|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:38:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
It's "...higher levels than you..., smarty pants. 
Oh bugger...
Yeah. Now your entire world is going to collapse!
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:41:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
No, no, no, you don't get it do you ergo? This is where you show the evidence. Just saying there is evidence over and over without presenting it just makes you look silly.
ergo thinks that posting the following:--quick onset of collapse
--total collapse
--near free-fall speed of collapse
--buildings fall straight down in spite of asymetric design and asymetric presence of fires.
--pulverization of much of the concrete in the building coupled with ejection of steel beams and total collapse. is presenting the evidence in favor of CD. He is, of course, completely wrong because he hasn't shown that such things would be expected in CD and not in gravity-only. So all of these claims (since they're undefined, it's impossible to tell if they've even happened - and the "straight down" one is baloney on its face) are, at this moment, equivocal with regard to all theories of collapse.
I'm still confused by the term 'gravity only'. I mean, it's more like 'big airplane hits building, spills fuel which starts burning interior which has lots of other flammable material which further damges and further weakens the already weakened (because of being hit by aforementioned big airplane) structure'-only.
You are right, Tom. But that takes too long to type out each tome you want to say it. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:43:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
No, Dave. Try this--What the CD Theory has going for it (that the gravity-only theory does not) is that there is evidence for the CD Theory. In other words, "the CD Theory has evidence in its favor..."
Demonstrate that such a statement is true.
I have, Dave. I have provided evidence
No you have not, you have provided this:
--quick onset of collapse
--total collapse
--near free-fall speed of collapse
--buildings fall straight down in spite of asymetric design and asymetric presence of fires.
--pulverization of much of the concrete in the building coupled with ejection of steel beams and total collapse.
To quote you (that is using your requirements for evidence) it is pure speculation that this is a result of CD, this is not evidence.
quote:
You know, I would show you the signature "slow onset" of a gravity-only collapse of a steel-framed building that was poised to collapse due to fire--but steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire.
This is still true because none of the 3 buildings collapsed only due to fire.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:44:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You know, I would show you the signature "slow onset" of a gravity-only collapse of a steel-framed building that was poised to collapse due to fire--but steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire.
The WTCs didn't collapse due to a traditional fire either, so that is irrelevant. This wasn't some trash can fire that got out of hand in an office building. The WTCs were severely structurally compromised by being struck by a speeding jumbo jet, which then flooded the interior with massive amounts of super-heated jet fuel. Why you would compare this to a simple fire is beyond me, since you should be looking at whether any steel frame buildings have ever been brought down by bombs or missiles. That is more analogous to what happened on 9-11.
Why are you so intent on deliberately misrepresenting the facts, Ergo? You continue to lose credibility every time you do.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 13:47:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But that takes too long to type out each tome you want to say it.
What does books have anything to do with it?
I mean other than there were lots of books that provided fuel for the fire inside the tower...
Webster:
Main Entry: tome
Pronunciation: 'tOm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin tomus, from Greek tomos section, roll of papyrus, tome, from temnein to cut; akin to Middle Irish tamnaid he lops, Polish ciac to cut, and perhaps to Latin tondEre to shear
1 : a volume forming part of a larger work
2 : BOOK; especially : a large or scholarly book |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 14:03:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
But that takes too long to type out each tome you want to say it.
What does books have anything to do with it?
I mean other than there were lots of books that provided fuel for the fire inside the tower...
Webster:
Main Entry: tome
Pronunciation: 'tOm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin tomus, from Greek tomos section, roll of papyrus, tome, from temnein to cut; akin to Middle Irish tamnaid he lops, Polish ciac to cut, and perhaps to Latin tondEre to shear
1 : a volume forming part of a larger work
2 : BOOK; especially : a large or scholarly book
 Good one--especially for a Swede! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 14:07:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I have, Dave. I have provided evidence (okay--I've talked about it, but it's easy enough to watch a video of it on the internet...) 
The suggestion to watch an unspecified video is not, in any way, the presentation of evidence. How would watching a video provide evidence that the amount of time "onset of collapse" took favors the CD theory, anyway? Is it quick? Compared to what?quote:
quote:
Nobody can in light of the undefined conditions you seek to apply to the evidence.
Really Dave? Or is your expressed need for definitions of rather obvious words just a tactic of yours to deflect the discussion from the real issues?
No, your definitions of the terms you use are necessary before anyone can address them in any substantive way.quote:
quote:
No, I want you to show that "quick onset" is evidence in favor of CD and not gravity-only.
You sure can be dense when you want to, eh Dave. Even after correcting your misreading of the phrase "in favor of," you still use your original interpretation. Why is that?
What are you talking about?quote:
You know, I would show you the signature "slow onset" of a gravity-only collapse of a steel-framed building that was poised to collapse due to fire--but steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire.
So, you're claiming that "quick onset" is evidence of CD theory, even though you've admittedly got nothing to compare it to? And this is my problem somehow?quote:
But let's ask filth. Yo filth-EE, what happens to load-bearing steel as its temperature rises to the point it can no longer hold the load it was originally bearing? And while you are at it, what would the fires need to be like on the floor that "gave way" and brought all the steel columns to this failure temperature at the same time? And, how long would those fires need to be heating up all that steel to the failure point?
All of that is pre-collapse, and so has nothing to do with your CD theory, per your own words. Nice try at dodging the issues.quote:
Think back to the videos you listed, dave. Watch them again. Notice how as you watch, you don't have much of a clue when the building is going to begin to fall. Then all of a sudden, the building begins to fall. That's what I mean by "quick onset." I'm sorry there isn't a more detailed, objective definition--at least that I can give you.
See, there you go: you've admitted that the definition is subjective. How can anyone respond to your gut feelings about what "quick onset" means? We can't read your mind.quote:
But in contrast, when steel framed structures are subjected to several hours of extreme heat (i.e., hotter than what was experienced at the WTC 3), as the temperature of the steel rises, it warps and buckles over a couple of hours minutes or more before failing (according to my brother, the mechanical engineer who worked at Republic Steel and LTV).
Who cares about that? The beams which buckled under the NIST theory weren't exposed to extreme heat for hours.quote:
Add to that the fact that NIST examination of some of the twin towers' steel (what little wasn't shipped off or burried) showed no beams reached a temperature of over 250*C--which just isn't hot enough for the steel to fail. But this last point is evidence that the gravity-only theory is impossible; sorry for straying off topic.
Actually, the NIST theory has beams failing which weren't subjected to high temperatures, just massive amounts of lateral stress. But you can't be bothered with representing the NIST theory correctly, can you?quote:
quote:
I can't see why it would be, since lots of gravity-only collapses are quick.
Really? Show me some evidence of that. But make sure the collapses are of steel-framed buildings subjected to heat--because those are important details that need to be controlled for (no pun intended) here.
Why? That's all pre-collapse stuff that has nothing to do with CD theory. Look instead at the Ft. Worth video, which shows that after the base columns have been cut by explosions, the gravity-only collapse of the building happens really fast.quote:
quote:
Yeah, show me a video of the collapse that demonstrates them to be symmetrical.
They are symetrical around the main axis of the building, Dave.
The WTC tower collapses were not symmetrical around the main axis of the building. How could they be with the top tilted to one side?quote:
The collapse progresses floor by floor.
Yes, and?quote:
Now sure, you can rig a building to blow and lean it over if you want--and I'm sure you will provide a long list of videos to watch where they do that. But that speaks to the issue of the reasons behind the collapse which I presented in my previous post--that you apparently found compelling and impossible to refute as you didn't respond to it.
You presented no reasons behind the collapse in your previous post. But that's okay: if you want to play the "you didn't respond to it so therefore it must be compelling and irrefutable" game, then my comment about how you are unable or unwilling to examine your own "theory" as you wish others would examine the government's must have been overwhelmingly compelling to you, since you didn't respond to it. Damn, that's an easy game to win against someone who admits to not paying much attention to me.quote:
Funny thing about that, dave. If the tops tipped, it would have had to have been beyond the footprint of the remaining structure, right?
And if that was the case then the mass impacting the "floors below" the top should have that portion beyond the footprint removed from any calculations of mass transfer. Right? But when you look at any of the Gravity-Only papers on mass transfer, they multiply the average mass per floor time the number of floor above the first impacted floor to get their estimate for the mass of the top block of floors. (Also, the use of the average in this case overestimates the mass from the start since the mass of the upper floors is less on a per-floor basis due to the way the steel support columns get thinner as you go up the tower.)
