Rule
Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
RealOne: Remember, Rosie O'Donnell is not a scientist.
I do not know about that. May she is not, maybe she is. I do suspect that she has a very high IQ, though, and I do know that she has a lot of guts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
Therefore, her "science" is completely wrong.
Because she is not a scientist her science is wrong? That is not a valid argument - and if your argument is not valid, then your conclusion may be - in all likelyhood is - wrong.
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
One cannot learn science from her.
How do you know that one cannot?
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
Point of fact, steel can burn.
Quite. It is called oxidation and the result is called rust.
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
That is why they spray all exposed steel in buildings with fire retardant.
Naw, that is just to prevent rust.
In any case the Eiffel Tower ain't sprayed with fire retardant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
When those planes hit the buildings, they tore away the retardant.
There were no planes, so how could they possibly have torn away the fire retardant? Do you have any evidence that the fire retardant was torn away, like a photograph, or eye witness testimony? If not, your argument is not valid.
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
Also, if steel did not burn, there would be a whole lot of very sad boy scouts. Those cute little fire starters that they use (flint striking steel) depend on the fact that the very hard flint strips away small bits of steel and heats them to the point of ignition. Wow, steel not only melts and vaporizes, but burns too.
A cute boy scouts sob story. So a wtc tower functioned like a large flint? Does that work with aluminum too? Or was the airplane that was not there the large flint and the tower the steel? And how about WTC7? That was struck by an airplane too, I suppose? (It was not.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
Also, not only can aluminum go through steel, but so can brass and even the very soft lead!
And a neutrino can go through half a light year of lead without blinking an eye. What is your point and why do you think that your vague arguments prove your point? (They do not.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
I've personally fired 110 grain lead cored copper jacketed bullets through 1/4 inch thick steel.
Are you suggesting that those airplanes that were not there were lead cored copper jacketed bullets?
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
If there is enough energy, you can drive a fragile piece of straw into concrete... ask anyone who has survived a tornado.
Another platitude. How does that prove your point if any?
Platitudes are cheap. Here is one for free: When it rains one gets wet.
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
The problem is once a metal actually ignites, water will only make matters worse, as the water will oxidize the metal...the reason it is so difficult to put out car fires.
So it would have sufficed to bring those buildings down if GWB had simply walked into them and breathed on their metal superstructure? (There is a lot of water vapour in exhaled breath.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
That is why one sees the plane enter the building so quickly and gracefully, as if going right through, yet nothing comes out the other side. The plane enters the building and as the friction of a 150 mph missile grates on concrete and steel, it ignites burning, as metal does, at extremely high temperature, softening and melting the steel infrastructure,
Hm, I saw only bend outer columns at the location of the explosions. You say they ought to have been melted when struck by the 150 mph missile? Then logically, as they are merely bent and not melted, there cannot have been a 150 mph missile. (In any case your melting argument is not credible nor significant at all, for various reasons.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
causing the pancake collapse that was captured by so many cameras.
And this proves what? (Nothing.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
The article written in Popular Mechanics was written by engineers.
I am sorry, but that is not a convincing argument.
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
An excellent NOVA special on the incident, also by engineers and physicists and architects, completely dissected the crash and its aftermath.
That is not a convincing argument either. One cannot argue that something is true because some authority proclaimed it to be true. (Unless one cites me, of course, as I am Rule.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: marcpiery
So, remember, for science: Rosie O'Donnell-NO! Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Discover, Scientific American, NOVA, etc.-YES!!!
Er... Your enthusiasm for popular this and popular that is truly appreciated, but I gather that you do not read the various journals of science, nor magazines like Science or Nature?
< Message edited by Rule -- 12/5/2007 7:19:43 AM >
|
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread