit that doesn't fit the situation.

BadComrade wrote:I'll agree, the firehose analogy wasn't the best one, but it makes more sense than your own.

Yes, my analogy about what a steel column can take was far less on point than one about a firehose. Jesus.

BadComrade wrote:Oh, and just for fun, here's a picture of jet of water (with a bit of aggregate mixed in) cutting through solid steel:

What a good comparision, Badboy. Mix together a ball of jet fuel, with something specially designed to cut into steel. You're on top of this argument.

BadComrade wrote:You have -no- idea how much fuel it would take to create those fireballs. You do realize that it's atomized fuel that burns, right? You can throw a lit match in to a bucket of jet fuel, and it won't ignite. That means that you're not looking at "solid" fuel burning in those photos, you're looking at the "spray" that's exiting the buildings burning.

I was going to use this point to show how wrong he was about the fuel both "inside" and "outside" the tower.

Clocker Fictional Bob wrote:How can the wax be melting, the flame is clearly above the candle! It doesn't even touch the wax!

Rick Reuben wrote: why the hell did you OCT'er's only begin using it in your arguments on June 21, 2007?

Why weren't you including this in your debunking starting in 2003? Didn't you geniuses think of it? The bigger question is: why didn't NIST attempt to blame column fractures on flying liquid balls??

What does OCT stand for? I ain't in no club.

I, for one, am not using it support the theory, I am just saying it is plausible and certainly a lot more worthy of attention than your picture postcards and foaming Zapruder-filmism.

Protection From Clocker Bob
If You Control Any Jews, Ball Lightning Gets +1/+1 until the end of the turn.

Here you go dipshit. Lets make sure we all know where you stand.

Please sign one of these statements.

I, Clocker Tom, believe that the professor of structural engineering at Purdue is not qualified enough to make the correct scientific conclusions as to what happened to the WTCs on 9/11

I, Clocker Tom, believe that the professor of structural engineering at Purdue, while qualified, cannot be trusted as he is part of the cabal of the official myth as to what happened on 9/11.