You've got no clue about physics, obviously. Why would mass outside the footprint not be counted when the center of mass of the whole piece which would allegedly - according to CD theory - be supported by the lower floors is still well inside the footprint?quote:
Also, that portion that tipped beyond the perimeter of the building... why did it not fall faster than the dust which was somewhat suspended in air due to the respective pieces (big hunk of building vs. concrete dust particles) ratio of surface area to mass?
You'll have to provide evidence of the assumptions underlying this question before it will be answerable.quote:
quote:
Show me a controlled demolition of a 100-plus story building, ergo.
There are only two I think fit that description: WTC 1 & WTC 2.
Ah, and now what you're trying to prove becomes your evidence, and your argument becomes completely circular.quote:
But don't forget WTC 7! WHy is it that those believing the official story always forget to mention building 7...?
What about building 7? There definitely was no "quick onset" there, nor was the collapse symmetrical around the axis, nor were beams propelled long distances. WTC 7 doesn't seem to fit any of the conditions you've applied (even though I have to supply temporary definitions myself until you come up with something).quote:
Yes, you keep saying it but never demonstrate it...
You demonstrate it for me, everytime you talk about how the CD of the towers could look like anything, and so no historical precedent ir relevant. Your bias prevents you from realizing that your own argument is self-defeating. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 14:12:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
You know, I would show you the signature "slow onset" of a gravity-only collapse of a steel-framed building that was poised to collapse due to fire--but steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire.
quote:
The WTCs were severely structurally compromised by being struck by a speeding jumbo jet
That statement contradicts several structural engineers as well as engineers who worked on the towers and the designer of the towers (in the latter's case speaking to the redundancy of the towers' design).
quote:
... which then flooded the interior with massive amounts of super-heated jet fuel.
What possible significance does the temperature of the fuel have to do with it! And the massive amounts of fuel were gone, according to NIST, in a matter of minutes. And a lot of the same fuel doesn't make a fire hotter-it just makes it last longer.
quote:
Why you would compare this to a simple fire is beyond me, since you should be looking at whether any steel frame buildings have ever been brought down by bombs or missiles. That is more analogous to what happened on 9-11.
Ahh--so you have converted to the CD Theory after all! Congrats!
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 14:24:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Ahh--so you have converted to the CD Theory after all! Congrats!
And you continue to misrepresent. Well, at least you're consistent.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 15:00:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
But I, having the patience of a corpse, shall ask again: How were the charges set and what was the secondary explosive?
To my satisfaction, not yours. You, it seems, would be satisfied with 'most any, old fairy tale as long as it was spectacular enough.
I'm with filthy on this. You have a huge logistical problem that you have not adequately explained. Actually, I can't even recall an attempt at an explanation.
How many charges? How many locations?
How much detonating cord?
How many delay elements?
How many pounds of explosives?
How many man hours to plant the explosives?
Without this you're just pissing into the wind. You've got nothing but idle speculation. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 10/27/2006 15:01:33 |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 15:18:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
I have, Dave. I have provided evidence (okay--I've talked about it, but it's easy enough to watch a video of it on the internet...)
quote:
The suggestion to watch an unspecified video is not, in any way, the presentation of evidence.
Especially when you don't want to know what it shows...
quote:
Nobody can in light of the undefined conditions you seek to apply to the evidence.
quote:
Really Dave? Or is your expressed need for definitions of rather obvious words just a tactic of yours to deflect the discussion from the real issues?
quote:
No, your definitions of the terms you use are necessary before anyone can address them in any substantive way.
Why? What evidence do you have that my definitions are necessary?
quote:
You sure can be dense when you want to, eh Dave. Even after correcting your misreading of the phrase "in favor of," you still use your original interpretation. Why is that?
quote:
What are you talking about?
I already explained that by "in favor of" I did not mean that any particular piece of evidence "favored" one theory over the other. I said that the fact that there is (some) evidence for the CD Theory and that there is no evidence for the Grav-only Theory makes the CD Theory the one that should be favored by rational, intelligent people.
quote:
You know, I would show you the signature "slow onset" of a gravity-only collapse of a steel-framed building that was poised to collapse due to fire--but steel-framed buildings have never collapsed due to fire.
quote:
So, you're claiming that "quick onset" is evidence of CD theory, even though you've admittedly got nothing to compare it to?
