Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:23 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (2)
truthseeker john wrote:
So for those who think that jet fuel caused the explosions here’s another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder; all over it, if you wish.
3) Next, light a match (or a lighter) and hold the flame to the steel girder.
What happens then?
Nothing!
God, why are many Americans stupid?
But few people of any nation would be so stupid as to think that was a reasonable experimental model of a fuel-laden plane crashing into a steel building at 400mph. You apparently being the exception!
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:45 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (2)
Bushwacker wrote:
truthseeker john wrote:
So for those who think that jet fuel caused the explosions here’s another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder; all over it, if you wish.
3) Next, light a match (or a lighter) and hold the flame to the steel girder.
What happens then?
Nothing!
God, why are many Americans stupid?
But few people of any nation would be so stupid as to think that was a reasonable experimental model of a fuel-laden plane crashing into a steel building at 400mph. You apparently being the exception!
We were talking about any possibility of jet fuel causing explosions a long time after "a fuel-laden plane crashing into a steel building at 400mph"!
However, there where explosions heard before the plane hit.
Stop wriggling in denial. The world exists outside of your head. Blind obedient beliefs in the official story will not change the facts nor the reality of what actually happened.
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (2)
Bushwacker wrote:
truthseeker john wrote:
So for those who think that jet fuel caused the explosions here’s another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder; all over it, if you wish.
3) Next, light a match (or a lighter) and hold the flame to the steel girder.
What happens then?
Nothing!
God, why are many Americans stupid?
But few people of any nation would be so stupid as to think that was a reasonable experimental model of a fuel-laden plane crashing into a steel building at 400mph. You apparently being the exception!
yes maybe, but then nist could'nt get the same results either and had to resort to computer graphics, which says it all really.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:24 am Post subject: kerosene experiment (3)
Here’s yet another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder but let’s make this fun! Pretend you are some sort of priest who is baptizing the girder, in the name of the power, the propaganda and the oil, as you splash kerosene all over it.
3) Next, get a blowtorch and hold the hot blue flame to the steel girder.
What happens then? Does it explode? Call 911?
I don't think any more has to be said about this. Those who argue have obviously got their heads in the sand.
Last edited by truthseeker john on Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:49 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject:
I think your theory is that anything that makes a 'bang' noise must be a bomb. And you wonder why the world won't listen. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
I think your theory is that anything that makes a 'bang' noise must be a bomb. And you wonder why the world won't listen.
yeah, not really a response to any information that is it, its just like saying. "well i don't care im right im not listening(fingers in ears blah blah)"
the problem is pepik bombs and explosives do go boom or bang, and it aint just noises people are working from to come to that conclusion, and you know it.
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:01 pm Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (2)
truthseeker john wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
truthseeker john wrote:
So for those who think that jet fuel caused the explosions here’s another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder; all over it, if you wish.
3) Next, light a match (or a lighter) and hold the flame to the steel girder.
What happens then?
Nothing!
God, why are many Americans stupid?
But few people of any nation would be so stupid as to think that was a reasonable experimental model of a fuel-laden plane crashing into a steel building at 400mph. You apparently being the exception!
We were talking about any possibility of jet fuel causing explosions a long time after "a fuel-laden plane crashing into a steel building at 400mph"!
However, there where explosions heard before the plane hit.
Stop wriggling in denial. The world exists outside of your head. Blind obedient beliefs in the official story will not change the facts nor the reality of what actually happened.
A long time after the plane hit there was a raging fire in the tower. In a fire things explode - see my recent thread.
There were no explosions before the plane hit.
Your name is obviously ironic, you clearly have little interest in the truth.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject:
Quote:
What makes a 'Bang' that isn't some sort of explosive reaction.
I might regret posting this, a decent Bang mind not a book falling on a wooden floor.
Just google the phrase "sounded like a bomb going off" (using quotes), and you'll get pages and pages of things that are not bombs going off. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:47 pm Post subject:
We don't even know if these people thought the explosions were bombs, let alone know how they decided they were explosions. All we have is the apparent theory that buildings normally burn and collapse very quietly. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Stephen Jones is being entirely misleading here; the NIST fire tests were designed to measure the fire resistance of the trusses as installed that is with the fire insulation intact. It is a fundamental of NIST's theory that the insulation was dislodged by the plane debris, and they conducted other experiments on that aspect.
We don't even know if these people thought the explosions were bombs, let alone know how they decided they were explosions. All we have is the apparent theory that buildings normally burn and collapse very quietly.
no you miss my point. people who say there is evidence for explosives don't form that opinon from someone saying "it sounded like a bomb going off" on its own.
Stephen Jones is being entirely misleading here; the NIST fire tests were designed to measure the fire resistance of the trusses as installed that is with the fire insulation intact. It is a fundamental of NIST's theory that the insulation was dislodged by the plane debris, and they conducted other experiments on that aspect.
that is'nt what kevin ryan claims, who up to questioning things(because he saw the falsehoods) was considered an expert and worked for the company helping to carry out the tests, so its an open arguement about who is misleading.
Last edited by marky 54 on Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Stephen Jones is being entirely misleading here; the NIST fire tests were designed to measure the fire resistance of the trusses as installed that is with the fire insulation intact. It is a fundamental of NIST's theory that the insulation was dislodged by the plane debris, and they conducted other experiments on that aspect.
that is'nt what kevin ryan claims, who up to questioning things(because he saw the falsehoods) was considered an expert and worked for the company helping to carry out the tests, so its an open arguement about who is misleading.
All right, look at the video of the tests here and you can see that the trusses were fireproofed.
Stephen Jones is being entirely misleading here; the NIST fire tests were designed to measure the fire resistance of the trusses as installed that is with the fire insulation intact. It is a fundamental of NIST's theory that the insulation was dislodged by the plane debris, and they conducted other experiments on that aspect.
that is'nt what kevin ryan claims, who up to questioning things(because he saw the falsehoods) was considered an expert and worked for the company helping to carry out the tests, so its an open arguement about who is misleading.
All right, look at the video of the tests here and you can see that the trusses were fireproofed.
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:51 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (3)
truthseeker john wrote:
Here’s yet another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder but let’s make this fun! Pretend you are some sort of priest who is baptizing the girder, in the name of the power, the propaganda and the oil, as you splash kerosene all over it.
3) Next, get a blowtorch and hold the hot blue flame to the steel girder.
What happens then? Does it explode? Call 911?
I don't think any more has to be said about this. Those who argue have obviously got their heads in the sand.
No, the kerosene needs to be vapourised. Some unfortunates in Glasgow unwittingly carried out a much more accurate experiment. LINK
Stephen Jones is being entirely misleading here; the NIST fire tests were designed to measure the fire resistance of the trusses as installed that is with the fire insulation intact. It is a fundamental of NIST's theory that the insulation was dislodged by the plane debris, and they conducted other experiments on that aspect.
that is'nt what kevin ryan claims, who up to questioning things(because he saw the falsehoods) was considered an expert and worked for the company helping to carry out the tests, so its an open arguement about who is misleading.
All right, look at the video of the tests here and you can see that the trusses were fireproofed.
this dos'nt show the tests of the uninsulated tests or their results, they must of done them, afterall nist says all the fireproofing was knocked of, so surely they must of tested unfireproofed examples also and showed the results?
are you sure its the fireproofed examples people are questioning and not the unfireproofed examples?
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (2)
Bushwacker wrote:
In a fire things explode - see my recent thread.
There were no explosions before the plane hit.
Your name is obviously ironic, you clearly have little interest in the truth.
Sigh... and I said I wouldn't answer you.
How many dots did you join today.
1)
Quote:
In a fire things explode
Excuse me for asking but where were the fires?
2)
Quote:
There were no explosions before the plane hit.
Explosions were heard before the plane hit. You obviously are not paying attention to anything but what you want to believe. And before you answer that, there are very few, if any, in the 911 truth movement who want to believe that 911 was an inside job.
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (2)
truthseeker john wrote:
Bushwacker wrote:
In a fire things explode - see my recent thread.
There were no explosions before the plane hit.
Your name is obviously ironic, you clearly have little interest in the truth.
Sigh... and I said I wouldn't answer you.
How many dots did you join today.
1)
Quote:
In a fire things explode
Excuse me for asking but where were the fires?
2)
Quote:
There were no explosions before the plane hit.
Explosions were heard before the plane hit. You obviously are not paying attention to anything but what you want to believe. And before you answer that, there are very few, if any, in the 911 truth movement who want to believe that 911 was an inside job.
agree its the last thing i want to think also, but theres a differance between believing something because it stands up and beliving something because you had the wool pulled over your eyes.
either the offical story is untrue, or better critics are needed who don't leave gapping holes after trying to explain away all the evidence that was'nt touched.
when conversing with critics its a bit like they are trying to cover a hole with a blanket thats to small to fit, it dos'nt matter which way you pull it it exposes the otherside of the hole, so they have to keep changing sides to keep each half of the hole covered.
for example they link a small building fire thats not even on the same scale in terms of strength and materials to prove wrong claims, but then when you link examples of steel skyscrapper fires they say they are built differantly so they cannot be compared.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Explosions were heard before the plane hit.
The eyewitness accounts for this are so unconvincing it is ridiculous. Its really a question of how low truthers want to set the standard for evidence.
Quote:
And before you answer that, there are very few, if any, in the 911 truth movement who want to believe that 911 was an inside job.
*. Read through the non-critics corner part of this forum - this is not a group of people who are reluctant to believe any conspiracy theory.
Quote:
for example they link a small building fire thats not even on the same scale in terms of strength and materials to prove wrong claims, but then when you link examples of steel skyscrapper fires they say they are built differantly so they cannot be compared.
That's because you are deliberately mangling the logic. Fire can cause steel to fail, that is a fact. However, all fires don't cause all steel to fail always. So the fact that one building collapsed is proof that it can happen, the fact than another building didn't isn't proof that it can't. You really need to ask yourself why do you bend over backwards to come up with such nonsense logic when you pretend you don't want to believe the conspiracy. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:56 pm Post subject:
pepik wrote:
The eyewitness accounts for this are so unconvincing it is ridiculous.
Cherry-pick. Your opinion.
Quote:
Its really a question of how low truthers want to set the standard for evidence.
Really a question of how who set their standards?
Quote:
Quote:
And before you answer that, there are very few, if any, in the 911 truth movement who want to believe that 911 was an inside job.
*. Read through the non-critics corner part of this forum - this is not a group of people who are reluctant to believe any conspiracy theory.
To quote your own words (below), “you are deliberately mangling the logic” and besides, the official story which you apparently believe is a conspiracy theory! Oh and another thing, there were more than two dots to be joined in that sentence. You people just don’t get it.
Quote:
Quote:
for example they link a small building fire thats not even on the same scale in terms of strength and materials to prove wrong claims, but then when you link examples of steel skyscrapper fires they say they are built differantly so they cannot be compared.
That's because you are deliberately mangling the logic. Fire can cause steel to fail, that is a fact. However, all fires don't cause all steel to fail always. So the fact that one building collapsed is proof that it can happen, the fact than another building didn't isn't proof that it can't.
No, you are deliberately mangling the logic but please read this all before you attempt to answer any particular point, or you will likely mangle logic again.
No steel framed building has ever completely collapsed due to plane crashes or fires - yet we are expected to believe this happened on 911 which also happens to be the emergency number. Oh but that’s conspiracy theory! Then what is the official story that says some angry Arabs conspired and carried out the attacks on 911?
There were not one but three buildings that came down on that very same day and then we were told it was because of the fires from plane crashes. But steel framed buildings such as the WTC do not simply collapse when hit by planes and/or have fires. They are designed for it not to happen and this was especially true of the WTC twin towers, for obvious reasons.
Yet, those towers did come down and what’s more they came down at very near free-fall speed - even though it is not possible for steel and concrete to fall through steel and concrete at anywhere near the speed of falling through the air!
Think! Free fall through the air, you know, like nothing in the way but air?
The initial damage was near the top and the only way those buildings could come down at near free fall through the remaining part of the buildings, is by taking out of the way thousands of tons of steel and concrete. FACT.
And unless something was used to break up or cut the steel and then pulverise the concrete and blow it and the steel out of the way, if it was going to come down at all, the part above the damage would have taken the least path of resistance rather than fall vertically through all that steel and concrete.
That’s physics, that’s logic, that’s even commonsense – but apparently not for everyone. And you should not be arguing when you are unable to understand simple physical laws and facts.
Quote:
You really need to ask yourself why do you bend over backwards to come up with such nonsense logic when you pretend you don't want to believe the conspiracy.
Why do you believe the official conspiracy theory? After all the evidence presented on this forum and elsewhere, you need to ask yourself why it is that you people bend over backwards and come up with nonsense ‘logic.’
I will answer for you.
Despite all the facts which should convince you otherwise, you continue to want to believe the official story because of the way you feel. If you deny this you are not being honest with yourself or with us.
It is an identity problem and you are not thinking objectively, because the government and authority are the father figure who are telling you what you should think and feel. If you deny this you are not being honest with yourself or with us.
“They must find it difficult… those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than the truth as the authority.” - Gerald Massey
Here, watch this movie and learn something about the way the world is run.
On the other hand, some of the official conspiracy supporters may already know the truth but are pretending to be cognitively impaired so as to waste our time.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:25 am Post subject:
Quote:
Cherry-pick. Your opinion.
William Rodriguez has contradicted himself many times and is becoming increasingly bizarre as time goes on.
Quote:
Really a question of how who set their standards?
Yes, how low you set your standards.
Quote:
To quote your own words (below), “you are deliberately mangling the logic” and besides, the official story which you apparently believe is a conspiracy theory! Oh and another thing, there were more than two dots to be joined in that sentence. You people just don’t get it.
Please try to be coherent.
Quote:
No steel framed building has ever completely collapsed due to plane crashes or fires - yet we are expected to believe this happened on 911 which also happens to be the emergency number.
Well yes actually, steel framed buildings have collapsed. Small ones, but the fact remains they have. As the perpetually unanswered question goes, why do you think they fireproof structural steel?
Quote:
Oh but that’s conspiracy theory! Then what is the official story that says some angry Arabs conspired and carried out the attacks on 911?
Semantics aren't going to prove 911 was a conspiracy.
Quote:
There were not one but three buildings that came down on that very same day and then we were told it was because of the fires from plane crashes. But steel framed buildings such as the WTC do not simply collapse when hit by planes and/or have fires. They are designed for it not to happen and this was especially true of the WTC twin towers, for obvious reasons.
They did not "simply collapse" when they were hit by a plane and caught fire. The stood for long enough for everyone on the floors below the impact to escape. They were not designed to be indestructible.
Quote:
Yet, those towers did come down and what’s more they came down at very near free-fall speed - even though it is not possible for steel and concrete to fall through steel and concrete at anywhere near the speed of falling through the air!
Yes, it is so obviously impossible that only people with no particular training or expertise in engineering have noticed! Actual experts with relevant training and experience for some reason don't seem to see it that way. Funny that!
Quote:
Think! Free fall through the air, you know, like nothing in the way but air?
You just said it wasn't free fall. Oops!
Quote:
The initial damage was near the top and the only way those buildings could come down at near free fall through the remaining part of the buildings, is by taking out of the way thousands of tons of steel and concrete. FACT.
And unless something was used to break up or cut the steel and then pulverise the concrete and blow it and the steel out of the way, if it was going to come down at all, the part above the damage would have taken the least path of resistance rather than fall vertically through all that steel and concrete.
That’s physics, that’s logic, that’s even commonsense – but apparently not for everyone. And you should not be arguing when you are unable to understand simple physical laws and facts.
You're calling it physics, but I don't see any calculations, any formulas, and data or assumptions. I see hearsay by someone with no relevant expertise of any kind. Go get a physicist if its so obvious. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:26 am Post subject:
Quote:
Here, watch this movie and learn something about the way the world is run.
I learned there are still people gullible enough to believe the "Fed" is a private corporation. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:28 am Post subject: Re: kerosene experiment (3)
Bushwacker wrote:
truthseeker john wrote:
Here’s yet another version of the kerosene experiment.
1) Dig a hole and put a steel girder in it, in an upright position. Pretend you are planting a tree if makes you feel better.
2) Next, splash some kerosene onto the steel girder but let’s make this fun! Pretend you are some sort of priest who is baptizing the girder, in the name of the power, the propaganda and the oil, as you splash kerosene all over it.
3) Next, get a blowtorch and hold the hot blue flame to the steel girder.
What happens then? Does it explode? Call 911?
I don't think any more has to be said about this. Those who argue have obviously got their heads in the sand.
No, the kerosene needs to be vapourised. Some unfortunates in Glasgow unwittingly carried out a much more accurate experiment. LINK
The blast happened after petroleum gas ignited in a pipe which had been corroding over the years.
Talk about dishonesty! How can that accident be "a much more accurate experiment" than the one I gave?? And since when is petroleum the same as kerosene?
You said that the kerosene needs to be vaporised. So now we have vaporised kerosene running down the walls according to you! If it had run down it would have had to be liquid so how did it become vaporised? It’s not as if the lobby or basement were red hot and the fires where many floors above!
Joined: 08 Oct 2006 Posts: 591 Location: The Square Mile
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Final word. I see hearsay from you and you don't know anything about me.
If you have some relevant expertise I'd sure like to find out why you're keeping it a secret.
Quote:
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
I would call this troofer physics. It parades a few basic forumulas around to impress simpletons, and then - without calculating anything to show how fast it should have fallen - simply states that it fell too fast. Then it is simply a matter of waiting for people with low enough standards of evidence to start cuttting and pasting this amazing scientific analysis all around the web. Which is where you come in.
Quote:
What, pepik, dows your sig line mean? to what 'source' does it refer?
I copied it from another section of this forum. My point was while people try put a sane face on 911 Truth in Critics Corner, things go downhill rapidly once you start reading other sections - you certainly don't have to go to "controversial theories" to come across some complete lunacy. _________________ "could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
