|
Real0ne -> RE: 15 Year Anniversery of the 9/11, The fraud lives on! (9/21/2016 4:37:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gauge
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I did they made a huge error.
respect? respect is not relevant unless you are looking for 'believers' rather than hard science and hard facts.
thats ok I wanted to see if you caught it without me telling you because that is part of what a critical thinker does.
Hard science and hard facts was what NOVA presented.
quote:
Sure, not a problemo, a plane hitting a wall leaves no puddling fuel, that is impossible, all the fuel is immediately misted as it slams into the objects and immediately burns as nist correctly noted. That said you get maybe 10 seconds of burn time before there is no more fuel to burn.
Here I will make it easy for you, this is a mere couple miles per hour, now imagine 586 miles per hour damn near the speed of a bullet. What possible reason would robertson want to take into consideration the fuel load in the design when its impossible to puddle lay around and burn?
Let's think about why fuel load in an airplane is relevant to the building design. The fuel would not puddle and burn, it would violently explode. The design of the building would have to be able to withstand that violent explosion and remain standing. The resultant fire from the materials within the building is what would remain burning well after the fuel was consumed.
quote:
take note how the water comes back forward, FEA (particle) done by sandia labs has shown the same thing happens when a plane wing slams into anything pole column whatever.
We seen no forward burst of flames nor did we see flames following the walls instead everything simply disappeared into the building just like stargate sg1.
explain?
As Ron pointed out, you get water moving fast enough, and it can cut steel. Get pretty much anything moving fast enough and it can penetrate another object.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHOXbfjWJsU This is a video of a man throwing chopsticks into metal bowls and wood. And it is posted by Guinness World Records, so it isn't CGI.
Edited for clarity.
You have already impressed me that you are not a physics type, when you say they presented hard science, if they did they could not have made such an error as took me less than 3 minutes of watching to point out.
Feel free to dispute with your supporting evidence.
Oh sure, there is a kool pingpong ball experiment that demonstrates exactly that, however water jets at least the ones I have seen, all have grit mixed in the jet, and yeh you get a pretty nice cut too.
Of course that is not the argument, the argument remains that the tanks burst as the lightweight aluminum wings are sliced open upon impact as a result of extreme internal pressure sprays pretty much in all directions.
Do you dispute this and want to claim the tanks do not burst upon impact?
Which we do not see what so ever.
First off I already said that its possible in my MIT statement, so you are merely repeating what I said and apparently to pretend it can go completely through the exterior of the building like a knife through butter is that it?
So while it is CONDITIONALLY 'possible' you and snottie need to show that the correct conditions existed such that it is even probable.
Here are wooden poles with less strength and also less ability to resist breaking under impact conditions and as we can see the pole slices through the wing like butter
and for the wtc there was a column every 21", how did that wing stay intact all the through the building from the body to the very super light weight tip that is so light you cant even walk on it without putting your foot through it..
[img]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/SLICE.gif[/img]
In the plane above you can see the tanks burst open immediately upon impact.
Do you believe that the plane would suffer no damage and only the building would be damaged?
Do you believe the tanks would not burst open.....if so explain?
apparently you failed to do any homework. Fuel when misted in the manner that it would occur in a plane crash does not explode. Thats another misinformants red herring drama euphemism to fool anyone who has not done their homework.
At the very best under absolute perfect mixture conditions the fastest jet fuel can 'deflagrate' (not explode) using pure oxygen and the fuel as a vapor (not thicker as mist) is less than 3000ft per second and that is with a perfect stoichiometric mix. That said the fuel was not mixed even remotely proportionate (which is why it burns jet black instead of smokeless) and lucky if you could get a hundred feet per second which you can time the rate of expansion with your stop watch if you need an exact number.
here is another example, how the spray flies backwards. This is a tiny tank shot into what amounts to an egg slicer arrangement using thin guitar strings and you can see the backwash catch flames, there is no explosion.
[img]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/4dumdebunkers/deflag/deflagration_zpse01255e3.gif[/img]
We dont see ANY what so ever backwash in fact the building heals itself on the jennifer video, but the jennifer video reveals another interest twist to this story.
[img]http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d141/4dumdebunkers/wtc%20planes/wtcwingdamage25_zpsqmduohdp.gif[/img]
So what happened to physics on that day? Since when can an aluminum plane go fast enough to crash though much stronger steel and not even suffer any damage? How can this be?
Now if you told me it was going the speed of light Id go away and stfu
Now a high explosive you are looking at a minimum of 15,000-24,000 ft/sec reaction which will damage steel.
So I always like to see how knowledgeable my opponents are, so can you tell us why misted fuel has no explosive value what so ever? (Hint I already gave you the answer)
|
|
|
|