I'm saying the CD Theory explains the quick onset. After all, every steel framed building that has had a quick onset of collapse has been the target of a controlled demolition at the time.
quote:
And this is my problem somehow?
Because you have no evidence that "quick Onset" explains a gravity-only collapse of a steel-framed buildong. It's not enough to just say "it could happen." Demonstrate that it could happen.
quote:
But let's ask filth. Yo filth-EE, what happens to load-bearing steel as its temperature rises to the point it can no longer hold the load it was originally bearing? And while you are at it, what would the fires need to be like on the floor that "gave way" and brought all the steel columns to this failure temperature at the same time? And, how long would those fires need to be heating up all that steel to the failure point?
quote:
All of that is pre-collapse, and so has nothing to do with your CD theory, per your own words.
But it is relevant to the gravity-only theory. Because if it can be shown that the steel would not fail under the conditions it was under for the time it was under them, it can be proven that the gravity-only theory is untenable. So come on, filth, help a fellow out.
quote:
Think back to the videos you listed, dave. Watch them again. Notice how as you watch, you don't have much of a clue when the building is going to begin to fall. Then all of a sudden, the building begins to fall. That's what I mean by "quick onset." I'm sorry there isn't a more detailed, objective definition--at least that I can give you.
quote:
See, there you go: you've admitted that the definition is subjective.
All definitions are subjective, dave. It's a function of the human condition. Some hide behind this fact--using it to postpone having to deal with what their mind sense to be true.
quote:
But in contrast, when steel framed structures are subjected to several hours of extreme heat (i.e., hotter than what was experienced at the WTC 3), as the temperature of the steel rises, it warps and buckles over a couple of hours minutes or more before failing (according to my brother, the mechanical engineer who worked at Republic Steel and LTV).
quote:
Who cares about that?
Anyone who wishes to know what really happened to the towers, of course!
quote:
Actually, the NIST theory has beams failing which weren't subjected to high temperatures, just massive amounts of lateral stress.
And what was the cause of these massive amounts of lateral stress, dave...
quote:
I can't see why it would be, since lots of gravity-only collapses are quick.
quote:
Really? Show me some evidence of that. But make sure the collapses are of steel-framed buildings subjected to heat--because those are important details that need to be controlled for (no pun intended) here.
quote:
Why? That's all pre-collapse stuff that has nothing to do with CD theory.
But it has everything to do with the gravity-only theory. Can't you talk about both theories in the same thread?
quote:
Look instead at the Ft. Worth video, which shows that after the base columns have been cut by explosions, the gravity-only collapse of the building happens really fast.
Okay--but you do know that the Ft. Worth video is of a building collapsing due to a controlled demolition, right? It's not a gravity-only collapse. If gravity was the only source of energy applied to the building, it wouldn't have taken years to fall (i.e., a non-quick onset of collapse).
quote:
Yeah, show me a video of the collapse that demonstrates them to be symmetrical.
quote:
They are symetrical around the main axis of the building, Dave.
quote:
The WTC tower collapses were not symmetrical around the main axis of the building. How could they be with the top tilted to one side?
Don't make a conclusion based on the G-O theory as reason to ignore observed evidence, dave. It's obvious from looking at the videpos, that the part of the towers below the crash zones collapse floor by floor, one into the next and into the next and so on. And you are right, the tops did tilt. So we are left with visual evidence that the tops tilted and the rest collapsed floor-by-floor. By your own logic above, these 2 conditions cannot occur in a gravity-only collapse.
In a gravity-only collapse,
--a necessary condition for a symetric collapse is a symertic load.
--tilting top = asymetric load and necessitates an asymetric collapse.
We have visual evidence of both a tilting top and a symetric collapse. Ergo, it was not a gravity-only collapse. That still doesn't automatically make the CD Theory true; but at least we have finally dealt a death blow to that outrageous gravity-only theory!
Now we need to turn our attentions to how we explain the symetric collapse of the towers below the crash zone given there was an asymetric load bearing down on the building.
If the demolition of the building was controlled such that the falling upper block of floors never actually hit the floors below untill everything was within, say, 30 feet above ground level, it would be possible for that tilted top to just fall essentially straight down while the rest of the building looked as if it was being forced to the ground by that asymetric load.
That method would also let the top of the building travel downward at a near-free-fall speed, since it would encounter no resistance on the way down (because each floor would start to fall before the tilted top reached it).
See why the CD Theory is attractive? It accounts for lots of observed facts.
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 15:24:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
But I, having the patience of a corpse, shall ask again: How were the charges set and what was the secondary explosive?
To my satisfaction, not yours. You, it seems, would be satisfied with 'most any, old fairy tale as long as it was spectacular enough.
I'm with filthy on this. You have a huge logistical problem that you have not adequately explained. Actually, I can't even recall an attempt at an explanation.
How many charges? How many locations?
How much detonating cord?
How many delay elements?
How many pounds of explosives?
How many man hours to plant the explosives?
Without this you're just pissing into the wind. You've got nothing but idle speculation.
Yes, but a huge logistical problem does not invalidate a theory. If you can prove the logistical problem is impossible to overcome, then you will have invalidated the theory. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 10/27/2006 15:25:56 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/27/2006 : 15:54:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But it is relevant to the gravity-only theory. Because if it can be shown that the steel would not fail under the conditions it was under for the time it was under them, it can be proven that the gravity-only theory is untenable. So come on, filth, help a fellow out.
Sure. Which way did you come in...? 
I find this "gravity only" business irrelevent. When anything falls, other than a powered event like a plane flying into mountain, it is gravity-only. Any cause/assist is strictly secondary.
I still don't understand how an explosion, however the charge(s) are set, would cause a major structure to fall faster than gravity would pull it. Or do I have the gist of the argument wrong?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 16:09:20 [Permalink]
|
Not having been in the buildings when the planes hit, I don't know what the exact conditions on the stricken floors were. From the various reports and the video, I know there was a kerosene fire. I also know that a well-ventilated, kerosene fire can burn as hot as 1,800 degrees F. I further know that steel does not have to get that hot to become pretty malleable.
No more than 3rd grade math is required to complete that equation.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2006 : 17:53:50 [Permalink]
|
What I don't get....
Is how a person with "no theory" has every potted piece of CT "evidence" ready to dredge up and regurgitate so readily.
This is nothing more than the convenience of sophistry. You arrive at the town square with your a priori "knowledge". Another person arrives with the same base, and you start at it in an attempt to win over the audience. Best bon mots or twists of the others words or logic will win the day. You're playing to an audience of 1, though. If you're going to convince a skeptic, you have to actually produce something in the way of evidence.
Since you generally have at least two threads going, Ergo, why not start the Ergo's 911 Theory thread. If you don't have your own brilliant work, just cite the "authority" or "scholar" you believe.
Post your positions on the following (you can post them on different threads if you really want to take on the world), which you claim to have no theory on, but which you clearly do from the counterpoints you offer in the above thread:
Who did it?
Bush & Co.
The Illuminati
The Mossad and IDF
Aliens
19 Isalmist Radicals acting somewhat in collusion
The Planes and WTC?
Flown by hijackers?
Remote Control
Planes? We don't need no fukkin' planes
Yes, but with mysterious pods underneath
The Pentagon?
Plane or missile?
The collapse?
CD?
What explosive?
How planted? By Whom?
How detonated?
And, since about June of '07, I'm sure you'll get around to it, let's add in....
WTC 7?
CD?
What explosive?
How planted? By Whom?
How detonated?
Since we can all skim your six hundred posts and find that you've touched on the above at various times (yeah, I know, but you're just asking questions), except WTC 7, it's time to put your theories down in objective linear form.
Without that you're just a new age gunslinger, hiding behind your trusty monitor. You have no identity and no history, and you say you can outdraw every bade dude in town, but you won't come out onto Main Street. You sit in the saloon and hide behind the sheriff's deputies. All this "I don't have a theory" crap is just that - crap! You either have your own half-baked theory or you're a believer in one of the off-the-shelf brands.
Hint: Stay away from metallury and fires. You have woefully weak understanding of either. While I was sleeping, did you actually equate the fuel alone with the heat of the fire, and did you actually state that more fuel doesn't mean a hotter fire? Is Google on strike? You can't find a hundred articles explaining that more fuel does actually make for higher temperatures?
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What I don't get...
Topic Locked
