• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Science says there were no hijackers on 911

 
Quag said:
1800F is within the temperature you can expect from jetfuel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
No molten steel mentioned, or shown in the pic
Click to expand...

Woowoooo, Quag, Wikipedia no less. Aren't you the little scientist?

Everyone knows that under ideal conditions, a situation that did not exist at WTC, a hydrocarbon fire can get to 1800F. Note that this little gem of yours is the sum total of your duh-bunker science. Good work, Quag.

How come you duh-bunkers can't ever provide any evidence from the air tight US government official conspiracy theory?
 
Quag said:
No molten steel mentioned, or shown in the pic
Click to expand...

You have to look at the picture to see it, Quag. Knowing how dishonest you are you probably didn't. If you did, why do you duh-bunkers always deny reality?

Believing the incredibly loony US government official conspiracy theory is denying reality because you can't provide any evidence from it to illustrate it has any veracity. Anytime anyone looks at any part of it, it fails miserably. That's why Professor Leroy Hulsey, an engineer and a forensic scientist, CLAX, says that the NIST study of WTC7 has a ZERO chance of being true.

You can't go lower than zero.
 
gamolon said:
There is no proof of nanothermite.
Click to expand...

Woooowooooo, gamolon, your "science" is as good as Quag's, mike's, zyzygy's, Clax's, but none of your science can match up to Tanngrisir's.
 
gamolon said:
Thank you.

So someone made those slides and they didn't come from NIST or FEMA. And camlok whines about our sources?

:lamo

I love how she makes it seem like some of the "information" came directly from Appendix C.
Click to expand...

More emoticons. Great science, gamolon. How would this collection of pictures be different from gamolon's photo shopped photobucket?
 
gamolon said:
Thank you.

So someone made those slides and they didn't come from NIST or FEMA. And camlok whines about our sources?

:lamo

I love how she makes it seem like some of the "information" came directly from Appendix C.
Click to expand...

gamolon's emoticon source. That cinches it for the US government official conspiracy theory.

You never have any sources, gamolon. None of you duh-bunkers do, but you ignore scientific evidence with a vengeance, with an aplomb that only duh-bunkers can muster.

What good is information from the lying NIST, the guys who actually made the computer simulation of WTC7, the one that doesn't match reality in any manner whatsoever?

Actual video of WTC 7 destruction undermines NIST computer simulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM

Why would NIST, known to be incredible liars, produce a video of something that doesn't match reality? How come you folks haven't been showing the NIST computer simulation? Usually you folks love things that defy reality, you glom on to anything that denies reality.
 
camlok said:
Woowoooo, Quag, Wikipedia no less. Aren't you the little scientist?

Everyone knows that under ideal conditions, a situation that did not exist at WTC, a hydrocarbon fire can get to 1800F. Note that this little gem of yours is the sum total of your duh-bunker science. Good work, Quag.

How come you duh-bunkers can't ever provide any evidence from the air tight US government official conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

Once again READ, you can get it much higher than 1800F in ideal conditions
Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)[9][10][11
Click to expand...

How come you dont actually bother trying to learn anything about what you post?
 
camlok said:
You have to look at the picture to see it, Quag. Knowing how dishonest you are you probably didn't. If you did, why do you duh-bunkers always deny reality?

Believing the incredibly loony US government official conspiracy theory is denying reality because you can't provide any evidence from it to illustrate it has any veracity. Anytime anyone looks at any part of it, it fails miserably. That's why Professor Leroy Hulsey, an engineer and a forensic scientist, CLAX, says that the NIST study of WTC7 has a ZERO chance of being true.

You can't go lower than zero.
Click to expand...

You just have to look at it to see that your claims are bogus.
Sorry Cam the pic debunks your false claim
 
Quag said:
Once again READ, you can get it much higher than 1800F in ideal conditions

"Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)[9][10][11]"


How come you dont actually bother trying to learn anything about what you post?
Click to expand...

Wooooweee, a whole 90F more, Quag. How come you don't try to learn about what you post, like the fact that temperatures, overall, weren't near that high?

Your 1890F still can't melt steel 2800F, or melt molybdenum 4700+F, or vaporize steel 4900+, or vaporize lead 3100+F.

Your 1890F still can't cause the equivalent of a Volkswagon from crushing a bunch of semis into fine powder, causing pyroclastic flows.

It can't cause a 48 storey office tower to collapse at freefall. Only controlled demolitions can do those things.
 
Quag said:
Sorry Cam the pic debunks your false claim
Click to expand...

Quag the "scientist", always making bald assertions that he has no way of backing up, or any intention od ever doing so. You US government official conspiracy theory theorists don't have a clue about what constitutes science. You think that your emoticons are science.
 
Quag said:
You just have to look at it to see that your claims are bogus.
Sorry Cam the pic debunks your false claim
Click to expand...

Quag versus Professor Leroy Hulsey = NO CONTEST!!

That's why Professor Leroy Hulsey, an engineer and a forensic scientist, Quag, says that the NIST study of WTC7 has a ZERO chance of being true.

You can't go lower than zero.

Why don't you address the NIST computer simulation of the collapse of wtc7, the one that isn't anywhere close to approaching reality - very much like you US government official conspiracy theory theorists, who can't address any science save for emoticoning it.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It's getting a little boring. The hornets nest is dead.
Click to expand...

I agree. cam tried to get me to engage by quoting a post addressed to you. His failure to address questions asked shows he has not intention of engaging in an honest discussion.
His continue rant about govt ct supporters pretty much sums up his inability to address questions. Until he shows he is willing and able to answer direct questions, I am done with him. That is up to him.

Have a good one.
 
:2wave:

I have a question, but I won't hold my breath awaiting an answer from the Scientific Giants that defend the official story: How much heat would be required, and given the heat conductive properties of steel, for how long a period of time, for the fires on the 80th floor to provide enough heat to weaken the steel structure sufficiently for it to collapse at near free fall rates?

Have a nice weekend all!
 
camlok said:
Wooooweee, a whole 90F more, Quag. How come you don't try to learn about what you post, like the fact that temperatures, overall, weren't near that high?

Your 1890F still can't melt steel 2800F, or melt molybdenum 4700+F, or vaporize steel 4900+, or vaporize lead 3100+F.

Your 1890F still can't cause the equivalent of a Volkswagon from crushing a bunch of semis into fine powder, causing pyroclastic flows.

It can't cause a 48 storey office tower to collapse at freefall. Only controlled demolitions can do those things.
Click to expand...

Your pic said that was the temperatures that were reached, I showed that there was nothing special about getting to that temperature.
http://slideplayer.com/slide/681398...estruction+Features+Vaporization+of+Steel.jpg
I never said it could melt steel. Why would I, since there was not molten steel on 911.
There were no pyroclastic flows, you already provided the source that debunked that false claim
No building collapsed at freefall on 911, that has also been debunked.
Fires can cause the collapse of buildings, heck even one of your own posts admit as much
 
camlok said:
Quag the "scientist", always making bald assertions that he has no way of backing up, or any intention od ever doing so. You US government official conspiracy theory theorists don't have a clue about what constitutes science. You think that your emoticons are science.
Click to expand...

You are the one making the claim it was molten steel, something YOU need to prove. However anyone with any knowledge of metals can see it wasn't molten.
 
camlok said:
Quag versus Professor Leroy Hulsey = NO CONTEST!!

That's why Professor Leroy Hulsey, an engineer and a forensic scientist, Quag, says that the NIST study of WTC7 has a ZERO chance of being true.

You can't go lower than zero.

Why don't you address the NIST computer simulation of the collapse of wtc7, the one that isn't anywhere close to approaching reality - very much like you US government official conspiracy theory theorists, who can't address any science save for emoticoning it.
Click to expand...

Wow you got 1 loon to say it is impossible when the vast majority of scientists and engineers not only think it was possible KNOW that it happened.
Ill take the opinions of the overwhelming majority over the crazy few
 
Quag said:
You are the one making the claim it was molten steel, something YOU need to prove. However anyone with any knowledge of metals can see it wasn't molten.
Click to expand...

If he provides evidence of molten steel then we will consider it.
 
zyzygy said:
If he provides evidence of molten steel then we will consider it.
Click to expand...

Sure but so far all any truther has provided is claims.
As neither he nor anyone else can definitively state the composition of any molten materiel that may have been observed on 911 and since pieces of metal that had become molten into rivers/pools then cooled were ever found, only typical damage as expected in large fires and physical damage it is a pretty safe bet to say there was no molten steel
 
Quag said:
Once again READ, you can get it much higher than 1800F in ideal conditions


How come you dont actually bother trying to learn anything about what you post?
Click to expand...

How come you don't mention that those ideal conditions were not even close to being met on 911.

How come you don't actually bother trying to learn anything about what you post?

How come you don't actually put an apostrophe in "don't"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom